Americans overwhelmingly reject all types of government spending cuts

by: Chris Bowers

Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 16:03


( - promoted by Chris Bowers)

You wouldn't know it from our political discourse, but cutting government spending is overwhelmingly unpopular.

The following table shows public support for cutting certain types of government spending (large PDF, p. 15-16) compared to the percentage of that type of spending within the overall federal budget:

Support for cutting federal government spending
Spending Type Federal Budget Support for cuts
Social Security 19.6% 2%
Military 18.7% 18%
Unemployment 16.1% 15%
Medicare 12.8% 6%
Other health care* 10.4% 10%
Interest on Debt 4.6% 10%
State Department 1.5% 28%
Veterans 1.5% 2%
Anti-terrorism 1.2% 17%
Agriculture 0.7% 12%
Energy 0.7% 14%
Crime / Justice 0.7% 10%
Environment 0.3% 16%
Science 0.2% 14%
* Defined as Medicaid and Department of Health and Human Services.  General "health care" numbers from Pew poll used.

Americans are overwhelmingly opposed to all types of spending cuts.  Outside of the State department and NASA, which account for less than 2% of all federal government spending, at least five out of six Americans do not want to see the federal government cut spending in any other area.

More than five out of six Americans are opposed to cutting 98% of the federal budget.  Most don't want to cut the remaining 2%, either.  Keep that in mind whenever you hear politicians calling for spending cuts, and polls claiming that voters want spending cuts.

Also, keep in mind that voters don't actually know what the federal government is spending money on.  From a Rasmussen reports poll released today:

Budget documents provided by the Obama administration show that in Fiscal Year 2009 50% of all federal spending went to national defense, Social Security and Medicare. When the cost of veterans affairs are included, that number grows to 53%. Five percent (5%) paid interest on the federal debt, and 42% was used for everything else in the budget.

However, a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that only 35% of voters believe that the majority of federal spending goes to just defense, Social Security and Medicare. Forty-four percent (44%) say it's not true, and 20% are not sure.

Voters claim, in the abstract to want spending cuts.  However, they don't know what the government spending money on.  When given a possible list of cuts, Americans overwhelmingly reject them all (with the possible exception of NASA).

Chris Bowers :: Americans overwhelmingly reject all types of government spending cuts

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Pretty good support for cutting Defense spending! (4.00 / 2)
18% is better support than I expected for cutting defense spending. Maybe it is possible to eventually rein in the defense budget.

I'd like to see Medicare spending increase, but only after it covers 100% of residents in the USA. ;-)

ec=-8.50 soc=-8.41   (3,967 Watts)


great post (0.00 / 0)
I'm pretty sure you'll find support for tax hikes on the wealthy is much higher than this.

I have to snarkily say that if defense+ss+medicare really is 50% it seems like it's a trick question to ask if it's a majority of spending.


New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.


When pundits say that the American people believe something (4.00 / 5)
they are not lying, they are just using a very, very limited definition of the American people - meaning Beltway elites.  

All this said, when people are given the tools to reason through these issues, they make pretty good decisions, at least compared to their alleged betters.

When presented most of the major items in the discretionary federal budget and given the opportunity to modify it, Americans make some dramatic changes. The largest cut by far is to defense spending, which is reduced by nearly one-third, followed by spending on Iraq and Afghanistan, transportation and justice.

As Digby said in a slightly different context, "That is an epic failure of liberal politics. You can't blame them, if nobody ever told them otherwise."

Strengthen Social Security...Don't Cut it  


The Toyota theory of economics. (0.00 / 0)


So What's Your Point Then Chris? (0.00 / 0)
If my wife and I lost our jobs, or more accurately if we got ourselves under so much debt that we no longer could afford to live our lives, our kids wouldn't want their allowances cut either. As the adults in the room we would have the responsibility to recognize the urgency and necessity of the problem and act on it. Our kids' wishes are quite beside the point, as is your poll.

Hmmm (4.00 / 2)
So I guess we're all just spoiled children and we need our big, strong, Republican daddies to control us and do what's best, which of course would never include taxing their rich friends.

Right.


