States like New York should stop spending. But shouldn’t cut any programs.
Pew’s new poll on state government spending offers some interesting new snapshots of the public attitude on spending and the deficit.
Here are some takeaways.
Most Americans don’t want the Federal government to spend any more money to help bail out cash-strapped states and local governments.
So there you go, Albany. We’re on our own.
But when asked about cutting specific government services offered by state and local agencies most Americans said No and Hell no.
73% of Americans — a whopping majority — don’t want any state cuts to K-12 education.
71% don’t want any state cuts to police, fire or other public safety departments, either.
Okay, so how about health care? There’s been so much conservative rhetoric about “socialist” government spending on health programs. Surely we’re willing to lay off a few doctors and nurses.
Nope. 65% say states and local governments should keep providing all their current health programs.
The closest thing to a majority of support for cuts — and this surprised me — was 43% backing for cutting road and transportation spending.
I thought Americans liked infrastructure investment…
But even there, half of Americans were opposed to cuts.
If the Feds aren’t going to help out and states can’t cut anything, that leaves taxes — right? Wrong.
58% of Americans said no to the idea of raising taxes.
So here’s our quandary in a nutshell– and the reason I think it’s a dodge to blame our current fiscal mess on politicians in Albany and Washington.
Americans want big government. They love big government. So long as it comes free, or at bargain-basement prices. But I think it’s clear that the bill is coming due.
Your thoughts?
.jpg)
From all that I can only presume “Americans” want totax the rich.
More correctly, to tax everyone except themselves.
This is a fine example of the disconnect between reality and wishes. We all want something for nothing and to win the Lotto too. There are few who are willing to make the sacrifice needed to solve the problem either at the local, State or national level. So what will we end up with? More taxes, more borrowing and more regulation. I can almost guarantee it.
I work for an agency that is largely funded with taxpayer dollars, both income and property. I’m both amused and discourage when my co-workers complain about their taxes. Gee whiz, we are the lucky ones who are getting back every tax dollar we pay, and more.
Reagan taught us all that taxes are evil, even though we all benefit from the services they pay for. We are at the point where we must decide to either pay for our services, or do without.
The problem is that it really is a horrible idea to cut government spending by raising taxes or lowering spending during a depression.
NYS should probably cut medicaid which in NYS is one of the most generous in the nation. I am not saying we would reduce the number of people, just reduce what medicaid covers in NYS that many other states don’t cover. How do some other states do so much better fiscally I think is a question we should ask? We have very high taxes and high rates of spending, but I am not sure we see results from that spending.
It’s the Walmart principle. Everyone wants more for less.
Did anybody ask or suggest we cut the overall numbers and the salaries of people in government?
We are burdened by a large, fat and slow government, a couch potato with no agility what so ever.
Generally i think we don’t mind so much that we need to “pay” but we are dissapointed in the value and quality of the return.
Brian says, “There’s been so much conservative rhetoric about “socialist” government spending on health programs. Surely we’re willing to lay off a few doctors and nurses.”
Nope. Let’s lay off a few lawyers!
I don’t think any New Yorker can watch the budget process in Albany and be proud of our tax dollars at work. It is offensive to hear the posturing and grandstanding go on without the humility to do the hard work of negotiating a fair budget.
Anita, Reagan didn’t teach that taxes are evil. Reagan taught that taxes stifle growth and the continuing growth of gov’t requires more taxes resulting in stifled growth, etc.
No one denies that taxes are a necessary thing. We have to support our infrastructure. The problem comes from the idea that “the government will pay for it”, that gov’t is the best way to accomplish everything and that we get our moneys worth from our taxes. Gov’t has NO money, it all comes from us in one form or another. Gov’t is hugely inefficient in nearly every way I can think of. True, in some areas gov’t is the only current practical way to provide certain services, but it never comes as inexpensively as it might. Anyone who works in Gov’t can simply look around them to see the waste, fraud and abuse. Open your trap about it and you become a pariah. No one cares about the waste, theft, abuse and loss.
