Thoughts, essays, and writings on Liberty. Written by the heirs of Patrick Henry.

““The real damage is done by those millions who want to ’survive.’ The honest men who just want to be left in peace. Those who don’t want their little lives disturbed by anything bigger than themselves. Those with no sides and no causes. Those who won’t take measure of their own strength, for fear of antagonizing their own weakness. Those who don’t like to make waves or enemies. Those for whom freedom, honour, truth, and principles are only literature. Those who live small, mate small, die small. It’s the reductionist approach to life: if you keep it small, you’ll keep it under control. If you don’t make any noise, the bogeyman won’t find you. But it’s all an illusion, because they die too, those people who roll up their spirits into tiny little balls so as to be safe. Safe?! From what? Life is always on the edge of death; narrow streets lead to the same place as wide avenues, and a little candle burns itself out just like a flaming torch does. I choose my own way to burn.””     Sophie Scholl

July 17, 2009


by Brad Warbiany


Ezra Klein says there’s we shouldn’t act as if defense spending (considered discretionary in the budget) in unable to be cut:

My friend Chris Hayes likes to say that “non-defense discretionary spending” is the most pernicious phrase in Washington. It means, essentially, that there’s spending, which we can cut, and then there’s defense spending, which we cannot cut, and shouldn’t even talk about. Defense spending, however, accounts for about 20 percent of federal dollars. Add in the wars of the past few years and it’s accounted for even more than that. Saying you can’t touch defense spending is like going on a diet but letting the milk industry say that you can’t cut back on dairy.

There aren’t “defense dollars” and then “non-defense dollars.” There are only dollars, and we need to figure out how best to use them.

Hmm… Defense spending is 20% of the budget. And I might find myself in agreement with Klein that perhaps we can defend our nation for a hell of a lot less money than that.

But there’s another distinction here. “Discretionary”. Klein doesn’t ever address the fact that this is an antonym (in the case of a federal budget). There are two types of spending. “Discretionary” and “entitlement”. And entitlement spending is more than twice as large as “non-defense discretionary spending”.

Klein says “there aren’t ‘defense’ and ‘non-defense dollars’” — only dollars. Well, if 42% of our budget is entitlement spending — and that’s a number that’s going to rise significantly with Obamacare — why is it that we should assume that nothing there can or should be cut? You want to put defense spending on the chopping block, Ezra? I’m down with that. I’ll see your proposition and raise you entitlement spending. You ready to call, or are you just bluffing?

TrackBack URI:
Read more posts from
• • •


  1. Excellent point!

    Dollars are dollars, spending is spending. When one is bankrupt, all spending should be reviewed and justified.

    Comment by Akston — July 18, 2009 @ 8:00 am
  2. I am not an expert or anything, but I thought there was some sort of difference in the budgeting process for “discretionary spending” and “non-discretionary spending”. Perhaps we should look into why the “non-discretionary spending” is so high, and how to lower it?

    Comment by Peter — July 18, 2009 @ 3:21 pm
  3. Non-deiscretionary spending or entitlement spending is so high because it is on autopilot. It goes up no matter what. There are no votes in congress each year to vote on the spending unlike the discretionary spending. This is why our economic problems will just get worse with SS, medicare, medicaid and other entitlement programs just on autopilot the spending for these will just keep increasing overtaking everything else and demolishing our economy in the process.

    Comment by TerryP — July 19, 2009 @ 8:16 pm
  4. Agreed with TerryP. “Non-discretionary spending” is basically entitlement spending (medicare, medicaid, social security). This isn’t paid for by appropriations of Congress, but rather pre-determined according to the rules of the plan.

    This doesn’t mean it can’t be changed (i.e. given life expectancy, Congress could mandate a retirement age for SS/Medicare benefits of 72 years instead of the current), but it’s not something that is decided to be spent or not spent on a normal Congressional budget process.

    Comment by Brad Warbiany — July 19, 2009 @ 10:44 pm

Comments RSS

Subscribe without commenting

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by: WordPress • Template by: Eric • Banner #1, #3, #4 by Stephen Macklin • Banner #2 by Mark RaynerXML