Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

$6,099,996,642,000: Government Spent More Per Earner Than Median Earnings ^ | February 4, 2014 | Terry Jeffrey

Posted on 02/04/2015 11:17:56 AM PST by Kaslin

The good news is that total net local, state and government spending dropped slightly from fiscal 2011 to fiscal 2012 (the latest year for which full state and local spending numbers are available from the Census Bureau). The bad news is that government spending nationwide still topped $6 trillion in fiscal 2012 and equaled more per earner than the nation's median earnings.

There were 157,191,000 workers 15 years old or older in the United States who had earnings in 2012, according to the Census Bureau's Historical Income Table P-43. Their median earnings that year were $31,921 and their average earnings were $45,053.

Total net government spending was $6,099,996,642,000 in fiscal 2012, which works out to about $38,806 for each of the 157,191,000 earners. That $38,806 in government spending per earner exceeded the $31,921 in median earnings.

I calculated total net local, state and government spending by using the federal spending numbers published by the White House Office of Management and Budget and the local and state government spending numbers published by the Census Bureau in its Dec. 17 report on fiscal 2012 state and local government finances.

According to the OMB, the federal government spent $3,536,951,000,000 in its fiscal year (2012), which ran from Oct. 1, 2011 to Sept. 30, 2012. The Census Bureau reported that local and state governments spent $3,151,702,715,000 in their fiscal year 2012, which in 46 of 50 states ran from July 1, 2011 through June 30, 2012.

I deducted the payments the Census Bureau said that state and local governments made to the federal government ($4,157,695,000) to get net federal spending of $3,532,793,305,000. I then deducted the payments that the federal government made to state and local governments ($584,499,378,000) to get net state and local spending of $2,567,203,337,000.

That added up to a net combined local, state and federal spending of $6,099,996,642,000 for their respective 2012 fiscal years.

By the same calculation net combined local, state and federal spending was $6,110,738,652,000 in fiscal 2011.

So total government spending in the United States -- in current year dollars -- actually declined from fiscal 2011 to fiscal 2012. In fact, it declined by $10,742,010,000 -- or about 0.18 percent.

In fiscal 1998, net combined local, state and federal spending was $2,923,171,706,000, according to the same OMB and Census Bureau data and the same calculation.

In the 14 years between 1998 and 2012, government spending in the U.S. more than doubled in current year dollars.

When adjusted for inflation using the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator, the $2,923,171,706,000 in combined government spending from fiscal 1998 becomes approximately $4,117,440,200,000 in 2012 dollars. The $6,099,996,642,000 spent in fiscal 2012 represents a real increase of about $1,982,556,442,000 -- or a 48 percent -- from fiscal 1998.

While the $6,099,996,642,000 that government spent in fiscal 2012 equaled more per earner than the median earnings, it did not equal more per household than median household income -- a change from fiscal 2011.

As of March 2013, according to the Census Bureau's Historical Income Table H-6, which publishes median and average household income figures, there were 122,459,000 households in the country. So net combined local, state and federal spending of $6,099,996,642,000 worked out to $49,813 per household in 2012. The median household income, by contrast, was $51,017 in 2012 and the average household income was $71,274.

As of March 2012, there were 121,084,000 households in the country, according to Table H-6. So the $6,110,738,652,000 in combined government spending that year worked out to $50,467 per household in 2011. That was more than that year's median household income of $50,054, but less than the average household income of $69,677.

In 2012, however, there were 103,051,000 full-time year-round workers in the United States, according to the Census Bureau's Table P-43. Combined government spending in fiscal 2012 worked out to about $59,194 for each of these workers, who had median earnings of $42,799 in 2012 and average earnings of $58,157. Therefore government spending per full-time year-round worker exceeded the median and average earnings of those workers.

TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Government
KEYWORDS: spendingcuts; spendingproblems

1 posted on 02/04/2015 11:17:56 AM PST by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

All of this government is absolutely impossible without the Federal Reserve and a fiat currency. Its the foundation of the Progressive State.

2 posted on 02/04/2015 11:21:03 AM PST by PGR88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PGR88

It’s so ironic that the ‘sustainability’ crowd is practicing absolutely unsustainable economic policy. I am very concerned that we will be going off the deep end as a nation sooner rather than later. The redistributionists think of taxpayer money as an inexhaustible resource.

3 posted on 02/04/2015 11:39:05 AM PST by pieceofthepuzzle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

It took 25 months (or maybe 28 months if “fiscal 2012” means October 2012) for the Census Bureau to calculate how much all levels of government spent in fiscal 2012.

Why can’t the Republican Party or Heritage or AEI calculate that number in six months?

That’s the kind of political information we need to be shoving down the throats of the Democrat Party and MSM every year - in real time!

4 posted on 02/04/2015 12:23:59 PM PST by zeestephen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin; All
Thank you for referencing that article Kaslin. Please bear in mind that the following critique is directed at the article and not at you.

As evidenced by the referenced article, just because a web site is conservative does not mean that it is up to speed with the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers. Please consider the following critique from a related thread about the federal government’s limited power to lay taxes which the article overlooked.

Regarding the constitutionally indefensible proposed federal budget, the Supreme Court has historically clarified that Congress is prohibited from laying taxes in the name of state power issues, essentially any issue which Congress cannot justify under its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers.

“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.

So given that the plurality of clauses in Section 8 mentioned above deal with military issues, and also given that the Department of Defense (DoD) budget for 2014 was $500+ billion dollars, I will generously round the DoD budget up to $1 trillion (but probably much less) as a rough estimate as to what Section 8 should be costing taxpayers every year.

The bottom line is that if Congress was respecting its limited power to lay taxes then we should not be hearing about multi-trillion annual federal government budges that the corrupt media, including Obama guard-dog Fx News, along with "Constitution-respecting” web sites like, are reporting without mentioning Justice John Marshall’s clarification of Congress’s limited power to lay taxes.

So how did voters get themselves in to this taxation mess? Please consider the following explanation.

The way that taxpayers abused their voting power to create the Frankenstien federal tax monster that is now walking all over them is the following imo. When the Founding States established the federal Senate, they gave the power to vote for senators uniquely to state lawmakers. Part of the reason for state lawmakers' unique control of the Senate is probably the following imo.

Federal senators would be expected to protect their states from the House of Representatives by killing House appropriations bills which could not be justified under Congress’s Section 8-limited powers, such bills not only stealing state powers, but also stealing state revenues associate with those powers.

The problem is that the anti-constitutional Progressive Movement tricked Constitution-ignorant voters into pressuring their state lawmakers into ratifying the ill-conceived 17th Amendment, state lawmakers foolishly giving up their voices in Congress by doing so.

And since voters were inexcusably cluess about Congress’s limited power to lay taxes, voters ultimately began trading their votes in exchange for federal spending programs which corrupt Congress could not justify under its Section 8-limited powers, Obamacare a recent example of such deception.

What a mess! :^(

5 posted on 02/04/2015 1:29:39 PM PST by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson