Median Household Income Now Less Than What Government Spends Per Household


If you add up all the money the government is spending, using information supplied by the U.S. Census Bureau and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and divide that amount by the number of households in the United States, you get a figure that now exceeds the median amount of money those households collectively earn.

In a new book called Completely Predictable, author Terence Jeffrey points out that, since 2010, the government has begun spending more money than it can even raise as revenue by taxing households at 100 percent.

That year, net spending at all levels of government — including Federal, State and municipal — amounted to $5.94 trillion. Divided across the 118,682,000 households in the United States, that comes to $50,074 per household. The median household income that year was $49,445: a $629 difference.

By contrast, in 2000, the government was spending $29,941 per household at a time when the median household income was $41,990.

Jefferey observes:

Thus, between 2000 and 2010, government in this country went from spending $12,049 less than the median household income to spending $629 more.

…I think the number demonstrates how completely predictable the fiscal crisis our country faces has become.

A nation whose government spends per family more than the typical family earns is on the road to ruin.

How in the world is something like that possible? Because taxation’s not where the money is. Fabricating money in a debt-based economy is the way we do things in America. The government prints money and creates debt as it endlessly expands the money supply, all under the para-governmental aegis of the bankers who control the Federal Reverse.

Although, at the Federal level, President Barack Obama has rightly been criticized for promoting a monetary policy that takes government spending into the stratosphere; the trend is nothing new. But Obama’s embracing of entitlement spending, as well as his burgeoning enthusiasm for the kind of economic “stimulus” policies his predecessor, George W. Bush, was lambasted for using as a stop-gap bailout measure, constitute the most egregious commitment to the government debt bubble of any President in the Nation’s history, as this chart of “real” inflation-adjusted per-capita (not per-household) spending shows:


“Two things stand out,” the accompanying article notes. “George W. Bush was god-awful. And Barack Obama looks to be even worse.”

Personal Liberty

Ben Bullard

Reconciling the concept of individual sovereignty with conscientious participation in the modern American political process is a continuing preoccupation for staff writer Ben Bullard. A former community newspaper writer, Bullard has closely observed the manner in which well-meaning small-town politicians and policy makers often accept, unthinkingly, their increasingly marginal role in shaping the quality of their own lives, as well as those of the people whom they serve. He argues that American public policy is plagued by inscrutable and corrupt motives on a national scale, a fundamental problem which individuals, families and communities must strive to solve. This, he argues, can be achieved only as Americans rediscover the principal role each citizen plays in enriching the welfare of our Republic.

Join the Discussion

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

  • GALT

    Are you visually impaired, Ben? Or color blind?

    The red lines indicate an up trend, while the blue lines are either flat or
    in Clinton’s case, going down……..and what the article actually notes is:

    “A third observation: The Republicans seem to be the ones who ratchet up spending while the Dems solidify that amount. Which party will grow into being the crew that brings spending down to something that is affordable?”

    For the literate, extending this observation to the chart, would mean that
    had republicans not been elected……as in all blue…….the chart would be
    flat all the way across……..or going down.

    • Right Brain Thinker

      Good observation, GALT.

      A fourth observation. Just in case the WIFI don’t understand what you have said, let me remind them in plain language—-the chart again demonstrates vividly that it WAS Bush’s fault (and Reagan’s as well).

      The last line of Ben’s article even points that out—–“George W. Bush was god-awful”. How true!

    • Warrior

      Looks like the easiest “fix” is to start building new homes. And a “lot” of them!

      • Right Brain Thinker

        And that’s happening in lots of places around the country. And home prices are rising also. And so is concern that people won’t be able to afford the new homes because incomes are still dropping and mortgage rates will rise before too long. Catch 22.

      • GALT

        Plenty of existing homes available, in foreclosure at reduced prices
        and way more on the way…..of course, they may not
        be suitable for you…..very few are SWAT proof, so the cost of
        upgrading and hardening could be prohibitive.

    • ChuckS123

      Notice that Obama started with a HUGE first year increase in spending. He got several big spending bills passed in 2009. And most of Obamacare’s badness is yet to come. So why don’t you push for more spending cuts? Do you support all of Obama’s new spending?

      Since you think Clinton was wonderful, let’s go back to his last budget – $1.8 trillion. (Incidentally, Clinton giving in to the repubs in congress was the reason he did so well? Also benefiting from what was left of the Reagan tax cuts.

      • GALT

        Where in my comment does it refer to any of the things
        you imagine are there? Why are you assuming things that are NOT there?

        The effects of Reagan and Bush, as indicated by the chart are
        350% that of Obama, and that is using simple math, in terms of percentage as an increase of the total, because they occur earlier,
        the effects represent a greater percentage of the total, than Obama’s.

        Going from 6.4 to 8.2 is greater than 10 to 11.2

        28 % vs 12%

        Going from 8 to 10… greater than going from 10 to 11.2

        25% vs 12 %

        Ben’s closing remark or the “conclusion” he is trying to
        reach is NOT confirmed by the chart…..or the libertarian article

        he “borrowed it from”…..

