Saturday Thoughts

 Saturday Thoughts

What a week!

On Wednesday, I posted some thoughts about how I was feeling about the totality of the movements around us. It was a reflection on the larger movement over the past 100 years that led us to this place where some of us are mourning this shift that seems to be happening in the electorate of our country.

Since then, the most prominent feature of our news feeds has been the disastrous meeting between Zalenskyy, Trump, and Vance (with help from a carefully selected press corps). That was without a doubt a shit show.

There are a number of thoughtful reflections out there about the circumstances that led to that event. My post from Wednesday actually sets the ground work for some of my thinking about that meeting, though at the time I was thinking primarily in terms of the economic and tax policy of the 20^th century and less about geopolitical alignment. But the parallel is clear.

Without going too far into the weeds about this shift that is happening in that arena, I think it’s sufficient to say that the vote in the UN on a resolution condemning the Russian invasion of Ukraine that was supported by most of the world but rejected by Russia and its allies, and amazingly by the United States, pretty much summarizes my concerns about where we sit internationally. It’s hard to imagine that a resolution rejected by the authoritarian political spaces in our world should be a resolution that the United States should reject as well.

One amusing specific from that conversation is that our new Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth, who is literally available on video from his days at Fox describing the Russian invasion of Ukraine now doesn’t seem to know if Russia actually invaded Ukraine.

But my thoughts today are focused in a domestic arena. I want to take a moment to talk more fully about government waste and the current crusade to eliminate fraud and waste from the federal government.

I actually don’t disagree that the government would be well served to put more energy into ensuring that expenditures are effective, efficient, and appropriate. We had, until recently, a number of systems in place to pursue that outcome. I passionately disagree with the notion that those structures were complicit in waste or that they were not endeavoring to uncover waste and eliminate it. It’s easy to take broad swipes at these kinds of efforts but those critiques generally neglect to recognize that such efforts are being pursued by people just like you and I who endeavor to be effective. What they don’t have, generally, is adequate resources to eliminate ALL of the waste. They have to make choices.

As an example of this, let’s consider an effort that DOGE is making to eliminate waste in government software subscriptions. As detailed in an article in WIRED, DOGE is finding a wide range of software subscriptions that seem excessive. They are probably, to some extent, correct. At the same time, as the article linked below explores, the issue is complex. In some cases, it is more efficient and effective to contract for a package of subscriptions that encompasses the full potential for the needs of the organization that may or may not come to fruition but would not be effectively managed on a one subscriber at a time process.

To bring this down to a smaller level, here at The Forst I sometimes need to purchase a software subscription to apps that support our website. An example that comes to mind immediately is a calendar package that helps to display an interactive calendar of events on specific pages of our website. Over the past year I have transitioned from one service to another. Now, I’m starting to wonder if the calendar feature built into our root software package is now sufficient so that a third party package is not needed at all. Should an outside auditor look at the related expenditures in this area, they could easily claim waste, or even “fraud”. Why did I pay for that service that I’m not actually using? Well, I’m busy. I’m doing the best I can. I’ve cancelled some of this recently, but it took some time to consider how changes to our website design has impacted the need for those services.

Amplify that a thousand fold to the services provided by a federal program that interacts with literally hundreds of thousands of users. Yes, it could be more efficient. That said, at what cost?

I don’t know how much the DOGE efforts are costing. It’s a moving target. But estimates are significant, and some figures go as high as $40 million for just the first month. So, they have those resources. They use those resources, and they do, in fact, find some waste.

And yet, look at this idea of software subscriptions. Supposing DOGE finds $10M in unnecessary subscriptions in the Department of Labor. It’s possible, though the actual number is probably lower when you start to consider lost efficiencies in constantly renegotiating subscription needs. I’m sure whatever oversight program existed in the Department of Labor would have loved to dig into these costs and tighten them up. But what would that take? What would that cost? Did they have the staff to do that? What other priorities did the oversight staff have? DOGE has no budgetary restrictions and is just slashing things that it randomly chooses to focus on.

Let’s be real. Most of what is being cut has nothing to do with waste. Programs and staff are being cut because they reflect priorities that the current administration finds objectionable. Important services are being lost. You may not think they are important, but I can assure you that the people around you – your neighbors – who depend on those services probably will miss them.

