tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7801479.post112671473488585869..comments2023-10-08T07:35:25.126-05:00Comments on insight-less:: Speaks for itselfBenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07563956581194180991noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7801479.post-1126725808578342392005-09-14T14:23:00.000-05:002005-09-14T14:23:00.000-05:00We're talking about the federal budget in my publi...We're talking about the federal budget in my public finance and budgeting class. Here's a good run down of the budget.<BR/><BR/>http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/tables.html<BR/><BR/><BR/>There are a lot of academics in the public administration field who would agree with Delay. (Even from my very brief forey into this field, this is pretty obvious). Americans want great public services, but they also want smaller government. Trimming fat is great, but eventually, you start cutting out muscle. <BR/>It's interesting that more than half of the over 2 trillion dollar budget is non-discretionary. It's used for payment on the debt and for entitlement programs (mainly social security). Of the discretionary spending, more than half goes to defense or homeland security. So, discretionary spending for this other stuff from whence the fat will be trimmed is about 1/6 of the total budget. I don't if I really have a point..just think those are interesting facts. Out of the 2.5 trillion dollar budget, 391 billion is non-defense/homeland security and discretionary.Joehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05462812499518903569noreply@blogger.com