        That was my point…….what is yours?

  • svet11

    Well, now we have reached the point where cutting spending will not do much. So, Gov-t will take that 100% of your earnings by taxing, inflation and confiscation.

    In other words, we are all de-facto governmental slaves.

    Bright future of America had arrived

    • GALT

      Nah, government is laying off people while the private sector is
      willing to pay you ‘right to work’ wages, which are too low to
      be taxed as income……and no one is forcing you to work, or pay taxes
      ……you are FREE to be that rugged, self reliant individual you claim you have admired from afar…….find a desert island, build capital goods and keep to yourself…..all those fruits of your own labor…..hell, build a bank, create money, deposit it and pay yourself INTEREST………enjoy your hard earned
      WEALTH, with zero health or sick care costs. PARADISE!

  • FreedomFighter

    Kim jung Un called Obama on the phone and said “I will destroy America!”

    Obama laughed and replied “To late fat boy, I beat you to it.”

    Laus Deo
    Semper FI

    • GALT

      Two patriots walked into a building.

      You think ONE of them……would have noticed?

  • 010sonny

    Ben needs to go back and take a couple of refresher courses in statistics and economics. Upside down, chaotic observations that he defines tarnishes this threads intelligence. Perhaps he could just read a book by a Nobel Prize winner in economics. Joseph E.Stiglitz, “The Price Of Inequality
    America’s inequality;
    “Rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.”
    Illumination of this can be viewed within our USA. Increasing wealth, disproportional to the impoverished who are unable to maintain an
    equitable ratio in gains. Impoverished, at their best, stagnation of their share in laborers productivity. Increasingly eroding of their portions of share to their labors productivity. Increasing to the inequality and accelerating negatively to the impoverished.
    Three decades of low wages, to the 90%, with a growth of 15%. Earnings increase to the 1% have been cruising at 150% increases as to the 0.1% are racing at 300% Greater acceleration of wealth accumulation has affected the wealth at the bottom.
    Middle class bastion of secured wealth accumulation has been severely oppressed. Homes lost their values. Top 1% lost wealth but it was soon recovered. [Bail Out]. Middle class, years later are just now experiencing a strangulated loss gain to their investments if not a total loss. Typical 1% held 225 times the wealth of the typical middle class household. Doubling the ratio experienced as they were in 1962 and 1983.
    Prior to 2007 the 1% enjoyed accumulating 57% of the nations wealth. Producing an increase in capital income after 1979 some 7/8 while those in the 95% received less than 3% of the increment.
    Presently the 10% are hording $23 trillion in off shore accounts. This has liquidity has been removed from fueling our dynamos of the laborers productivity and their consumptions. One factor that contributed to the 2008 collapse.

    • Right Brain Thinker

      Excellent pair of citations.

      And “Upside down, chaotic observations tarnish this threads intelligence”?

      Thanks for a good chuckle—-“upside down and chaotic observations” are the rule rather than the exception on PLD and most PLD-ers wouldn’t recognize “tarnish” even if it could somehow appear on their eyeballs—-their “vision” is already clouded.

    • GALT

      Bernard as much as you would like to cite a nobel prize winning economist, that is not possible, for no such prize exists……and there would be no basis for awarding such a prize since economics is total BS, and far more dangerous than this BS, “all men are created equal and endowed….etc, etc, etc”

      Stiglitz won the Bank of Sweden Prize for Economics ( In memory of Alfred Nobel ) which carries as much weight as the annual KKK, Martin Luther King


      Besides citing him is that sense is logical fallacy….you simply need to be able to express his idea’s correctly to advance your “argument”, which should be able to stand on its own.

      Pardon my interruption for that brief point of order,………please continue…

  • 010sonny

    Just dug this out and dusted it off from my archives. Ben take note; Paulson Secretary Of The Treasury..Paulson admits deregulation has failed us all
    By MarketWatch
    WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — You know things are very very bad on Wall Street when a guy like Henry Paulson — Treasury secretary, solid Republican, and former Goldman Sachs CEO — joins the crowd calling for more regulation over the financial markets.
    Paulson spared no one in his criticism Thursday of the excesses of deregulation that has now created the worst global financial crisis in a generation, threatening the health of the U.S. economy, the savings of millions of Americans, and the survival of some of the biggest financial institutions in the world.
    Wall Street and Washington both failed big time, he said. Wall Street invented new ways to make money by selling securities so complicated that no one could really follow which shell the pea was under. Fortunes were made on the paper Wall Street sold.
    At the same time, Washington’s watchdogs were dozing, tranquilized by the false assurance that Wall Street would police its own.
    It’s been obvious for years now that Wall Street could not be trusted, and finally official Washington agrees. The markets need a tougher cop to make sure that money-center banks, investment banks, credit-rating agencies, hedge funds, mortgage brokers and the rest don’t let their own greed and arrogance ruin it for the rest of us.
    “Regulation needs to catch up with innovation,” Paulson said, and he was backed up by the rest of President Bush’s working group on financial markets, including Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and Securities and Exchange Commissioner Chris Cox. Not a commie among them.
    The housing bubble wasn’t a flaw; it was a predictable outcome of a system that rewarded smart people small fortunes for conjuring up ways to persuade people to borrow more than they could ever hope to pay back. All the profits were taken off the table quickly, but the staggering costs are only now being paid by homeowners, shareholders, builders and the rest of society.
    Paulson’s proposals won’t necessarily prevent a recurrence, but they are a humble recognition that the centerpiece of two decades of Republican economic policy have failed.
    — Rex Nutting, Washington bureau chief
    Republicans have not strayed from their previous agendas other than to increase the probabilities of failure.
    Rex Nutting, Washington bureau chief
    Republicans have not strayed from their previous agendas other than to increase the probabilities of failure.