My point, if it’s not clear, is that government efficiency is not advanced by standing on the house floor and pontificating on cherry picked examples that on their face seem egregious. It is advanced by properly funding systemic programs to review government spending and eliminate waste. Our current context does not do that. It is eviscerating programs without regard to their efficacy and claiming those cuts as savings.

There is a way to increase the efficiency of a system. It takes resources. If congress and the executive branch wants to focus on efficiency, almost no one would object. That is not what is happening here.

 

https://www.wired.com/story/doge-software-license-cancel-federal-budget/

Final thoughts on a Thursday.

 Final thoughts on a Thursday.

I am in mourning.

I started this post by reflecting on how much I appreciate the shared communications that I am experiencing with like minded souls who are concerned about the state of civic engagement.

And then I realized that what we share, really, is that we are mourning the loss of something we had valued.

The trajectory of the 20th century in our nation was one away from the tyranny of oligarchy which was manifest in the concentration of wealth among a small group of wealthy industrialists who had benefited from the onset of industrialization and the systemization of financial manipulation toward a more decentralized expression of opportunity through centralized supports for the middle class. We called it the New Deal, and it permeated economic and political thought across partisan divides.

I had the opportunity to visit the presidential library of Lyndon Johnson in Austin this past year. If you wonder about any of this, look at this man's legacy. He was probably the last president we had who was committed to this greater vision of who we could be.

Looking at tax policy and regulation as it existed in the United States from the beginning of World War II through the end of the cold war, it was a period where revenues were collected from those who could, and disbursed to those who could not. It was a period that is notable for the explosive growth of the middle class and the real opportunities that were created for ordinary citizens (as long as they were white).

And I am not even beginning to engage the question of civil liberties and marginalized communities. That has its own history that in may ways runs parrallel to this economic history that I reflecting on here.

I, personally, remember when Ronald Reagan launched his assault on this progressive vision of our nation and began a process of reinvigorating the powers of the oligarchy. The economic short hand for this process is generally referred to as the concept of trickle down economics. That is, the belief that if corporations and wealthy entrepenuers have more resources, that this would result in more jobs and opportunities for everyone. This has not resulted in the outcomes that were promised. I'm not going to go into the details of how it has failed here, but I challenge you to find any research that suggests that placing resources and wealth in the hands of the wealthy results in opportunity for ordinary citizens.

Somehow, through messaging and frustration, we as a nation have lost our belief in this vision of opportunity. We suspect the federal government, which exists almost exclusively as an entity dedicated to protecting and supporting ordinary citizens, of being corrupt and bloated despite the fact that government is made up of our neighbors who are working for less than they could earn in the private sector because they believe in a higher purpose. We are frustrated with paying taxes, despite the fact that our tax burden is lower than most successful contemporary nation states. We are suspicious of government health care, despite overwhelming evidence that government health care in comparable nations provides better outcomes and efficencies. We seem to want to privatize government provided services (trains, postal services, retirement benefits, etc.) despite the clear fact that a privatized system has an immediate need to cost at least 15% more to enrich its private ownership.

It is a mystery to me how we have lost our faith in America. The objectors to this tradition of mid-century America have as their slogan to Make America Great Again. And yet, rather than advocating to a return to the progressive values that actually made America great, they are condoning policies and practices that harken to an earlier time, to a time before the great depression, when America was not, actually, great. It was a time when America was rife with cronyism and grift.

America WAS great. When we were great the wealthy paid substantial taxes representing the fact that they benefited from the infrastructure that ordinary citizens created. America WAS great because we were developing and establishing systems that ensure that poverty and hunger were adressed. America WAS great because we supported free thinking nations across the globe with food and resources that they needed to ensure that they could resist oppression.

We now find ourselves in a time when all of the things that made us great are being dismantled and eradicated willy nilly.

And so we grieve.

So, no, I'm not actually happy to be having these conversations with you. I wish we were better. I wish we cared more about those in our community we want to other. I wish we were more willing to support those who need by using resources from those who have.

I am in mourning of an America that I really did think existed, and now, I don't know.

Who are we?

My First Social Security Check

 My very first SS check is scheduled to arrive next Wednesday. I don't actually have any real concern that it will be interrupted. I'm pretty sure that's a bridge too far. That said, the conversation about SS and fraud and waste is absurd. It's just a little piece of the crazy puzzle we're trying to slog through right now.

One of the sources that I read had this to say about fraud in SS.

"As a percentage of all payments, improper payments account for 0.84% of the total, the inspector general has found. 

That’s "better than any private insurance company in the nation," and with a lower cost of administration, said Henry J. Aaron, a fellow with the Brookings Institution think tank and a former chair of the Social Security Advisory Board."

But when you put .84% to scale, the SS Payment total for 2025 is expected to be 1.6 trillion dollars. Waste of .84% means that over $13 billion dollars fall legitimately into this category of waste and fraud. That's a lot of money.

The problem is, right leaning media outlets like Fox, or the even The Hill, and certainly less credible sources could lead with a headline that reads, "SS Administration Losses to Waste and Fraud Exceed $13 Billion in 2025." It would generate clicks and increase readership among folks who assume, as many do, that govenment is rife with waste and corruption.

As a comparison, retail establishments accept an average of 1.4% inventory shrinkage from inefficiencies and theft. I'm pretty sure that if they could, they would reduce it. Getting that last 1% or 2% of waste eliminated from a program is a challenge, and expensive. Often, it seems, the cure is more costly than the underlying loss. That seems to be one of the reported circumstances for SS.

So, it seems like the situation is that, yes, we waste billions of dollars in the SS program every year, AND, eliminating that would be very difficult.

To be fair, estimates of government waste (by inspector generals who are now mostly fired) put it at 3%-7%, depending on the program. That is definitely higher than we would prefer. The question is how to best improve on that record. In many cases, I would expect that part of the problem is that congress is unwilling to allocate funding to programs that eliminate waste and fraud.

The DOGE program purports to be about eliminating waste and misappropriations, and I think everyone agrees that this is a worthwhile goal. That said, wouldn't you think it would have been more effective to start by working with the various existing Inspector General offices to see what they were doing and to see if their work could be improved? It is likely that the staff in those federal programs were working with due diligence to eliminate waste and fraud. 

Rather than firing those people, and eliminating their knowledge of opportunities to improve the federal system, DOGE could have worked with them to hold their feet to the fire to really be more agressive. 

But that isn't what happened. Those people are gone and we are starting from scratch reinventing the wheel and arbitrarily firing and canceling programs. 

It's a head scratcher. 

Some have suggested that this is because the actual agenda is not about waste and fraud, but about eliminating spending along ideological lines (not to mention oligarchical agendas.) This seems more likely. Not to be cynical, but...

Stupor Bowl Half Time Show 2025

 The Sheeks Stupor Bowl Half Time Show Report

This post was originally just a FB post meant to be a bit of whimsy. Now I wonder.

When I wrote this, I intended to be humorous. I mean, I was amused by my thoughts and lack of understanding. It's okay if you laugh. Kind of ironic, like the material itself. Layers.

First, let’s just report what I saw and thought as I watched with my white boomer hat firmly on my head. I am reporting my reactions as I remember them from the first time I viewed the show.

For your reference, the time stamps reflect this version of the video of the performance:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDorKy-13ak

Samuel Jackson. Huh. I like him.

So, there’s Kendrick Lamar. He’s shorter than I expected. I was intrigued by the car. Kind of a cliché. For a while I was mostly caught up in trying to figure out how many people were coming out of the car and how they were getting in. Clearly, there had to be an access point below the car but I can’t see it. Pretty good scenic work to keep it obscured.

And then we’re at the heavy breathing and bouncing (time 1:34). That’s cool.

I start to realize that I don’t know this guy’s music at all. It’s hard to know what’s happening without some context. I hear words but they have no home in my brain to hang out in. Interesting to watch, though. I am not the target audience  

And, Uncle Sam is back! (Time 3:00) Strong counterpoint. “tighten up!” Meaning?

It’s flag time. Kendrick looks really small in the middle of that sea of human flag pieces. Like, really small. And kind of normal. What does his jacket say? “_U BU” Maybe. I can’t tell. He keeps covering the letters with his arms. Now I really don’t have any idea what he’s saying. The silver chains are also kind of cliché. I am obsessed with the meaning of the jacket.

We’re moving. I like the camera moving away as he follows. More interesting images. And that’s over.

Guy on the lamppost. Interesting. It’s an “L”. And there’s another something before it. “_LU BU”.

I really am not the target audience. I am distracted a lot from here on forward as I keep thinking about how different half time shows are received differently because of a lack of familiarity with the artist. 

Samuel’s back. And we’re in a little box. Sort of. Good energy here. A little dialogue with the ladies. He says he’s going to slow it down.

I wonder who this is? (Time 8:00) That was kind of short.

And we see the back of the jacket. “POLAND”? She’s back. 

Samuel “That’s what America wants”. This piece is easier to follow vocally. Seems like a lot of commentary that, again, I don’t really have context for.

It’s over. Huh. Interesting.

And that’s how a white boomer with no idea who Kendrick Lamar is experienced this show.

First thing I do is try to google what his jacket says. Fixation.

Of course, having read the commentary today, I now know a lot more. Viewing it again, the irony, symbolism, critique, and subtext start to bubble up in ways that I can start to appreciate. It clearly would require spending some time with the music. 

I enjoyed it the first time, even though my understanding was pretty much limited  to sensory responses and the identification of imagery. I couldn’t really interpret anything because there was too much content and artistic intent that I didn’t have in my head.

I think the key difference between my experience watching this as compared to someone who has a relationship with the music is that my analytical brain was constantly engaged as I tried to puzzle out what was happening. If this were Prince or someone of my musical heritage, I would have been able to engage my emotional brain more and just respond to the performance organically.

Watching it again as I wrote this, I like it even more. A lot more. I am intrigued to learn more about his body of work. I am not generally inclined to listen to this genre recreationally as it seems to me more like listening to poetry. You can’t really do it casually. At least, not initially. Clearly, once you know a song (or a poem) you can listen more casually because your sub-conscious fills in around the gaps. If you don’t have that familiarity, then rap requires a lot of effort to absorb – I think.

This is probably one of the smarter half-time shows produced for a Stupor Bowl. More than we deserve, really. It’s encouraging that the general critical response seems to be supportive.

I’m not going to bother to do the actual analysis of what the show was about. That would be stupid since I’m clueless without other folks’ knowledge. You can read that all over the internet. Y'all know me enough to know how I feel about validating counter culture messaging, so from that perspective, good on him. 🙂

Also, he seems to have some legit mad skills.

On Being A Teacher

 

I stopped teaching formally as of January 8, 2025. This is to say that I retired from the University of Wisconsin system as an adjunct lecturer on that date.

And yet, somewhat suddenly and to some degree to my surprise, I find myself acting as more of a teacher in my world than ever before.

 When I functioned as a teacher within formal instructional settings, my role was prescribed and contained within the dictates and needs of those systems. Many moons ago I was a teacher for a progressive religious program leading their junior high program. After that, I taught a range of English and Communications classes for a high school in Roseville. For about six years I taught teachers in workshops related to the craft of teaching and the opportunities to leverage teaching in that context. For three years I taught a handful of classes to undergraduate students within the theatre program at Minnesota State Mankato. Most recently I taught courses in theatre history and appreciation, and in public speaking and communication fundamentals, mostly to freshmen and sophomores, for University of Wisconsin programs.

 Those roles accumulated just over thirty years of time in the room with students. All of those experiences had differing kinds of teaching modes. It feels as if the overall trend over this time was one in which my role moved inexorably from delivering prescribed content as creatively as possible to delivering whatever the hell I wanted to, also as creatively as possible.

 I remember my very first lesson as a junior high church program leader. We’re doing this (creative, I thought) role playing activity, and at some point in the process one of the students observes, “this is lame”. I was hooked. Because she was right. It was lame. It reflected my attempt to make the underlying lesson relevant, but it didn’t really resonate with the students. God bless her for being explicit in her critique. That’s the best part of working with kids.

 My classes last fall, on the other hand, had almost no element of proscribed content. My freshmen seminar had a range of useful outcomes that were suggested by the system around college life, but I interpreted all of those as they seemed relevant to me. Beyond that, much of our time was spent thinking, talking, and writing about how the students in front of me could be successful as communicators and students. Better people. More satisfied people. Like, what the hell are we doing in college anyway?

 Now, I’m just an old guy that’s done a lot. Well, an older guy. 63 isn’t really old, per se. But I do groan a bit when I roll out of bed.

I’ve started a writing group that meets a couple of times a month. One of the surprises about doing this is the extent to which the folks who show up for this are explicitly interested in the insights that I can provide as someone who is willing to say whatever the hell I think. That, in itself, isn’t really a recommendation. We know people in our lives whose filters are limited. What surprised me was the apparent consensus that my unfiltered appraisal or insights were of value.

