Comments on: Non-Discretionary Spending

By: DWAnderson

DWAnderson — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 10:05:42 +0000

I see what you are saying. I was thinking that the percentages were of federal spending not of GDP. But now that I see they are percentages of GDP, what you say makes perfect sense. Thanks!

By: DWAnderson

DWAnderson — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 03:05:42 +0000

I see what you are saying. I was thinking that the percentages were of federal spending not of GDP. But now that I see they are percentages of GDP, what you say makes perfect sense. Thanks!

By: John Thacker

John Thacker — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 12:13:36 +0000

Yes, but that doesn't mean that there is any such thing as non-discretionary defense spending. The red line is discretionary defense spending, and it is a all defense spending. It is both, because discretionary defense spending is all there is. All defense spending depends on appropriations in each current bill; no law establishes mandatory defense spending that will be spent each year without a law changing it.

Note that from one perspective, the distinction seems pointless. What's the difference between “only spent if Congress includes it in the budget resolution” and “spent unless Congress changes it in a resolution?” It turns out, a lot, due to how congressional procedure and politics work.

By: DWAnderson

DWAnderson — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:30:56 +0000

Except that if you look at the chart, the red line is discretionary defense spending.

By: RobB

RobB — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 15:49:40 +0000

Mudley and Foom essentially got it.

Discretionary spending is authorized by Congress in appropriations acts, which are typically passed annually. Though supplemental appropriations are pretty common.

Non-discretionary spending doesn't necessarily have anything to do with entitlements or pay roll taxes. Non-discretionary simply means that the enacting law for that program authorized spending without the need for annual appropriations. In other words, the spending keeps happening until the law gets changed.

Discretionary and non-discretionary are just budget law jargon and shouldn't be taken to imply anything about the permanence of any program, because as we know federal programs are damn near immortal.

By: Fin Fang Foom

Fin Fang Foom — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 11:06:15 +0000

There is no such thing as non-discretionary defense spending.

By: DWAnderson

DWAnderson — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 01:03:12 +0000

I have another question: Without being glib, tell me what is the difference between non-discretionary and discretionary defense spending?

By: The Art of the Possible » Blog Archive » Charting the Raw Shark

The Art of the Possible » Blog Archive » Charting the Raw Shark — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 15:05:04 +0000

[...] (Chart via Will Wilkinson.) [...]

By: Fin Fang Foom

Fin Fang Foom — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 09:40:54 +0000

Discretionary spending depends on the budget being passed every year. Non-discretionary spending will be funded out of payroll taxes unless the Congress changes the law. It is perhaps misnamed, even though in truth there won't be any decrease in the non-discretionary spending unless the shit really hits the fan.

By: Mudley

Mudley — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 02:51:57 +0000

I think the distinction is that, based on current law, the recipient has a legal right to the money (It is different with Medicaid, which is an entitlement to the state, not an individual one, but the principle is the same). For discretionary spending, appropriations committees can provide less or more funding than Congress originally had in mind when the program was established, but non-discretionary spending is governed by the controlling legislation and must be fully funded. Technically I guess you could say that Congress still has discretion, in that they could change the law, but it is the appropriations committees that do not.

The border fence is a good example of discretionary spending. Congress can “build” one without ever actually appropriating any funds — funding can be doubled one year and zeroed out the next without any intervening legislation.