Defense Spending

After reading Wildavsky's chapter on defense it becomes clear that budgeting for defense is a separate entity that takes on a life of its own. I feel that national defense is the most important thing the federal government does and I have no problem spending money on this. I was shocked when I looked at Table 8.1 on page 155. In 1953 defense accounted for 69% of the budget. It has since dropped to about 17%. When adjusted for inflation there is only about a $50 billion difference. These numbers are really an eye opener for me. We are spending about the same on defense as we were fifty years ago but it accounts for so much less of the budget. I find myself wondering if the intricate and drawn out process Wildavsky discusses is necessary for something that seems to have a decreasing slice of the pie. Secondly, it seems interesting that the budget continually grows funding programs that did not exist fifty years ago. It seems that we have so much more that the federal government needs to pay for, but apparently not so much more to defend. On a final note it seems to me that spending on defense should be above the fray. Increases usually only take place after the need arises, such as 9/11. Honestly, who wants to be the guy arguing to cut spending on defense and then have things like that happen. Is there nothing sacred in politics?

Entitlements

This weeks topic is entitlements. According to Wildavsky spending for entitlements and other mandatory programs has doubled since 1988. Most of this money set aside for entitlements goes to social security about one-fourth. However as many of us are aware social security might not be available when our generation is set to retire, even though we have paid in and will continue for years to come. There are many reasons that social security is set to go bankrupt including: the large baby boomer population who are set to retire in the next 10 years, people are living longer, and the cost of living keeps escalating.

Medicaid is also quickly exhausting its resources. We are all aware of the cost of health care and when people get to a certain age and income level they are eligible for this type of health coverage. But with the rising cost of health care and the fact that more people are living longer and exhausting their own resources quickly, medicaid is having to pick up the tab. I recently experienced something interesting and I am not sure how I feel about it. The scenario goes like this:
Two people enter a nursing home
Person A has saved money for years and has built up a $500,000 savings account
Person B enters the nursing home with little to no money

Person A now has to pay $6000 a month or $72000 a year out of their savings account to stay in the nursing home, while Person B who had no money gets to stay for free or on the governments dime (entitlement).
Should the government reward people like Person B? Should the government take all the money from Person A?

In my personal opinion I think something needs to be done with entitlement spending. For the most part I believe this is where people take advantage of the federal government. I personally have seen people abuse the welfare system. I feel that social security, medicaid, and welfare are all worth while programs they need serious reform. Too many people rely on these entitlement programs to see them through life or end of life. We must as a country become more fiscally responsible about not only our own money but about the way our government is managing our money.

Perhaps you could provide your thoughts on the case above? What is your opinion of entitlement spending?

I have attached an article that goes well with our chapters reading. If you click the "Entitlements" heading you will be directed to the article.