Here's the thing. I’m a pretty strong advocate of the idea that we should all be extraordinarily suspicious of the things we think we know. I have absorbed and internalized an ethos that assumes that one’s own beliefs and attitudes are suspect. At the same time, I’ve got some strong opinions. Those opinions are based on a fairly diverse set of experiences. In my heart of hearts, I find my attitudes suspect. but also true. It’s a pretty complete example of cognitive dissonance.

From 2013-16 I was pursuing my Masters in Fine Arts in theatre. One of the things that my colleagues in that program liked to comment on and harass me about was my tendency to say out loud things that maybe others were thinking but wouldn’t say. Quotes by Michael. It was a thing. Prior to that, from 2011-12, in my final year or so of working for the Roseville School District this was also a phenomenon. I was moving on. My exit freed me up to say whatever the hell I wanted in district meetings and department conversations.

I am inclined to say the things out loud that others may be thinking but that prudence and politeness probably should suggest silence. This habit of saying out loud what should be kept internal has become more overt in recent years.

Sometimes it’s a handicap. There are things that I say that I probably could have kept to myself to everyone’s benefit. Sometimes I’m just wrong. Sometimes I may be right but that doesn't make it something that should be articulated publicly. It’s a challenge.

And now? Now I think maybe the time to be circumspect has ended. Like, what the hell am I waiting for? I’ve got shit to say. Perhaps now is the time to say it.

A few specific places where I am looking to say what I know.

The Forst Inn Arts Collective Assistant Director Program. Come and observe a production process and have conversations with me about what it means to be a director.

The FIAC Writing Workshop. Share writing and have conversations about what constitutes effective personal expression.

My personal memoir. Yeah. That’s a thing. It’s explicitly about the process of second order change that led me from working within public education to this moment where I am living a more personally responsive life. I’m working on it. Hope to have it done by the end of 2025.

Life N Art. A new podcast about…stuff.

These posts. Yup.

Final thoughts? Being a teacher is about using your time to share the shit you believe. Know your outcomes. Attend to them. Along the way share the extent to which you are a good human.

Good luck!

Happy To Pay For A Better America

In the early 2000’s I lived in Minneapolis. I had a friend who had a yard sign that read, “Happy to Pay for A Better Minnesota”. I liked this sign. It signaled that, yes, taxes are a thing, but we enjoy a benefit from the way that they make our community better. It makes sense to me.

 I don’t see the following as a partisan political essay. Rather, I’d like to think that it is a call to responsible citizenship. See what you think.

 Taxes are interesting to me. Sure, we’d all like to pay less. When you get that payroll check it would be nice to get the whole gross pay amount. You’ve got bills to pay and a life to live. Still, if you join a social group, like a church or a club, you can expect to have to contribute something to the life of the group. I send monthly contributions to Minnesota Public Radio, Wisconsin Public Radio, the ACLU, and a variety of theatrical groups that I want to support. That’s my choice.

 Taxes, on the other hand, feel out of my control. They’re not, of course. We vote for people who have ideological beliefs about increasing or decreasing our tax burden. You do have control. That control is important. Your emotional response to paying taxes is predicated on your understanding of the purpose of those taxes. It’s really easy to forget why those taxes exist and how they make your life better. More prosperous. Safer. How they make your neighbors’ lives better even when they don’t necessarily impact you directly. Want your schools to be better equipped and to have better teachers? That comes from your taxes. Want your streets plowed and your water systems to be safe and reliable. Taxes. Want your local fire department to be well equipped? Taxes. You can complain about how effectively they accomplish these tasks, and if they are doing a bad job, you should advocate for better policies, but at the heart of it you wouldn’t have these things if you didn’t pay for it.

 One of the really dominant features of the current political moment is the idea that we need to go back to a “better” America. It’s an attractive message. Leaving aside that the America of the mid-twentieth century was mostly better for a particular slice of the country (think white middle-class property owners) it is probably objectively true that our economic reality in 1975 was better than it is now. I wouldn’t want to be thirty-five years old today and looking to acquire property and a stable financial life. It’s worth noting that the economy of the mid-twentieth century was built on a very different tax structure. From 1930 to 1980 America was a place that reaped the benefits of a booming economy and a robust corporate world by asking that world to contribute substantially to the society as a whole.

 Enter Ronald Reagan and the trickle down economic message. From 1980 until now the gap between the middle class and the corporate oligarchical world has widened in a deafening waterfall. In 1970, 62% of households were classified as middle income. By 2018, that number had dropped to 43%. Meanwhile, upper income households increased from 29% to 48%. Keep in mind, the 2018 figure for middle income households reflects a household income of $86,000 or less. More than I make, but most of you would probably see it as just enough.