  • Greg Fleck

    The chart you have on the bottom would be more telling if you showed who had the majority control of the House and Senate each year, instead of the president. For example, the Democrats controlled the house from 1955 – 1995. 1995 was the first time in 50 years that the Republicans controlled the house and this is the first time the Federal outlays peaked and started declining slightly (but not much). In the last 100 years, the democrats have controlled the house 67% of the time and the senate 63% of the time. Don’t get me wrong, the republicans are not saints, they are just the lesser of two evils.

  • 010sonny

    Dear Ben you like charts then this is for you. “Bulls Bears and the Ballot Box” by Bob Deirick and Lew Goldberg. They will hold your hand and explain how to read charts. Here is a small example of what you will discover. The issue is all about economics! Lets see how the parties measure up.
    Pedro Santa-Clara
    Nova School of Business and Economics; National Bureau of Economic Research
    (NBER); Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR)
    Rossen I. Valkanov
    University of California, San Diego (UCSD) – Rady School of ManagementPedro Santa-Clara
    Nova School of Business and Economics; National Bureau of Economic Research
    (NBER); Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR)
    Rossen I. Valkanov
    University of California, San Diego (UCSD) – Rady School of ManagementPedro Santa Clara and Rossen Valkanov Concurred that the democrats fared better than the republicans by a wide margin. Democrats had consistent above average returns. Most Republicans had lower than average returns and greater volatility.
    Santa Clara and Valkanov attribute the difference in returns to the stock markets being systematically and positively surprised to discover that democratic polices in a 80 year time frame of quantifiable data, are the best economic stewards for the nation. Differences are substantial.
    Democrats had a respectable average return of 9.6% as when compared to republicans 0.58% average returns. If an employee’s 401[K] plan was fully invested in stocks at a value of $100,000, at the beginning of the employee’s 40 years of labor, apply this to both parties for returns.
    Republicans Nest egg would have accumulated $224,375.
    Democrates Nest Egg would have accumulated $ 3,912,210.
    Now at $5,000, initial nest egg investment.
    Republicans Nest Egg would have accumulated $126,027.
    Democrats Nest Egg would have accumulated $1,985,526.
    ‘The Presidential puzzle; Political Cycles and the stock market” Accessed December 14 2011, the journal of finance, Vol.LVIII, no.5October 2003
    Now you know how to play the market. Democrat Bull Republicans Bear.
    In addition; Pulitzer Prize Awarded siteWhich supports Debt To GDP figures. Last 4 years of Bush attributed 20.7% to debt to GDP. Obama of the 3 years has a Debt to GDP of 15.1%. A reduction to debt of 5.6% in spite of all the sabotaging efforts’ of the republicans. { Hostage/Ransom} scenarios.
    Republican’s present financial planning is similar to Herbert Hoover/ Bush…? Pulitzer Prize Awarded siteWhich supports Debt To GDP figures. Last 4 years of Bush attributed 20.7% to debt to GDP. Obama of the 3 years has a Debt to GDP of 15.1%. A reduction to debt of 5.6% in spite of all the sabotaging efforts’ of the republicans. { Hostage/Ransom} scenarios.
    Republican’s present financial planning is similar to Herbert Hoover/ Bush…?  

  • Dave

    Don’t worry everyone!!!

    Rex Tillerson, chairman and CEO of the Irving-based oil and gas giant, Exxon-Mobile, collected total compensation of $40.3 million in 2012, up from $34.9 million in 2011, according to SEC filings.
    I know you conservatives worry greatly about the plight of the wealthy. This will allow you to rest at ease…
    Don’t you love the graphic? Under conservative leadership (Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2) Fed Outlays went up.
    Under the Marxist, Communist, Socialists (Clinton and Obama) they stayed flat. During Obama’s time, we experienced the worst recession since the Depression.
    Thank you Ben for illustrating what I always knew. Conservatuves are full of garbage.