Only 12% of America’s federal budget is invested in our future prosperity

Was reading a passage from this Thomas Friedman book (remember him?) and a number stunned me:

One thing we must not do is try to bring the budget back toward balance by making most, let alone all, of the spending cuts in “nonsecurity discretionary spending” — the 12 percent of the budget that does not include Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, defense, and interest on the national debt. That is the part of the budget where all the education, innovation, and infrastructure programs, essential to our formula for prosperity, reside.

If this is correct – and a quick glance at the Treasury’s official data confirms this or worse – it means only 12% of America’s federal budget is spent on forward looking programs. Programs like education, infrastructure, job training, technology innovation, and environmental protection.

Of course the defense category (currently also 12%) goes both ways, but much of that investment – especially in recent decades – has been wasted on questionable foreign conflict (cough Iraq).

Most everything else – Medicare, Social Security, interest payments – is essentially backwards looking. Paying IOUs. Much of it is justified, but if you were running a business, would you really only invest 12% to secure your future prosperity? If you earned $10K a month, how would it feel if almost $9K and growing were spent just to pay the bills?

Ok, rant over :)

US labor force participation has been declining since the early 2000s

Something has always bothered me about the reported US unemployment rate. Last month (September 2022) it was reported at 3.5%. Yet it definitely feels like there are a lot more than 3.5% of the US working age population who don’t have a job.

And this number is one of the key data points (alongside consumer inflation) that the federal government and the Fed Reserve use to guide policy decisions.

But unemployment is expressed as a percentage. Which has both a numerator and a denominator. We tend to think the denominator is roughly constant; in reality it’s been anything but.

US labor force participation rates have been in steady decline since the early 2000s:

Hypothetically, if we were to keep the numerator constant, then unemployment rates would have steadily fallen over the last 2 decades without any change in the number of people with jobs!

This aligns more with my own intuition and observations — clearly there are more than 3-4% of Americans without jobs. Something just doesn’t make sense, and this is one potential factor.

I’ve yet to closely examine data on workers comp benefits and Social Security disability benefits, but my belief is that these probably show rising cumulative enrollments over time as well.

I am just larping as an economist here. But I have increasingly come to distrust our government’s official data, whether on consumer inflation or unemployment. Some of you may say, well, duh.

It reminds me of the old Twain quote, there are 3 kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics.

If we use this data to make decisions, and the data is bad, then necessarily it follows that the decisions are bad.

Please tweet me and tell me where I’m wrong / what I’m missing.

PS: