Cut Spending, But Not Really

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Politicians love to say what they think voters want to hear, and in this climate, that means promising to "cut spending." Folks are usually rather vague about where, exactly, spending should be cut, and there's a very good reason for that.

GW's John Sides published this chart yesterday in a great Salon piece, noting that the American National Election Study asked a national sample in 2012 about various areas of public spending, and whether current funding levels should go up, down, or stay the same. These results reflect the attitudes of self-identified conservatives.

Apparently, conservatives want to cut spending ... except for all of the things the government actually spends money on. They no doubt like the idea of spending cuts, but balk at the particulars. (It's the opposite of health care reform, in which people balk at the general idea, but love the specific policy details that make up the reform package.)

It's a reminder as one of the reasons Republicans failed so spectacularly when they were in the majority and controlled all the levers of government -- the right says "yes" to tax cuts, "no" to spending cuts, "yes" to huge deficits, all while paying lip service to fiscal responsibility. As an approach to governance, it's incoherent and it doesn't work.

What's more, also note that these results were not especially unique. Pew recently asked people if they wanted to see more spending, less spending, or no change on various parts of the budget. The only area that cracked the 20% threshold was "foreign aid," and even here, only 34% support cuts. In literally every other area of the budget, people wanted to see more spending, not less.

It's something voters should try to keep in mind during the midterms. For every candidate who boasts about his/her desire to cut spending, there should be a straightforward follow-up: where? If they can't answer the question, they probably don't mean what they're saying.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/

[Obama 2012 1,714]

"Conservatives" wouldn't understand the role of government and spending if it bit them in the butt.

Liberals get it and understand it, but embrace spending money on BS most of the time because they feel government can handle things more efficiently.

The sooner people realize that the federal government is regulated to only spend money on national defense and the general welfare of the nation (and no this does not mean 'welfare' as you think... please read/understand context) then the sooner we could get back to a smaller/better legislative body.

Of course, that will never happen and we'll continue spiraling down the road we are on because BOTH parties are equally as guilty on spending.

The wake-up call for people (which it wasn't) should have been in 2006 when the Democrats (including Pelosi) ran/touted less spending/no more earmarks... then in 2007 kept on doing the same thing that they ran against....

[mawilson 2,133]

Funny how child care and education are always the first on the chopping block - with

the highest percentage of Republican-Democrat regimers who want to decrease or

eliminate spending.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

"Conservatives" wouldn't understand the role of government and spending if it bit them in the butt.

Liberals get it and understand it, but embrace spending money on BS most of the time because they feel government can handle things more efficiently.

The sooner people realize that the federal government is regulated to only spend money on national defense and the general welfare of the nation (and no this does not mean 'welfare' as you think... please read/understand context) then the sooner we could get back to a smaller/better legislative body.

Of course, that will never happen and we'll continue spiraling down the road we are on because BOTH parties are equally as guilty on spending.

The wake-up call for people (which it wasn't) should have been in 2006 when the Democrats (including Pelosi) ran/touted less spending/no more earmarks... then in 2007 kept on doing the same thing that they ran against....

I take it you embrace a form of Libertarianism? You keep repeating your opinion the role of the Federal Gov't as if it is cold, hard fact.

[Dan J 277]

What part of child care spending do they mean? If you consider all the spending on early childhood education and childcare it comes out to around $25 billion with the largest chunk of going towards education programs.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I take it you embrace a form of Libertarianism? You keep repeating your opinion the role of the Federal Gov't as if it is cold, hard fact.

Libertarain leaning, but constitutionalist fits a bit better.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Libertarain leaning, but constitutionalist fits a bit better.

Ok, so why do you think your interpretation of the U.S. Constitution is superior to our SCOTUS? It sounds like you believe that our current Fed. Gov't is in violation of the Constitution? If so, why hasn't it been challenged? Or if it has, what was the outcome?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Funny how child care and education are always the first on the chopping block - with

the highest percentage of Republican-Democrat regimers who want to decrease or

eliminate spending.

Kids don't vote, do they?

[mawilson 2,133]

Kids don't vote, do they?

Their parents do though.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Ok, so why do you think your interpretation of the U.S. Constitution is superior to our SCOTUS? It sounds like you believe that our current Fed. Gov't is in violation of the Constitution? If so, why hasn't it been challenged? Or if it has, what was the outcome?

Someone still has to file a lawsuit for the SCOTUS to take up the case.

Lack of funds, lack of support, laziness, etc.. are all factors.

A lot of people don't trust the SCOTUS either now days on either side of the aisle. They feel it's been tainted by politics and frankly they're right.

The problem with our nation today resides in things we had no control over happening as of today, but happened very wrongly. The 12th and 17th amendments are prime examples of this.

The people of the United States were NEVER supposed to decide upon the President, nor were they ever supposed to elect the Senate. We used to be more about checks and balances, but have lost that in many ways.

The House of Representatives was supposed to be elected by the people and represent them accordingly.

The Senate was supposed to be 2 members from each state selected by each state legislature by whatever manner they so choose.

The President was supposed to be strictly chosen by the Electoral College.

Then of course, the SCOTUS was supposed to make sure if all of those checks and balances didn't work out, they had the final say....

