This is accurate but in a limited way, and it’s a good example of how graphics can lead to bias regardless of your political inclinations*. So what you see above is the 2012 federal budget for discretionary spending, which is very different from the actual 2012 federal budget.
The 2012 federal budget also contains something called mandatory spending, and in 2012 we’ll spend about $2.382 trillion in mandatory spending. Social security will cost us $761 billion, and things like medicare and unemployment insurance will cost a lot as well. (For a good breakdown of the 2012 budget, go here.)
Republican leaders are being completely disingenuous when they pretend that eliminating the Department of Education (or any number of other federal departments) would significantly cut the budget deficit. But Democratic leaders are also being completely disingenuous when they act like the defense budget is the biggest budgetary challenge facing the U.S. (The notable exception here is the President, who actually acknowledges that serious budget reform will involve both cutting social programs and raising taxes, thereby making him popular with no one except me.)
I’ve been really disappointed in our national inability to have a grown-up conversation about the economy, unemployment, wage stagnation, small business growth, and the other hot-button topics of the past few months. To beat a dead horse, we all need to recognize the legitimacy of others’ narratives if we’re ever going to make progress, and part of that is acknowledging that most of the federal budget does, in fact, go to social programs. (As it does in every other country in the developed world.)
* Like, I think the U.S. spends way too much on defense, but it would be ludicrous to say that cutting defense spending could easily balance the budget. Also, quite a lot of defense spending goes into very popular programs, like providing health care for war veterans.