Sooner of or later the awful truth is going to hit people- the gov’t, at every level, is robbing you. The vast majority of people don’t get anything back from their taxes beyond plowed roads and fire protection, things like that. We have duplication at many levels and yet we have no services in others. We go along day after day paying taxes because we have no other choice, because we just accept there’s little we can do about it. Gov’t grows and grows and taxes increase and politicians play the blame game.
And 80% of America doesn’t care as long as they get football and “Dancing with the Stars”.
Bret –
What you’re saying here is simply and factually wrong. And our disagreement isn’t over a philosophy of government, it’s math.
By every measure, government is actually giving Americans far more in services than we pay for.
When you look at the basic programs that state and Federal government provide — military defense, homeland security, social security, medicare and medicaid and K-12 education — these programs alone eat up more $$s than we are collectively paying in taxes.
When you add in all the other things that government is doing — hiring state police, running prisons, etc. — the gap between what we want government to do and what we’re willing to pay for is even larger.
This is the challenge for small-government conservatives as well as big-government liberals — to speak honestly to the American people about the changes ahead.
The simple reality is that we’ve been getting a lot of stuff from the government for “free” (sustained by borrowing and the printing of paper money) and that will have to change eventually.
What are we willing to do without? Or — are we willing to pay more for what we want government to do?
Those are really the fundamental questions.
— Brian, NCPR
Brian says,
“By every measure, government is actually giving Americans far more in services than we pay for. ”
Then, would you agree it’s because the government is borrowing to pay for this overage?
Most of the political spectrum – left, middle, and middle right, just want to kick the can down the road and ignore the issue – mostly for their own political expediency.
Most Americans act like kids whose parents tell them they can’t have what they want.
It is only the politically brave who stand up and say, “you can’t spend more than you make”.
And that’s different than saying, “we will just keep borrowing or printing, so don’t worry about it”.
“Reagan taught that taxes stifle growth and the continuing growth of gov’t requires more taxes resulting in stifled growth, etc.”
There you go again! Sure Reagan cut taxes. Then (probably because of his tax cuts) he had to raise taxes. A tax increase on business in 1982, increased payroll taxes in 1983 and taxes on energy in 1984. But I guess those aren’t really taxes, since they aren’t income tax.
JDM – Yes, absolutely — the left and right are both perpetrating a myth here.
The right argues that we’re getting less government than we’re paying for — some even want MORE tax cuts. This despite the fact that conservatives have helped to expand dramatically the size and cost of government.
The left, meanwhile, seems to feel that we can keep borrowing and taxing forever to pay for even bigger and larger programs. It’s really hard to make their math work.
And as you suggest, underlying the whole problem are the American people who have become acclimated to the idea of getting government for free.
–Brian, NCPR
“The left, meanwhile, seems to feel that we can keep borrowing and taxing forever to pay for even bigger and larger programs.”
Proof please.
i’m with pnelba — where did that come from, brian?
And another wrinkle: almost every private economic sector is built upon initial, often massive, public investment. Imagine a world without public R&D in space, military, telecommunications, transportation, medical, educational, and energy sectors. Forget about telecommunications; eliminate interstate highways; gosh, no more dialysis machines or most other medical technologies. How many private sector businesses have we taken out, so far? Perhaps we have to re-think some slogans: let’s try “tax, spend, and grow.” Then we can just bicker over the details like “Tax fairly” and “spend wisely.”
Government does not have the ability to shrink itself; as long as we are able to borrow we will continue to do so. With bond yields low I predict we will continue to borrow for the next 3-5 years until the credit markets cut us of. There is no other option right now.
A couple of thoughts:
First, I think these surveys indicate the ignorance many Americans have regarding what are considered gov’t services and how they’re paid for. I’ll use the metaphor of the Medicaid recipient complaining about government run health care and the evils of socialized medicine.
Secondly, and this is a reply to Mayflower, I agree that gov’t spending and to a degree, legislation, can create markets for the private sector. Green, renewable energy is a good example. Take California and their very ambitious energy mandates in place now for years. It’s driven innovation, job creation, etc.
How about the DEC wanting to spend $100 million for more land in the Adirondacks, even though that will eliminate forest products and recreational lease revenues. Now there’s a waste of my taxpayer dollar.
How about that nice landfill on the side of the Northway near exit 18. What did that cost and what was the ROI on that boondoggle? Nice entrance into the park by the way.