 Okay, here’s a bit of deep dive but the facts are important. I’m no economist, and you may be able to correct some of my observations and assumptions. It would be appreciated. What you will find in the following is an exploration of what I pay in taxes and what those taxes get used for. My purpose here is to remind you that most of what happens with your taxes is probably good.

In 1953, corporate income tax as a share of the total federal revenues collected was about 30%. Today it is under 15%. The individual income tax as a percentage of total federal revenues has gradually increased, starting at around 40% in 1950 and increasing to about 50% in 2022.

 To be fair, the progressive nature of tax brackets means that most of the revenue from individual income tax payments comes from the top income brackets, and the introduction of the S Corp tax treatment means that some corporate taxes have drifted to the individual tax category.

https://taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/what-are-sources-revenue-federal-government

Let’s take a look at what’s going on with taxes. I’m going to use my personal situation as a starting point. I’m a little atypical in that I don’t make much money. The median income in 2023 was about $80,000. After a variety of calculations, my income tends to sit around $30,000. My tax burden is, therefore, probably less than yours. On the other hand, I guess I would count my blessings if I had more income and paid more taxes. Whatever.

Okay, so here’s my 2024 income and tax statistics. In the interest of keeping the conversation transparent I’m giving you all the facts.

 My adjusted gross income was $36,303. $21,865 of that was W2 income from the University of Wisconsin. I pulled $12,000 from 401K for some personal projects, and the remaining $3,000 or so is income from the pub and Airbnb income out here at The Forst. I know. It’s a bit pathetic, but I chose this life.

 From this income, I paid the following federal taxes.

•  Income Tax: $2,375 (57% of total taxes and 6.5% of income)
• FICA Paid: $1,480 (35% of total taxes and 4% of income)
• Medicare Paid: $346 (8% of total taxes and 1% of income)
• Total Tax Bill: $4,201 (11.6% of income)

That’s about 11.6% of my income that goes to the Federal Government. If you make more than I do (and god willing you do) your percentage might be closer to 15% or maybe even as high as 20%. More on this in a few paragraphs.

The Federal government gets its income from three primary sources. They fall out this way.

• Federal Income Tax: 50%
• Payroll Taxes: 37%
• Corporate, Duties & Sales Tax: 13%

For individuals, we don’t really pay anything in the third group. For individuals, then, contributions to the total Federal Budget are about 57% in Federal Income Tax and 42% in Payroll Taxes.

Here's the thing. If we went back to the days when we were GREAT, the category described as Corporate, Duties & Sales Tax would have been a significantly higher percentage of the total. Mostly because corporations contributed more significantly to the whole. In the late 60s, corporate taxes amounted to about 3.7% of GDP. In 2022 they were 1.7%. If corporate taxes were still in the area of 3.7% of GDP, they would be about $1 Trillion per year greater. That’s a lot of federal programming.

It’s interesting to me that I’m actually paying about the average (as a percentage) in income tax and less in payroll tax. If you earn more than me (but less than folks who are truly wealthy) you probably pay a higher percentage of your total tax burden than I do in Income Tax and a lower percentage of your total tax burden in Payroll Taxes. Honestly, I would have thought that someone at my lower income would be paying a lower percentage of Income Tax while paying the standard Payroll Tax. The short story, the tax burden has shifted so that the lower 2/3s of us are paying more. Okay, this is getting a bit nerdy and not immediately relevant. Smarter people than I might be able to parse this information more accurately.

What I really want to talk about is where your money is going.

Cuz, that’s your beef, right? You give them all this money, that you earned, and what the hell are they doing with it. Here’s what I found.

 The 12% to 20% of your income that you send to the IRS is used as follows.

 Government Expenditures:

• Social Security: 22%
• Medicare: 14%

 Let’s start here. Social Security and Medicare. 36% of the Federal Budget goes to this need. Grandma’s social security check (and mine starting this month), support for folks who are disabled or otherwise have experienced loss or trauma, Medicare for folks over 65, etc. We have a pretty strong consensus that this is a legitimate social good. The government uses 36% of its revenues to support these activities and I contribute 43% of my income to that effort. A little off-balance but that’s because I don’t make much money. Your share of Payroll Taxes as a percentage of your total Federal Tax bill is probably lower and close to or under the 36% that the Fed is spending. All good. Want to bitch about this?

