NYT Blog: Keep Your Government Hands Off My Government Programs!

[Larry]

Friend on Facebook linked to this:

In a smart column today, Bruce Bartlett looks at why it will be so hard for politicians to cut government spending: because so many Americans who say they support cutting government programs don’t realize just how much they benefit from them.

Remember, for example, when a town hall attendee famously told his congressman to “keep your government hands off my Medicare”? Apparently that bewilderingly blinkered sentiment is hardly unique.

Mr. Bartlett produces the following chart, from a recent paper by the Cornell political scientist Suzanne Mettler, showing how many recipients of government benefits somehow don’t believe they’ve received any benefits:

That article pointed at another article, Voter Ignorance Threatens Deficit Reduction

It is a well-known fact among budget analysts that Americans have long had cognitive dissonance about government spending. They say they want it cut and for government to be smaller. But when questioned about specific programs, people mostly oppose cutting just about anything and often favor increases. Foreign aid is the only program that they consistently favor cutting, perhaps because they grossly overestimate its share of the budget. Recent polls confirm these observations and raise serious questions about whether there is any possible way of getting the political support for reducing the deficit and stabilizing the debt.

. . .

A Jan. 25, 2011, CNN/Opinion Research poll found a strong 71 percent of people want to reduce the size of government. When questioned about specifics, foreign aid again topped the list, with 81 percent favoring cuts. But only two other programs got majority support; 61 percent of people would cut the pensions of government workers and 56 percent would cut welfare programs. Large majorities oppose cuts in veterans’ benefits (85 percent oppose cutting), Medicare (81 percent), Social Security (78 percent), education (75 percent), Medicaid (70 percent), aid to the unemployed and public works (both 61 percent). People were roughly split on defense.

. . .

One possible explanation for these results is that people really don’t know the composition of government spending. For example:

. . .

A Nov. 30, 2010, poll by WorldPublicOpinion.org found that when people were asked what percentage of the federal budget goes to foreign aid, the mean (average) response was 27 percent and the median was 25 percent. When asked how much of the budget should go to foreign aid, the mean response was 13 percent and the median was 10 percent. Actual spending is well under 1 percent. And these figures are not anomalous; a 2001 poll found roughly the same results.

A Nov. 18, 2010, Pew poll asked people which of these four programs the government spent the most on: national defense, education, Medicare or interest on the debt. Only 39 percent correctly answered national defense. The second most common answer was interest on the debt, with 23 percent of people ranking it first. In fact, spending for interest is well less than half that spent on Medicare, which 15 percent of people ranked first. Education spending is the budget function with the lowest spending, but 4 percent of people thought it was the largest. More Republicans underestimated defense spending than Democrats, which may help explain the former’s consistent support for higher defense spending. Republicans also were more likely to overestimate interest on the debt, which may help explain why they tend to be more vocal than Democrats on balancing the budget and reducing the national debt.

Both articles contain some really eye-opening charts. IMO, the Bartlett article (and his follow-up, this week) have some really interesting (and scary) information.

[Thiebear]

i think means testing should be used in all cases...
Chips should not go to 80k, SS, Medicare, Medicaid.
I hear about double pensions a lot? double?

Don't Cut, Deny!

[December90]

I have known that defense is currently a bigger portion of the overall budget than interest on the debt. However I see the long term problem of the interest on the debt being much more worrisome than defense spending. If we returned to just half of what interest rates were under Carter then the interest would balloon significantly. Keep adding to the overall debt and again, interest will balloon significantly.

A major problem with the Pandora's box that is entitlement spending. You can never stop it once you start it - even though you couldn't afford it from day one.

[AsburySkinsFan]

A major problem with the Pandora's box that is entitlement spending. You can never stop it once you start it - even though you couldn't afford it from day one.

Sure you can, you just don't get elected the next time around, and after all that's what's really important to the politicians.

[luckydevil]

The simple truth is despite the rhetoric: government programs are very popular.

[mardi gras skin]

The simple truth is despite the rhetoric: government programs are very popular.

I really am glad we live in a country that is, so often in my experience, generous toward people in need. But I wish we had the mentality that we can't give away what we don't have.

Set a top bar for spending. x% of GDP. Make it an average over a 5 year period to account for fluctuations year to year. Then collect taxes at the rate we've agreed on. Argue over the method of taxation and where we spend it, but lock in the percentage of our GDP that we want our government to spend and that's it. Its all we have to give.

[Burgold]

I think a big problem is how many people try to take advantage of the system. How many overcharge the system, con the system, utilize the system unnecessarily. Take SS, it was supposed to be a safety net for those who would otherwise be left in desperate shape. There are people who legitimately qualify for SS and have paid into it who shouldn't get it. It should cut off at a certain level of income. It's to prevent poverty not ensure a lifestyle. I think that we need to up the age of SS and put in cutoffs so that it goes only to people in need.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I think a big problem is how many people try to take advantage of the system. How many overcharge the system, con the system, utilize the system unnecessarily. Take SS, it was supposed to be a safety net for those who would otherwise be left in desperate shape. There are people who legitimately qualify for SS and have paid into it who shouldn't get it. It should cut off at a certain level of income. It's to prevent poverty not ensure a lifestyle. I think that we need to up the age of SS and put in cutoffs so that it goes only to people in need.

Social Security is the most popular government program in history because people see a direct cause and effect. You put money in the system; you get money out of the system.

The problem is that people think that their money goes into a specific account with their name on it. That's why you hear people refer to SS as "my social security." That is not how the program works.

[Larry]

The simple truth is despite the rhetoric: government programs are very popular.

Especially if you don't have to pay for them.

Yesterday, I read a piece. (Probably while I was following the links above.) It was talking about how a big part of the situation we're in, today, is due to a philosophy that was popular among conservatives 30 years ago, referred to as "starve the beast".

The theory was that the way to curb the government was tax cuts, and lots of em. That if the government doesn't have any money, then it won't grow, and will actually shrink.

But the author pointed out that the actual, real-world result of this policy (which is still rabidly supported) was to disconnect spending from taxation. In fact, the author asserted that maybe if there hadn't been so many tax cuts, then maybe government wouldn't be as big as it is today. That the "starve the beast" policy actually made the government bigger.

Remember the justification for W's temporary, one year only, tax cuts?

The nation had just gone through the greatest sustained growth in it's history. And the Republicans, see, they had this forecast. The forecast looked at the greatest growth in our nation's history, and assumed that the future would be even better. (Because the Republicans were in charge now.) And if you then took this rosy forecast, and then took the most rosy possible numbers from the forecast, then there was money as far as the eye could see. Government revenues increasing by leaps and bounds forever.

In fact, the forecast said that revenues were going to grow so fast that if we did nothing, the entire federal debt would be completely paid off by 2015. And in 2015, the government would have a huge surplus of unspent funds.

And this was something that we could not allow to happen. Because in 2015, the Democrats might be in charge. And everybody knows that if the Democrats are in charge in 2015, then they'll spend that surplus.

The Bush tax cuts were a national priority, to prevent the government from having a balanced budget.

I wonder: If the government had a rule that said that every year, the income tax automatically went up by whatever percentage was necessary to "undo" last year's deficit, would all of these government programs be as popular as they are, today?

---------- Post added February-22nd-2011 at 09:17 AM ----------

I think a big problem is how many people try to take advantage of the system. How many overcharge the system, con the system, utilize the system unnecessarily. Take SS, it was supposed to be a safety net for those who would otherwise be left in desperate shape. There are people who legitimately qualify for SS and have paid into it who shouldn't get it. It should cut off at a certain level of income. It's to prevent poverty not ensure a lifestyle. I think that we need to up the age of SS and put in cutoffs so that it goes only to people in need.

I'll point out that SS is a very progressive system, right now. People at the bottom get a lot more out than they put in. People at the top, their money's just taken. When you double your income, you double your SS taxes. But your benefits don't anywhere near double.

(This, I suspect, is the main reason why the Republicans want to get rid of SS and replace it with private accounts, where, because of fees and things, the people with the big accounts get better returns.) (Well, that and the fact that big businesses would make a ton of money off of private accounts.)

[Burgold]

That's actually interesting. Sort of like when you are starving you start to store and produce more fat.

[Thiebear]

Ahh the republican fault for social security and medicare
There should always be a 5yr change in taxes to match previous best practices (used in all other fields) in same situations.
They need a NIST for Congress and get rid of the good ole boy system.

Wouldn't kill me to take a 15% increase in taxes to ensure inflationary prices dont burst a recession/depression/war/peace.

[Burgold]

Ahh the republican fault for social security and medicare

Ah geez, now Medicare's gonna have to put out so more money for Thiebear's paranoia treatments. That's a lot of dough in psychopharmocology.

[Madison Redskin]

I have known that defense is currently a bigger portion of the overall budget than interest on the debt. However I see the long term problem of the interest on the debt being much more worrisome than defense spending. If we returned to just half of what interest rates were under Carter then the interest would balloon significantly. Keep adding to the overall debt and again, interest will balloon significantly.

You do realize that there is a link between defense spending and debt, right?

Last year, we spent roughly $741,000,000,000 on our military, or about $2,600 for every adult in the country. We spend nearly as much on defense spending as the rest of the world combined. Some estimate that the war in Iraq will likely end up costing taxpayers $3,000,000,000,000, or about $12,000 for every adult in the country and just a wee bit higher than the $50 billion the Bush Administration said the war would cost back in 2003.

I'm hawkish on a lot of matters (I still support the war in Afghanistan and supported the surge in Iraq) and even I know that defense spending is a huge problem. I find it amazing that many people rail about relatively insignificant spending on on teacher pensions and health care benefits, or feeding malnourished kids, but have no problem with our incredibly bloated defense budget.

[Larry]

Actually, that brings me back to the article pointing out that people vastly overestimate what percentage of their income goes to income tax.

---------- Post added February-22nd-2011 at 09:40 AM ----------

You do realize that there is a link between defense spending and debt, right?

Yeah, they both go up every year. Just like all other government spending.

Defense spending isn't "off the table". But it absolutely isn't the whole problem, either.

[zoony]

I find it amazing that many people rail about relatively insignificant spending on on teacher pensions and health care benefits, or feeding malnourished kids, but have no problem with our incredibly bloated defense budget.

Tea Party be thy name.