There is so much waste that can be eliminated before education even comes close to the radar screen. Eliminate the toxic spending first. Support restorative and sustainable economics first.
Brian,
There’s a problem with the construction of the poll. You cite question 9 where 58% or respondents oppose tax increases but if you examine question 8 and its results you can see the problem.
Question 8 is – “In your opinion, which is the better way to address this problem (balancing the state budget)?”
“Should the federal government give more money to the states to help them meet their budgets, even if it means higher federal deficits?”
– 26% of respondents indicate support. [Read, Most American’s don’t want the fed govt bailing out the states. Maybe this is a hangover from other recent bailouts…]
“OR – Should the states take care of this themselves, either by raising state taxes or cutting state services?”
– 58% of respondents support these choices. [Read, a majority of respondents want states to make choices between tax increases and service cuts.]
What Pew should have done in question 8 is separate the two choices – taxes & services.
After reading question 9, what the poll reveals is clear. That a majority of respondents are in favor of cuts in nonspecific state services, that they are significantly opposed to cutting specific services, and that they oppose raising (non specific) taxes. These results are nothing new to report.
The glaring omission in the poll results is the lack of crosstabs. That is, a breakdown of the question responses by strength of party Id.
This would reveal, I suspect, greater differentiation among the respondents attitudes than what is provided in the poll and you are reporting (e.g. Americans love big government). There wouldn’t be any surprises here though – strong Ds would support spending for said programs and strong Rs would generally favor more cuts to programs.
Last, its an error to say Americans love big government as though “Americans” are a monolith, I suspect this is an effort on your part to be cute (read, provocative). But, if what you say is true, then why did only 26% of respondents (see question 8 again) indicate support for greater federal government support in bailing out the states? This is hardly support for big government.
jpm
JPM –
I’m more comfortable with my read of these numbers, but acknowledge this is interpretation/opinion.
I think when Americans are asked, Do you want big government? Or Do you think the Feds should do more to bail out state governments? the ideological/philosophical answer is No.
But when you ask Americans, Okay then, what programs should we cut? the answer is, Nothing.
Even many die-hard conservatives retreat to fairly thin positions — get rid of the Department of Education, for example — the implication being that “waste and fraud and pork” were significant parts of the budget.
But those things account for passingly small percentages — tops, maybe 10% of the deficit.
The problem — and here’s my main argument throughout these various threads — is that people really seem to want most of the services government provides, but don’t want to pay for them.
–Brian, NCPR
I just noticed Peter’s comment, and I want to kick this dead horse one more time.
I think it’s a matter of fact — not opinion — that this deficit is massive and systemic.
Whenever anyone talks about waste, fraud, pork, and other “easy” fixes, they’re not beginning to touch the problem.
Yes, those things have to be eliminated — and there are some programs that a significant number of people find questionable.
But none of that puts a dent in the deficit or the Federal debt. And anyone who tells you differently is peddling snake oil.
Now here comes the opinion part — but I think the evidence is pretty incontrovertible.
To solve the deficit, we will have to cut spending on beloved programs (education, the military) and entitlements (social security, medicare) but we will also have to raise taxes significantly.
The good news is that we know Americans survived pretty well when a lot of the current government services were much more modest — and we know the economy survived just fine when taxes were a lot higher than we are now.
So the fix to this doesn’t have to be apocalyptic. But it will sting.
There — the horse is properly beaten!
–Brian, NCPR
Brian,
I don’t consider what you’ve said beating a horse. In fact, we all have to face up to some stark realities. As a state, NY has produced and supported a lot of ill-conceived policies, and has incurred great economic, social, and environmental expense IN EVERY FACETT OF SOCIETY, from the most basic industries to the most sophisticated, from the cause of the death of the family farm, to the rise of the derivative trader.
As a nation, we are not the greatest, and we are not number one. Once we can get over that way of thinking, and focus on being the best, the best quality of life, the best standard of living, the sooner we’ll achieve our goal.
We also have promoted policies that have caused an income imbalance similar to third world dictatorships. For instance, a guy I went to high school with makes 10 million a year on Wall Street, ruining our economy and screwing up my retirement plans. 2% of our population now controls 80% of our wealth. What would it be like if 50% of the population owned 50% of the wealth? More civility?