Okay, but your real frustration is about how the rest of your tax payments are used. Let’s look at that.

So, if you are typical, you send the Fed about 8% to 18% of your income in Federal Income Taxes. (This is your tax bill excluding the Payroll Tax that is used for Social Security and Medicare as described above). The current average is 14.9%.

 I’m going to make this as specific as possible. I sent $2,375 to Washington for programs other than Social Security and Medicare. Here’s how they are going to use it.

 18% of the budget is managed through direct transfers to states. In theory this is a good way to manage the federal budget. We might disagree about how certain states prioritize the way these funds are used, but local control is usually a good thing.

Medicaid & Chip: 11% - $261 of my tax bill went to states to fund Medicaid programs and CHIP (Children Health Insurance Program). There have been a lot of media reports about fraud in these programs, but mostly that is a way to sell news. Estimates are that about 5% of payments in this arena have the potential to be fraudulent, and most of that is from illegitimate providers, not from individual recipients.

Transportation: 1.5% - $36 of my tax bill went to transportation. Sadly underfunded. Includes support for public transportation..

Child and Social Services: 1% - $24. Really, this is almost nothing. God bless and good luck.

Other: 4.5% - $107. This that and the other thing. Kind of like when you go to Target.

 National Defense: 18% - That’s $428 of my tax bill. Now, I personally think this could be lower. We don’t need to have 750 military bases in 80 countries across the globe. I totally support the notion that we help support democratic governments, but you and I both know that a lot of what happens with our military is supporting corporate interests in other regions. In addition, the way that our military budget prioritizes fancy new ways to kill people over programs to support vets and active-duty personnel is embarrassing. We can support our military in a more ethical way.

Public Health: 1.6% - $38 – This is the CDC, NIH, and other programs to keep the health system in check. You probably send a whole lot more than this to your health insurance provider, and who do you think is trying to keep them honest.

Assistance to Individuals: 8.1% - $193 – Well, comparatively speaking, this is a bit more money. It includes SNAP, WIC, some health, housing, childcare, college support. Do you give money to your church. Yeah, this is like that category.

 Side note about welfare, which lives in this category as well as in some programs that flow through the states. There is this mythology about welfare fraud. It’s a problem, to be sure. OMB estimates that welfare fraud is likely to be a factor in about 9% of welfare payments. The myth is that “welfare fraud is rampant and costs taxpayers millions. FACT: For every 10,000 households participating in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), about 14 contained a recipient who was investigated and determined to have committed fraud (via a 2018 report by the Congressional Research Service).”

https://www.pbs.org/independentlens/blog/from-mothers-pensions-to-welfare-queens-debunking-myths-about-welfare/

Banking & Finance     1.5% - $36 – Another small amount. Funds the Federal Reserve and some other regulating entities. In a perfect work these folks would work for you.

Transportation .7% - $16 – Direct support for roads and public transportation. It ain’t much but it helps. Do you like driving on your roads?

Other   14% - $332 – This is a big chunk and less specific, but imagine your own budget for your year. How much falls into random categories?

Interest: 11% - $261 – Well, now, that’s a lot of money for interest. Maybe if we taxed corporations like we did when we were GREAT that number would come down.

Okay. Now look at those numbers. Maybe you pay more taxes than I do (likely) so double, triple, the amounts accordingly. What are these things worth? You live here. This is your country. Who do you think is going to pay for it? If you paid no taxes and these things went away, who in your life would suffer?

Side Rant! Here’s a thing that makes me crazy. Your REFUND is not the same thing as your TAX BILL. This was a big deal a few years ago when the tax rates were getting jacked around. Folks would be frustrated because their REFUND WAS LOWER! Having a lower refund does not mean that your tax bill has increased. It means that the difference between what you paid and what you owe is different.

For instance, say I make $50,000 and my federal tax liability is $6,000. If I had $7,500 withheld through payroll, I would get $1,500 back. If I had $4,500 withheld I would owe $1,500. Either way, my tax burden is THE SAME. It’s $6,000. Tax refunds are about planning, and honestly, the lower your refund the better because it means you didn’t lose access to those funds over the course of the year. Sending the fed extra money during the year is not a good saving strategy. End of rant.

I included a couple of graphs related to those trends at the end of this essay. In case you want more detail.

 

https://ccf.georgetown.edu/2025/01/10/the-truth-about-fraud-against-medicaid/