Look at what we have today though basically:

House - elected by the people

Senate - elected by the people

President - elected by the people

SCOTUS - picked by presidents elected by the people

Majority > Minority and is completely against what the constitution was intended for.

The whole point of our government and the huge MISCONCEPTION of the United States is that we are and always have been a Democracy. We were never intended to be a democracy in true form, we were supposed to be a "Represenative Republic" in which EVERYONE was represented accordingly.

Now we have a democracy where political activism and corruption rule the day.

That's one of the many areas where we have gone wrong over the course of time.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Someone still has to file a lawsuit for the SCOTUS to take up the case.

Lack of funds, lack of support, laziness, etc.. are all factors.

A lot of people don't trust the SCOTUS either now days on either side of the aisle. They feel it's been tainted by politics and frankly they're right.

The problem with our nation today resides in things we had no control over happening as of today, but happened very wrongly. The 12th and 17th amendments are prime examples of this.

The people of the United States were NEVER supposed to decide upon the President, nor were they ever supposed to elect the Senate. We used to be more about checks and balances, but have lost that in many ways.

The House of Representatives was supposed to be elected by the people and represent them accordingly.

The Senate was supposed to be 2 members from each state selected by each state legislature by whatever manner they so choose.

The President was supposed to be strictly chosen by the Electoral College.

Then of course, the SCOTUS was supposed to make sure if all of those checks and balances didn't work out, they had the final say....

Look at what we have today though basically:

House - elected by the people

Senate - elected by the people

President - elected by the people

SCOTUS - picked by presidents elected by the people

Majority > Minority and is completely against what the constitution was intended for.

The whole point of our government and the huge MISCONCEPTION of the United States is that we are and always have been a Democracy. We were never intended to be a democracy in true form, we were supposed to be a "Represenative Republic" in which EVERYONE was represented accordingly.

Now we have a democracy where political activism and corruption rule the day.

That's one of the many areas where we have gone wrong over the course of time.

In your opinion, what time in our relatively short history of being the U.S. of A. did our system of government, which our Founders designed, become flawed?

[Ali G. 37]

the sooner we could get back to a smaller/better legislative body.

Why is that a good thing?

[Ali G. 37]

Libertarain leaning, but constitutionalist fits a bit better.

Okay that explains it. So in your opinion, smaller government in your opinion is better because people in 1787 thought so? Do you think this initially mentality had anything to do with breaking away from England, rather than it being so sort of superior model of government?

When I look at successful first world countries, particularly those with a higher standard of living than the United States, they all have a strong central government. Furthermore, their mentality is regarding government and its role in advancing their nation is diametrically opposite to that of libertarianism.

Actually, I went further and found that excluding the US, not one other first world country leans towards smaller government or libertarianism. Quite the contrary actually. It's quite bizarre for me that rather than what analyzing what is best for the country and people in 2010, a country bases all of its decisions on whether something is constitutional or not; which may actually contradict the 1787 constitution.

Edited February 25, 2010 by Booyah

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Why is that a good thing?

Because the United States was never supposed to be about Nationalism. It was groups of colonies/states living under a common good/cause, while at the same time maintaining their individualism.

The beautiful part about this nation and the way it was designed is that you can literally live in a 'welfare' state or you can live in a 'fend for yourself' state if you so chose to. You could live in a state where it's perfectly legal to be 18 and drink without penalty from the Federal Government, or you could live in a state where the drinking age is 30.....

Collectivism/Nationalism will ALWAYS fail miserably because people are all inherently different. The ability to have a nation that allows people to be as one, yet at the same time be different is awesome.

The problem is, people instead of looking to fix their state for its problems or instead of moving to a state that fits their idea of life (and some do mind you) they try and change things on a Federal level, when that was never the intention or design.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Okay that explains it. So in your opinion, smaller government in your opinion is better because people in 1787 thought so? Do you think this initially mentality had anything to do with breaking away from England, rather than it being so sort of superior model of government?

When I look at successful first world countries, particularly those with a higher standard of living than the United States, they all have a strong central government. Furthermore, their mentality is regarding government and its role in advancing their nation is diametrically opposite to that of libertarianism.

Actually, I went further and found that excluding the US, not one other first world country leans towards smaller government or libertarianism. Quite the contrary actually. It's quite bizarre for me that rather than what analyzing what is best for the country and people in 2010, a country bases all of its decisions on whether something is constitutional or not; which may actually contradict the 1787 constitution.

The constitution and the United States of America aren't my opinion, they are flat out facts.

Don't try and play the illusionist that people are different today. People are the exact same today as they have been since the dawn of time.

There have always been leaders, followers, workers, leeches, brainwashers and the brainwashed, etc. People are people, period. Time does not change human nature.

The constitution of the United States was written and its beauty is it lets all people live a life depending on what state they live in, however they choose to live that life. Without worry of a government breathing down their neck.

The United States broke off from England because of its overbearing Government and we created a Small Federal Government because of what we have learned to shy away from. We were a nation of individuals searching for a better life beyond Government intervention.

Too many are trying to revert and make us about the UK or other parts of Europe. We aren't Europe and we never wanted to be that. We are our own entity in the world and we should remain as such.

There will be a call to arms before the people of this nation let the constitution be destroyed. I would die for it with the smallest of blades in my hand if I had to. Every true patriot would.