The Problem of Cutting Spending:

Remove all ads!

... is that in general, it is implied "Cut spending going to other people." Now, this survey was done for the US, but I imagine that the above phrase is generally no less valid for most other Western societies (and economies).

The full text of the article, for those too busy, was pasted below. However, it would be a good idea to see the graphs as well. In general, on the vast majority of items support for cutting funds is quite low - global humanitarian (poverty) programs being pretty much the only outlier. On most other issues, there is higher support for increasing spending. Of course, support for raising taxes isn't particularly high either... so we kinda end up with something like the fable about the swan, crab and pike.

Spoiler

The public's views about federal spending are beginning to change. Across a range of federal programs, Americans are no longer calling for increased spending, as they have for many years. For the most part, however, there is not a great deal of support for cutting spending, though in a few cases support for reductions has grown noticeably. The survey also shows that the public is reluctant to cut spending -- or raise taxes -- to balance state budgets.

Since June 2009, there have been double-digit declines in the proportions favoring increased federal spending for health care (by 20 percentage points), government assistance for the unemployed (17 points), Medicare (13 points) and veterans' benefits and services (12 points). Fewer Americans also favor increased spending on military defense (down nine points) and environmental protection (seven points).

In two areas in particular -- aid for the unemployed and national defense -- the public's attitudes toward federal spending have changed dramatically. Currently, as many favor decreasing spending as increasing spending for assistance to the unemployed and national defense. In 2009, far more supported funding increases than decreases for these programs.

Despite these changing views, however, majorities or pluralities favor increased spending in five of 18 areas. Fully 62% favor increased funding for education -- the highest percentage for any program tested and little changed from 2009 (67%). In all, there is only one area -- economic assistance to needy people around the world -- for which a plurality favors cutting federal spending.

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted Feb. 2-7 among 1,385 adults, finds that President Obama's overall job rating has ticked up: 49% approve of Obama's job performance while 42% disapprove. From September through January, roughly as many approved as disapproved of Obama's job performance.

Most Americans (56%) say President Obama could be doing more to improve economic conditions while 39% say he is doing as much as he can. A year ago, somewhat fewer (50%) said Obama could be doing more on the economy and in March 2009, just 30% expressed this view.

Still, views of former President Bush's efforts to improve the economy at a comparable stage in his presidency were slightly more negative than they are for Obama today, though the economy was in much better shape. In January 2003, 61% said Bush could be doing more to improve economic conditions while 33% said he was doing all he could.

The survey finds somewhat more positive -- or at least, less negative -- views of the nation's economy. Only about one-in-ten (12%) says economic conditions are excellent or good, a figure that has changed little over the past three years, but the proportion saying the economy is "poor" has edged lower. Currently 42% rate economic conditions as poor, which is virtually unchanged from December (45%), but down nine points from October (54%).

A plurality (42%) continues to say it will be a long time before the economy recovers, but that is 10 points lower than in September. The percentage saying the economy is recovering has more than doubled -- from 10% to 24% -- over this period.

Yet there has been no improvement in people's assessments of their own finances. And while economists say that the recession has ended, more than a third (36%) say that the recession had a major effect on their finances and they have yet to recover.

Jobs remain the public's dominant economic concern, but a new threat has emerged. The proportion citing rising prices as the national economic issue that most worries them has risen from 15% in December to 23% currently. Over the same period, the proportion citing the deficit as the most worrisome economic problem is flat (19% in December, 19% today).

As state budget problems worsen, most say that the states themselves should be responsible for addressing these problems, without the help of the federal government. Six-in-ten (60%) say the states should deal with budget shortfalls by raising taxes or cutting services, while just 27% favor the federal government giving more money to the states. These opinions are virtually unchanged from last June.

But there continues to be far more opposition than support for nearly all specific proposals to balance state budgets. Large majorities say their state should not decrease funding for primary and secondary education, health services, higher education and road maintenance and public transportation. Most also oppose raising personal income and sales taxes, as well as taxes on business as ways to balance their state's budget.

There is greater willingness to decrease funding for the pension plans of government employees. Even so, as many oppose this option as support it as a way to balance their state's budget (47% each).

The survey finds little change in opinions about both political parties over the past few months. Currently, 47% have a favorable impression of the Democratic Party while 46% express an unfavorable view. For the GOP, 43% have a favorable opinion and slightly more (48%) have an unfavorable view.

The shift in the balance of power on Capitol Hill has not changed the public's view about the level of discord between the president and Congress. Fully 65% say Obama and GOP leaders are not working together on the important issues facing the country; an almost identical percentage (67%) expressed this view at the beginning of last year. As was the case a year ago, far more of those who say the two sides are not working together blame Republican leaders (31%) than the president (19%).

Continue reading the full report, including a closer look at Obama's approval ratings, views of national economic conditions, the deficit and government spending, state budgets and the topline questionnaire and survey methodology at people-press.org.

 

That's actually fairly humorous - people want the government to spend less, but pluaralities - and in some cases outright majorities - favor increased spending in most areas, and no one wants to see taxes go up...

 

Call it hubris, but I'm convinced that given ultimate power I could straighten out the budget within two weeks.

Of course forever after I would be known as Snookie the Axe.

 

The interesting thing about this debate is that I just figured my taxes for 2010 and owned nothing in federal income tax. I am getting back EVERYTHNG that I paid in regarding income tax after deductions for 3 children. I figured my taxes honestly, btw. I consider it every true patriot's duty to pay into the tax system, as citizens, to make the country a better place for everyone and would not have minded in the least paying into the system. I can't figure where the "beef" is with these Tea Party cry babies who say they are being taxed too much by the feds. Maybe they just don't like the guy they are paying it to. It would not surprise me.

 

Shaman, politicians aren't supposed to be elected simply to rubber-stamp their constituents' opinions. I know they often do, but that's not how it's supposed to work. Politicians are supposed to make the hard decisions, such as we need to cut that grant to give free electricity to the poor so we can keep giving them some kind of health care, or vice versa.

In reality, I think the budget should be re-worked from the beginning. Look at what the government is constitutionally required to do, first. Figure out how much that would cost, and how much we have left (considering current taxes). Then start talking about adding things according to how much money we have left and how much we want to raise taxes. When we run out of money, including reasonable (i.e. neither max nor min, but probably closer to min) estimates of how much money we'll get, we stop adding new programs. If that means the military takes a big hit, because you want to fund something else instead, then too bad for the military.

For too long we've expected the government to fund everything everyone wants, including being the primary backbone for our economy (the much-derided US military-industrial complex is the single largest-dollar exporter in the US). We just can't fund that. Even with increased taxes, we probably couldn't fund that. We need to figure out what needs to be done, and then start figuring out what we want done.

It'd also be better if funding for research projects were assigned in 10-year intervals instead of one-year intervals. Researchers don't like to think they'll run out of money half-way through a project.

 

BTA, 38% of Americans have zero income tax liability, but they still pay other federal taxes. Many of those 38% are tea partiers.

 

I did pay other federal taxes, as well as local and state taxes. This was the first year I ever used the long form for taxes.

 

Well, "more" is going to have to come from somewhere, because even if we enact real entitlement reform with real teeth (and we need to), we still won't have enough revenue left over to address the fallout of more than a decade of tax cuts, wanton spending, and de-regulation. Since we have to cut entitlements if we wish to ensure our long term economic viability, there's really no conceivable way to ask the poorest among us -- who depend on those entitlements to subsidize their substandard wages -- to shoulder the additional tax burden. That burden will necessarily fall to those who are most able to pay.

Before we can see a more "fair" distribution of the tax burden, we all need to get behind real and legitimate wage reform with teeth and a sensible baseline. With the implementation a sensible minimum wage that actually keeps up with the cost of living, less people would qualify for food stamps, medicaid, and housing assisance, and more households would make enough money to shoulder their fair share of the tax burden rather than suckling at the government teat. The system as it stands now essentially subsidizes the service industry, enabling them to pay their employees a substandard wage and pass the burden on to more well-off tax payers who do not benefit from entitlement programs.

 

A fair minimum wage sounds like a darn good place to start. It needs to be coupled with other legislation that protects workers from being screwed, either financially or otherwise, by big business employers.

 

28% tax BTA? Aren't you one of those lawyers as well so I guess you make a decent salary? 28% sounds low low low, I love paying taxes. For once I agree with Snook, I also think I could fix the US budget within weeks. Cut military spending with 60-90% and raise the tax for most Americans with 5-20% problem solved and with enough money left over for health care and decent education for everyone. The swimming pool industry would take a hit though.

 

According to the statistics, more of them aren't.

Joacqin, cutting the US military budget 60-90% would be disasterous to both the economy and the future of the US in the long term. I agree it needs to be cut, but that much is ridiculous. It needs to be trimmed, not beheaded.

 

10% to the state? That is enormously high. Then again, CA does have the largest deficit of any state right now. I think my effective federal tax rate (the sheet that turbo tax prints that tells you what actual percetnage of your income went to taxes) was 12% last year. (I haven't done my 2011 taxes yet.)

As for state and local - there's a flat 3% county tax, and while there is a state tax, it's no where near 10%. It's progressive, so it depends on how much you actually make, but it caps at 6%, and I think you need a pretty decent salary to get it that high.

How CtR ended up paying NO taxes (unless he and his wife make hardly any money) is beyond me.

 

No matter how much you love them, pets don't qualify as "children" under the US tax code.

 

That effect would be probably primarily so because weapons are about the last thing the US is still manufacturing in numbers domestically.

It's worth keeping in mind that the 2009 U.S. military budget accounts for ~46% of global arms spending.

​

As for the US losing its edge - going from 20 times the budget of the next big spender to only 8 times (roughly along the lines of what joa proposed) that would indeed induce dangerous vulnerabilities. In fact of such prospects that I'd shake in my boots if I was American. The end would be imminent!

 

I was also only talking about income tax, if I would add upp every single little thing I pay to the government I am pretty sure I would pay well over 50% of my income and I make very average money.

 

Following the track here I can see it makes sense. When it was just Mrs Chandos and I, we paid around 18-20 percent in FIT, the same as BTA. After we had one child it went to 12-15 percent, which is your rate Aldeth, [and I think you still have one child]. The year we had Nathan, we had a pretty hefty spike in income [I think we paid 8 percent that year], but last year our income dropped because I'm only working part-time, but we still did OK. If you had two more children, I'm sure your rate would be quite low as well, Aldeth.