National security is another matter; we need it because values are so far skewed from normalcy. It is a huge burden on our great nation.
Maybe we have surpassed a carrying capacity; balance is far from near, and fleeting when it’s within reach. That pendulum swings harder and faster than ever.
We need to “get real” and “make stuff” again, real soon.
Peter
I have a short list of things that can go. Feel free to add.
First thing to go at both the state and federal level is all salaries in excess of $150,000.
But you got to pay good money if you want good help?
Seems to me the more we pay for help the worse we get.
At the state level, let’s get rid of SED. Too many high paid people who keep tinkering with education to justify their pay and all they do is make things worse.
At the federal level, get rid of the ATF and DEA. How many law enforcement agencies do we need.
We could also make it a crime to even suggest an unfunded mandate at both a state and federal level.
And speaking of laws, how about if it was required that for every law passed, one must be removed.
We have way too many laws in this country. It has gotten to the point where it is impossible for anyone not to be a criminal.
It’s a crime.
I’ll add a couple of budget cuts. 200 billion off the defense department, do away with all agricultural subsidies except those to real family farms, eliminate the National Center of Complementary and Alternative Medicine at the NIH, raise the SS retirement age to 68, means test SS and Medicare.
I love the suggestion of doing away with all government salaries over $150,000. Let’s get patriotism and sacrifice back into government service.
We have to increase tax revenue, that does not mean you must raise tax rates.
When the economy is growing tax revenue increases the policies which encourage growth will help tax revenue. Raising taxes now or significantly cutting spending will likely send us into a depression we may be looking at 20% unemployment if we try to do that right now; if that is the case then maybe Glen Beck has been right all along, maybe I should start planting a bigger garden.
We don’t have to do that though we can simply not increase spending and not decrease taxes, just hold steady for a couple of years and yes borrow more.
Pete I will add to your list. Totally agree cut government salaries AND pensions above 150K per year also get rid of lifetime health care benefits for those same people. But of course that won’t come close to the cuts we need. We should reduce social security payments about 5-10% combined with removing the upper income cap on the social security tax so all people pay. Right now social security is a very regressive tax. Reduce all medicare and medicaid to cover catastrophic illnesses only increase the out of pocket costs of these insurance programs make them into a true safety net insurance rather than a holistic insurance, and means test medicare, why should people making 100-500k in retirement be using any government health insurance? As mentioned above substantially decrease defense spending by at least 25%.
I would go farther I would also increase some spending. I would increase food stamps, increase heating assistance, increase government spending on roads, basic science and technology and standardize and increase unemployment benefits for the whole country. None of those are large parts of the current budget but really alleviate suffering and are something a normal civilized society should do. Not buying one F-22 fighter aircraft which was built to fight the Soviet Union in a war over Europe would do a lot, let alone shutting down the whole program which we should do!
Another take might be that people want all their services. The fires fought, the bad guys behind bars, the infastructure maintained, the parks open, the tickets written, etc. etc. And they don’t want people to lose jobs. Instead those people providing those services should have their compensation reduced dramatically. After all when they took the health care benefit in lieu of a $ increase in the 70’s Heath care was cheap. Who knew it would get so expensive? Now if you buy a stock and it goes through the roof for you well you gambled and won. Butif you took heath care instead of wages welll you really should give it all back. And what about those police officers able to retire on just 20 years of service that has gotten too expensive too. Let’s undue that. In the meantime those who bought property and paid huge sums of money for it well we need to keep taxes low for them so that they will create jobs for us poor folk. Gimme a break.
Wow, a lot to cover here. Bob, I believe the retirement for some police just got raised to 25 years a short time ago. I’m too close to that subject to be objective, but 20 + years of that work isn’t exactly like 20 + years of teaching or putting bolt a in hole b.
And Bob, I’m assuming you and whoever else wanted to mess with Soc Sec. intends to have that affect things down the road and not cut benefits to those currently on SS? Pulling the rug out from under some folks will literally kill them.
