Public Sees Both Parties Cutting Deficits The Wrong Way

[TampaYankee]

Study: Public Sees Both Parties Cutting Deficits The Wrong Way

Dan Froomkin

HuffPost Reporting froomkin@huffingtonpost.com

First Posted: 03/ 3/11 03:52 PM Updated: 03/ 3/11 07:06 PM

WASHINGTON -- If the public actually set the public agenda, we'd be cutting the deficit much differently than either the Democrats or the Republicans are proposing to do it.

That's according to a comparison of President Barack Obama's fiscal year 2012 budget proposal, the cuts for the remainder of fiscal 2011 proposed by House Republicans, and the results of an ingenious study of public opinion where a representative sample of Americans, asked how they would reduce their deficit, were presented with actual budget numbers and worked their way through a series of tradeoffs. (Try it yourself.)

While the details vary, the White House and Republican leaders both basically want to reduce the deficit by cutting social programs, preserving defense spending and raising taxes relatively little or not at all.

The public, by contrast, would do it primarily by cutting defense spending and imposing significantly higher and more progressive taxes on the rich -- while at the same time dramatically increasing spending in such areas as job training, higher education and humanitarian aid.

In other words, the public takes a considerably more humane view of spending than either party, is considerably less beholden to the military-industrial complex, and doesn't seem to care if the super-rich get a bit offended.

The study was the combined effort of a think tank, the Program for Public Consultation, and the polling firm Knowledge Networks. They presented an elaborate questionnaire to more than 2,000 respondents.

Given the goal of cutting the deficit, the average Americans did the job -- cutting it way more deeply, in fact, than either the Democratic or Republican proposals call for.

Ironically, the political subgroup that did the worst job was the slice of respondents who identified themselves as Tea Party sympathizers. They were the least likely to raise taxes and also the least likely, when faced with actual programs, to make cuts.

The next worst were Republicans, then Democrats.

Independents raised taxes more than Republicans (over $300 billion) and cut spending more than Democrats (nearly $200 billion), ultimately reducing the deficit by a whopping half a trillion dollars.

A major flaw with the study, however, was that it wasn't able to engage respondents in the biggest deficit-related challenge by far: slowing the increase in health spending.

But that can't be done simply by setting targets. That requires doing such things as cutting profit margins for Big Pharma, or reducing payments to specialists, or limiting insurance company profits or changing the incentives that make too many doctors treat patients like ATMs.

That's too complicated to present in terms of simple formulas.

In this study, the single biggest difference between the public and the current crop of elected officials came in the area of defense spending. At an event marking the rollout of the new comparison on Thursday, Steven Kull, director of the Program for Public Consultation, said many respondents were shocked to find out just how big the defense budget really is. (Imagine if they saw it calculated this way.)

They responded by cutting defense spending by an average of 18 percent, or about $109 billion per year. That's compared to the 4 percent increase being proposed by Obama and the 2 percent increase being proposed by House Republicans.

The respondents also called for $292 billion more in taxes, much of it coming from the rich -- about three times as much as Obama has proposed, and a far cry from the no-new-taxes mantra of the GOP.

What explains this huge gulf between what members of the the public see as common sense and what their democratically-elected representatives impose on them?

A lot of it can be explained by money. It's not a coincidence that elected officials support more defense spending, given the size and influence of the military-industrial lobby. Nor is it surprising that they are wary of increasing taxes on the people who pay for their campaigns.

By contrast, most of the things the public wants to spend more on -- job training, education, humanitarian aid, energy conservation and pollution control among them -- don't have wealthy corporate constituencies.

Kull had a somewhat more nuanced view of why the public seems to be able to solve problems, at least on paper, that officials are unable to.

"The political process involves leaders making commitments to groups," Kull said. Those groups help them get funding for their campaigns, and in the process, the elected officials "become very chrystalized, very committed to those positions," he said. These positions collide and compete in the legislative process, and what emerges is not the result of one comprehensive approach, but the result of many little battles.

"The average person is able to look at the problem in a holistic way," he said. "They are not committed to any position."

And while the superficial, emotional response is for people to say they are against either tax increases or budget cuts, when push comes to shove, they can see the need for both, said Robert Bixby, executive director of the anti-deficit Concord Coalition.

"When you do drill down and go beyond the surface reaction, the public is actually a great deal more rational that the polls give them credit for, and perhaps even more than politicians give them credit for," Bixby said.

Of course, if nobody listens, then it doesn't do any good.

"What's important is that this kind of information is communicated into the political discourse," Kull said. That way the image of the public's shallow, abstract responses -- against raising taxes, for instance -- isn't the governing one.

"Because there is another image of the public," Kull said, "which is how they respond in the intelligent, rational sense."

Dan Froomkin is senior Washington correspondent for the Huffington Post.

See original article at:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/03/deficit-public-sentiment_n_830986.html

[TampaYankee]

If this poll is accurate then this article gives me hope with regard to the American electorate. I have grown dubious of the ability of the electorate to see through all of the down right lies, distortions and generally widespread mendacity that permeates our news outlets, cable TV, and political commentary. Both sides engage in it although the party out of power and its sympathizers seem to push the envelope more.

If this poll is accurate then it shows that many in the electorate are far ahead of the politicians of either stripe. I favor pretty much what this poll says they favor with regard to cutting the deficit. It is rational and logical. It mitigates pain to the most vulnerable sectors and cuts a lot of excessive spending in the defense and national security area. That money needs to be reallocated with real defense and security priorities and not political priorties and cuts need to be made. The wealthy need to pay a little more in taxes in this time of sluggish and fragile economy. Jobs need to be protected not sacrificed in the name of blind cuts to the budgets.

These ideas may not be the complete solution but they are one damn good start and can be instigated with the next budget. However, neither political party has the motivation to implement this general plan. It doesn't serve the ideolgies or special interests that fund compaigns. Just another ramification of how our political process is contaminated by money.

[RA1]

Hooray for the citizens. They aren't as dumb as they look or act (sometimes), are they? I find that many even very many of the "ordinary" folks I work with are very well informed, at least about their opinions. They may be "wrong" but they can articulate and explain their views; ditto, when they are "right".

One problem with human nature and Americans in particular is the tendency to just go along when they aren't hungry, out of work or sufficiently annoyed by pols and "others". Slow to anger. Live and let live. All cliches that many Americans have lived by for now centuries.

Things are changing world wide and, as always, not necessarily for the better. Being aware of a problem is always the first step in solving it, isn't it?

Best regards,

RA1

[Guest zipperzone]

Things are changing world wide and, as always, not necessarily for the better. Being aware of a problem is always the first step in solving it, isn't it?

What ever happened to "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" :question:

[TampaYankee]

What ever happened to "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" :question:

Two things off the top of my head...

1. Lot's of stuff seems broken these days including the economy, health care, and gov't receipts and spending. Thus we have work to do.

2. The above maxim supports our continued dependence on foreign oil with the resulting balance of payments outflow, compromised national security with international milatarism to support the pipelines to the U.S, and ceding the green energy revoultion tecnology and economic benefits to foreign countries while we remain mired in the technology of the past.

File the second under a suboptimal solution that we cannot afford to depend on universally as we have done in the past. It remains part of our energy support system and will for some time but we need to decrease our dependence on it for a variety of reasons including those mentioned above.

So sometimes thing need improving even if they are still working in the normal sense. Else, we'd all be driving horse and buggy contraptions.

[Guest zipperzone]

So sometimes thing need improving even if they are still working in the normal sense. Else, we'd all be driving horse and buggy contraptions.

The following comments will in no way increase whatever popularity I may or not have. But what the hell - Charlie Sheen gets away with speaking his mind so I'll take my chances too.

We do not live in a perfect world. Are you shocked at this revelation :question:

Would it be nice if we could Sure.

But from a purely selfish perspective, at my age I find it hard to care. I don't know how long i have left to live.

5 years 10 15 highly unlikely.

I have no children, nieces or nephews. I have a partner of 32 years who is only 18 months younger than I am.

So long as things stay glued together for the foreseeable future, I really don't give a rat's ass what happens to this lovely world we inhabit. If I were 25, I'd feel differently - but I'm not 25, or anywhere near it

I don't recycle - can't see how that will help me.

Dependance on foreign oil - I'll probably always be able to pay to fill up the tank and heat the condo.

Save the oceans - I hate fish. Wouldn't eat one if you paid me.

Mercury poisoning - I don't stick a thermometer up my ass

So there you have it. The true me in a nutshell. Many will criticize - be my guest.

I suspect there are others who feel the same way but just don't have the balls to say so. Or.... perhaps they are more political savvy than I am.

I hope this mini-rant doesn't stop you from enjoying my picture postings in another forum. If so - don't look.

Have a great weekend guys

I have reread this twice - considered not sending it - but here goes anyway......

[MsGuy]

Oh, lordy, Zipper! Someone please fetch me my smelling salts.

[RA1]

Not so sure Charlie Sheen is "getting away with" speaking his mind but, if left up to me, you are certainly welcome to do so. I certainly understand each and every one of your "rants". On "bad" days I am very likely to feel much the same way. I also have no kin that will succeed or survive me for very long and I used to think, there is nothing I can do and it doesn't matter (to me) anyway. But, I now know several younger guys who I do wish to "have a future" and that means I have to do my best to participate in whatever it takes to allow them to do so. So, from a friend standpoint, I do have a stake in whatever happens. They won't have the benefit of all the good stuff (and bad stuff) that I have learned once I am gone but, in the meantime, they do, for whatever it is worth.

Besides, when the world ends or "rapture" comes along, we all have to account for "everything", don't we?

Best regards,

RA1