[ Parent ]
Not At All (0.00 / 0)
Virtually all of the GOP voices bothering to participate in the economic debate over the last 10 years have been too politically paralyzed to propose and seriously advocate for the spending reductions which MUST occur for this nation to have a sustainable fiscal future. The result was a well-deserved rejection of the GOP in '06 and '08. Unfortunately for Dems they have once again revealed themselves, with even more clarity than with their majorities under Clinton, to be the consummate growers of government and spenders of tax dollars that the GOP has long accused them of being. The country is clearly this figuring out and will be rewarding them with exit visas of their own come November. The money question will be whether the GOP can govern fiscally conservatively. If they can then they'll be in power for a long time. If they pull another '00-'06 then their stay at the top will be as brief as the Dems' is about to be and the country's approval of Washington's advocacy for our collective interests will continue to disappear.

[ Parent ]
Fiscal conservatism is a real winner, eh? (4.00 / 1)
The Republican Congress that governed from 1995-1997 was one of the most fiscally conservative Congresses we've ever had.  Not only were the Republicans in control, but those Republicans were dominated by idealistic, true believer, small-government conservatives that rode the anti-government wave of 1994 into office.  They produced some of the most conservative budgets and spending bills this country had ever seen.

In the next election in 1996, the Republican candidate for President lost 41-49.  This, despite the fact that the Republican nominee campaigned on a 15% across-the-board income tax cut, and picked fiscal conservative godfather Jack Kemp as his running mate.

In the House, Republicans lost 8 seats.

In the Senate, Republicans gained just 2 seats.  They picked up three open seats in the conservative states of Nebraska, Alabama and Arkansas, but they lost an incumbent (the only incumbent who lost that cycle) in the then-somewhat conservative state of South Dakota.

Most notably, they failed to take out three high-profile liberal targets - Tom Harkin in Iowa, John Kerry in Massachusetts, and Paul Wellstone in Minnesota.


[ Parent ]
Consummate growers of gumint? (4.00 / 4)
That's rich, dude.

When Clinton left office, we had a budget surplus. The War Budget was about $400 Billion. Now the War Budget is $700 Billion plus the obligatory $150 or so Billion in supplementals. Almost a Trillion with a T.

How's that for Big Government and Borrow & Spend largesse?

Lastly, government isn't a household. It's a government.. and this government has a fiat currency--the world's reserve currency, as it so happens. So your debt isn't equivalent to USG's debt in any way at all, even though Barack Hoover Obama likes to say so.

The real debt issue here is what that money is spent on and whether or not those expenditures have any economic return or not. Currently, our government (despite the last election) is still bent on spending all it's resources on death and destruction and refuses to spend it on things that will improve the economy.

That's the real issue here, not this high school home ec bullshit.

People aren't pissed because of Teh Debt. They're pissed because their government has left them to hang while shoveling free money to the Banksters. They're pissed because we will rack up Trillions in new debt for a grand War For Profit Scheme while millions of middle class people are losing their homes and jobs.

The GOP will make gains because all we have to choose from is between two corrupt, derelict parties that couldn't do the right thing by this country if you paid them to.

This will become a game of electoral ping-pong and it will lead to instability and strife.



"Nobody is actually starving. The hobos, for example, are better fed than they have ever been. Hobos are eating well, in fact one had ten meals in a single day." -- Pres. Herbert Hoover, 1932


[ Parent ]
I Guess You Weren't Paying Attention (0.00 / 0)
I acknowledged that '00-'06 was a GOP-controlled fiscal disaster and that that was why the GOP was quite reasonably shown the door in both cycles (believe, if it makes you happy, that BHO's election in '08 was some sort of progressive mandate - it wasn't). And how many wars was Clinton fighting when he left office? Of course he'd have a shorter defense spend.

Currently, our government (despite the last election) is still bent on spending all it's resources on death and destruction and refuses to spend it on things that will improve the economy.

Are you kidding? TARP? Stimulus? Hello? Anyone there? Your Keynesian brethren are shoveling liquidity into the economy (including bottomed-out lending rates from the Fed) and it's gotten us.. deeper in debt. We can argue the necessity of the current campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan all day (I'm not convinced that either is, with all things considered, in the country's best interests) but the country sees the size of Obama's budget and, despite the best efforts of the Party of Government to convince us it's all for our own good, it knows that trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see are unhealthy for the future of the country. It's final endorsement of Democrat economic stewardship will be forthcoming this fall.

I agree that people are pissed that the financial sector is making out so well in all of this but make no mistake the deficit matters to Americans. Ignore this reality at your peril.

The GOP will make gains because all we have to choose from is between two corrupt, derelict parties that couldn't do the right thing by this country if you paid them to.


Absolutely agree, unless the GOP can find some leadership that delivers on the fiscally conservative principles which the party is supposed to stand for. The problem for fiscal conservatism is that Dems and the last 20 years of the GOP have addicted the country to spending, which Chris' chart does a fine job of illustrating (I suppose that it does have some relevance after all). We may be past the point where someone with a truly minimalist government agenda can even get elected President anymore (which I'm sure cheers you no end). If that's the case then we're headed for either default on our debt or an inability to sell any more, either of which will tip the American economy over in one way or another. Our government at work.. what a pretty picture.

[ Parent ]
borrow and spend (4.00 / 3)
The repubs have been driving us into debt a lot longer than 20 years. Ronnie's supply side scam trippled the debt starting in 1980.

Read that 82% of the national debt was accumulated under republican presidents. This even as they relieved the most successfull in society of their responsability to support that same society.

Remember the big Dick telling us "Reagan tought us deficits don't mater"? Whial pushing more tax reduction for rich supporters during deficit spending that again doubled the national debt.

Hasen't the 35-40 year decline in lifestyle of the bottom 90+% of the population tought you anything?

The unprecedented transfeer of wealth from the many to the few has destroyed the demand side of the eqution. Without a change in priorities, just who will buy the goods and services?

Is the logical end of capitalism; collapse due to unmitigated greed?

Government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob..... FDR


[ Parent ]
Oops, your ignorance is showing... (4.00 / 2)
My "Keynsian brethren" argued against the bank bailouts in favor of reform. It's your neo-liberal brethren that shoveled all that free money at the CEO-class, rather than helping the real economy. The GOP has been studiously trying to kill the middle-class for well nigh 30 years now. Get a clue.

Get your labels right. Indeed, get your economics right and your "who's to blame" as well.

I personally don't care about what the GOP does. They will not be anything but destroyers of democracy and our republic in our lifetimes. The fact that the Obama administration, whom Republicans should be very happy with since he pushes mostly their own policies, is so busy making kissy face with the GOP tells me he's playing for the wrong team.

You might want to explore the possibility that all this partisan crap is just bullshit to destract people from the real struggle: the ruling elites vs The Little People. That's what Obama's buy-partisanship is all about, after all.

"Nobody is actually starving. The hobos, for example, are better fed than they have ever been. Hobos are eating well, in fact one had ten meals in a single day." -- Pres. Herbert Hoover, 1932


[ Parent ]
What's my point? (4.00 / 2)
My point is that spending cuts are unpopular. I noted this in the title, in the first paragraph, in the chart, in the third paragraph, in the fourth paragraph, and in the final paragraph.

I thought the point was pretty obvious.


[ Parent ]
Right, I Get That (0.00 / 0)
But why does an unpopularity with spending cuts actually matter? It's like asking a junkie if he wants his heroin supply cut off. The answer's obvious but if your objective is to cure the problem of the addiction it's utterly irrelevant. The problem is the debt, which is produced by deficit spending, which is delivered by custodians of government whose priority is either imposing their definition of social responsibility on the country (Dems) or sounding fiscally responsible but really caring only about getting re-elected (GOP). Neither is worthy of respect if you give a damn about the economic health of the nation we're leaving to our kids.

[ Parent ]
What are the biggest sources of deficit spending? (4.00 / 4)
1) The ballooning War Budget.

2) GOP tax cuts.

3) Free money for Wall Street.

This actually matters, because, as they say, that's where the money is.

If you are not willing to deal with these problems, then all your pap about deficits is pure, neanderthal pablum.

"Nobody is actually starving. The hobos, for example, are better fed than they have ever been. Hobos are eating well, in fact one had ten meals in a single day." -- Pres. Herbert Hoover, 1932


[ Parent ]
You Left Out a Couple of Tiny Ones.. (0.00 / 0)
How about, um.. Social Security and Medicare? Slipped your mind, did they?

[ Parent ]
Social Security is supported by its own tax. (4.00 / 6)
And it's not in the negative. That's not money that can be used by the government for other expenses. And pretending pothrwise is a right wing talking point!

[ Parent ]
SS and Medicare are "off-budget items" (4.00 / 2)
They pay for themselves. They neither add to or detract from the general account deficit.

The only problem with them is that congress has been using the SS trust fund to artificially lower the deficit for 30 years. Obama's (and the GOP) wants to default on the debt to SS, so they can continue simultaneously destroying the middle-class whilst funding their various wars for profit.

I guess they don't teach basic government in high school anymore.

"Nobody is actually starving. The hobos, for example, are better fed than they have ever been. Hobos are eating well, in fact one had ten meals in a single day." -- Pres. Herbert Hoover, 1932


[ Parent ]
By What Extra-Galactic Math Does SS Pay For Itself? (0.00 / 0)
It's the grandest Ponzi scheme ever invented. And the first elements of Medicare are set to start going insolvent in less than 10 years. They're fiscal black holes, both of them - epic achievements of the Party of Government that, unless corralled by some administration somewhere, will bankrupt the nation.

[ Parent ]
it's a good reason to raise taxes instead of (0.00 / 0)
cutting spending.

But why does an unpopularity with spending cuts actually matter?


[ Parent ]
You'd Be Right If.. (0.00 / 0)
.. the relative utility to the economy of increasing taxes was equal to that of decreasing spending. It isn't.

[ Parent ]
It is. (4.00 / 3)
Depends on the details, of course, but generally yes.

[ Parent ]
well, if you think that seniors having retirement (4.00 / 2)
income and medical care has more "relative utility" than rich people having tax cuts, then you would be right.  and an asshole.

[ Parent ]
Benny.. Benny.. Benny.. (0.00 / 0)
There's utility (and, frankly, necessity) in both, for which we as a nation must find a sustainable balance. That balance does not exist now and it's endangering the country and its future. Until such a balance is found - one that doesn't destroy GDP growth like your 'tax the rich into oblivion' meme - the only rational course is to scale back entitlement spending. Painful, yes. Necessary, also yes. And peace to you, friend.

[ Parent ]
btw, i love how you compare spending money (4.00 / 3)
on SS and Medicare to heroine addiction.  jerk.

[ Parent ]
Nice (0.00 / 1)
Social Security and Medicare are government expenditures. However warm and fuzzy their social value makes liberals feel doesn't shield them from critical scrutiny (or my metaphor) any more than defense expenditures are shielded from scrutiny for their national importance.

And if you're going to call someone a jerk at least do so using your words correctly. Rosa Parks was a heroine. You get addicted to heroin. Peace to you, friend.

[ Parent ]
I'm Sure There Are (4.00 / 1)
plenty of ice floes for old people. And they don't need medical care, because after all, they're old and gonna die, anyway. Why waste the bucks on "warm and fuzzy...social values?"
Your priorities are all screwed up, buddy.

[ Parent ]
They're Not Being Wasted (0.00 / 0)
Social Security and Medicare both DO have social value and the country obviously wants them to exist. The problem is scale - we simply don't have (and we haven't had for a while now) enough taxable economy to continue supporting them in their current scope. Both programs have to be scaled back dramatically, as does defense.

And my priority is the economic survival of the nation - all of it - not just the elderly and the sick.

[ Parent ]
Uhuh. Both Dems and the GOP are bad. And what are you? (4.00 / 1)
A right wing independent? A Libertarian? Despite you criticizing the GOP here, fact is you have never come up with any progressive idea here!

[ Parent ]
Are you a government? (4.00 / 2)
Otherwise, the comparison doesn't make much sense.

And why is it that you're once again come up with a rethuglican talking point? Really, what are you, a right wing independent, a libertarian, or a rethuglican?


[ Parent ]
Always the case... (0.00 / 0)
Voters want stuff, but don't want to have to pay for it.  So, sure, bring on the "free money" with tax cuts, but make cuts to the things I take for granted like public transportation and street lights, then screw you... There was a great article recently about Colorado Springs becoming a dump basically because no one wants to pay more taxes to pay for the things that everyone likes.


But that is just it (4.00 / 4)
Colorado Springs is a fairly unique case. It is perhaps the worst bastion on anti-tax sentiment, in the only state to enact TABOR. Every other state has refused to enact TABOR.  

Polls show that voters overwhelmingly support progressive taxation on individuals and corporations. Oregon is therefore no aberration. And they are generally willing to pay for things they care about even if it means higher taxes. General anti-tax sentiment, to the extent it exists among the larger public, is about what taxes pay for not whether we have taxes.

These poll numbers suggest that asking the questions this way is bad polling practice, not that people are stupid, and certainly not that the whole country is Colorado Springs.  

Strengthen Social Security...Don't Cut it  


[ Parent ]
Progressive taxation fits right into this.. (0.00 / 0)
As long as OTHER people pay I'm fine with it... very classic.

That's fine with me, but this is really progressive's challenge.  I'm glad that it worked in Oregon, but it's been tough to get it across in a more National way... There are a lot of people responsible for this problem, and Obama is no exception, but this isn't a magic bullet for November either.


[ Parent ]
One - you don't seem to understand the justification (0.00 / 0)
for progressive taxation.

Also, as I said, people are willing to pay more personally when they know its going towards the kinds of things they support, which is not limited to things for which they are the direct beneficiaries.

It has been tough to get public officials to do this, the public is on board.

Strengthen Social Security...Don't Cut it  


[ Parent ]
Of course I do... (4.00 / 1)
My point is that people operate in a very "NIMBY" type of way, and as long as just "rich" people are getting taxed, they don't care as much.

[ Parent ]
So if people support a progressive policy (0.00 / 0)
you will judge them on the alleged motive you assume they must have instead of the progressive reason behind the policy?  

Oddly, up thread you suggested that voters love tax cutting TABOR-style conservative governance, like in Colorado Springs, because people are greedy. When I pointed out that people don't want that, but instead support an entirely different policy, based on a progressive world view rather than a conservative world view, than that was still just people being greedy.

But what simply can't be reconciled with the NIMBY theory is that Americans have long supported increased taxation to help the poor (although not welfare) among other non-selfish causes.  Generally speaking, large majorities support paying more themselves in taxes to support social investment. They also believe that the rich and corporations should pay more, but when we combine that with knowledge that they are willing to pay more, that suggests that a sense of fairness, not greediness, is what is driving this.


Strengthen Social Security...Don't Cut it  


[ Parent ]
No, not everyone... (0.00 / 0)
More unaligned/non-ideological or politically disconnected voters.  This probably includes a big chunk of independent voters, and somewhat significant amount of Democratic and Republican voters.

[ Parent ]
There's a limit to what people want (4.00 / 1)
There was a 2009 poll where 58% of people would support cap and trade to help the environment if it would raise their monthly electricity by $10, but 59% opposed it if the increase was $25/month.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

[ Parent ]
Disconnect between rhetoric and policy (4.00 / 2)
When it comes to rhetoric people hate government, but when it comes to policy they want more of it.

Bridging this divide, so that people (once again) look upon government itself favorably as well as support government spending, should be our grand project for the next century.


Yes! Dems should speak about the very real consequences... (4.00 / 1)
...of spending cuts. And bring up the horrible Colorado Springs example to show where this will lead.

[ Parent ]
People have no idea of the numbers involved (4.00 / 1)
It wasn't polled, but people generally support cuts in foreign policy while vastly overestimating how much money is spent on foreign aid.  I wonder what these poll numbers would look like if each question was prefaced with the amount of money the federal government spends in each area and if support for cuts would increase when told how many billions are spent.

I am reminded of a story about the faux-populist Huey Long.  One supporter questioned the viability of the "Share Our Wealth" program, to which Long replied that he didn't think his supporter was smart enough to figure that out.

Most people want what sounds good, but don't necessarily know if those things are even plausible.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both


That poll has been done (4.00 / 2)
or at least something fairly similar.

See here (PDF).

As I said up thread, when people are given this info, they do a whole lot better answering these questions than our elected officials do. They might do even better if they occasionally heard progressive arguments about investment priorities.

Strengthen Social Security...Don't Cut it  


[ Parent ]
So (0.00 / 0)
People want to cut defense spending and use a good chunk of the savings to cut the deficit.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

[ Parent ]
Btw, why this misguided focus on spending cuts at all? (4.00 / 2)
There are always two ways to reduce a deficit: Decrease spending and/or increase income! And even Ronald Reagan didn't shy away fom rasing taxes when it became necessary. That should be a very good base on which Reagan fan Obama should advocate the same.

Don't cut back on the poor, tax the rich!






USER MENU


blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you

Donate to Open Left

QUICK HITS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search