Brian M- First off “…conservatives have helped to expand dramatically the size and cost of government… ” is completely false. No conservative did that. REPUBLICANS may have done that, but there are few conservatives in the Republican party. Took me a long time to get that. I hope you’ll grasp it soon.
Second, I’ve re-read my post and while I know what I meant, I can only assume I didn’t get my meaning across effectively. I don’t believe most of us, the taxpaying public, the 50% of America that pays income tax and drives the economy, the top 20% of income tax payers that make up 90% of the income taxes received, get our moneys worth. Yes, the guy making $25 K a year that pays no income tax and yet gets a refund get’s way more than his share back. The point is that the people paying the taxes aren’t getting their money’s worth. The money isn’t going back to the producers, it’s going to the administration costs, it’s going to support those who aren’t contributing, it’s going to foreign countries, it’s lost in pork and fraud and waste, it’s going to pay our DEBT.
Does that make it clearer? You make the correct point that we spend more than we make at all gov’t levels. Where does it go? Is anyone in Gov’t working to fix the actual problem ir are they working to ensure re-election by making promises on borrowed money? No one is working on THE DEBT, no one is working on reducing costs or cutting anything. And if there is talk of cuts it’s not to the bigwigs, it’s to Mom and Pop.
There is no easy way to do this. It’s going to hurt all of us.
Us All? I thought YOU were not willing to give back any of your pension and don’t touch my social security. What are YOU willing to give back or give up If as you say it is going to hurt us ALL? My point was Bret, that the only way to keep everything and not increase spending and have no one lose their jobs is if it gets done for far less. Conservatives have increased the cost of gov’t through DOD contracts to companies in the Defense business. There are many other examples. Oh one other thing I think your wife might not be speaking to you after that crack about teachers.
What we are seeing is the politicians becoming very,very good at divide and conquer. I’m thinking of free money to the locals, otherwise known as grants.
Everyone is looking for grants. Understandable when you consider how much it costs to fix or put in infrastructure. And why not go for it when everyone else is going for it. “Let’s get our fair share,” we all say, and rightly so.
But we need to remember all grants come from only two sources – taxes by the government and borrowing by the government.
There isn’t any free money. I would have said free lunch but didn’t because we all know there are free and reduced lunches, and breakfasts, all over the place.
And to those who are in favor of free and reduced meals at school, I say if parents can’t or won’t feed their children, they should be charged with endangering the welfare of a minor.
I don’t think there is any “free money” However, there are grants from private philanthropic persons and groups(think Gates Foundation)
“And to those who are in favor of free and reduced meals at school, I say if parents can’t or won’t feed their children, they should be charged with endangering the welfare of a minor.”
How do we get blood out of a stone?
Start taxing the pensions of retired state and local government workers. That would probably be enough to eliminate next year’s state budget deficit.
PNElba,
Why eliminate only one small part of the NIH? Is the National Center of Complementary and Alternative Medicine less worthy than other NIH programs?
Bob. actually she’s the one that talked me into retiring and gave pretty much that reasoning. And no, if you want to change things you don’t pull the rug out from under someone already in the system. In the case of pensions that is earned retirement income, the retiree payed into that account, it didn’t come “for free”. While I would agree there are some people abusing the system and something could change, altering someones retirement post facto is pretty much the same as Enron criminally. So if we want to change things then the workers need to know ahead of time so they can plan around it. That’s common sense and, dare I say it, the compassionate way to do things.
What am I willing to give up? How will we all be affected? I have zero faith in Social Security being there for me, despite my contributions. I can live with that. I can live without a central school system, bare roads, the National Endowment for the Arts and other arts supporting gov’t programs, NPR/PBS (sorry guys), I can do without paved roads on other than main highways, I can do without Saturday mail, air service in Oburg, the IRS, …let’s do it this way- Here’s what I’m not willing to give up in the public service area-
Police and fire/EMS services of some type
Some sort of road system
Some sort of postal system
National defense
A court system
Some kind of central coordinating national Gov’t
Some sort of vital records keeping system (Town/Country Clerk)
A basic social safety net for those who CAN’T fend for themselves, not for those that won’t.
Everything else can be pay as you go. We have responsibilities to our seniors and servicemen that we have to fulfill. We have debts that we have to pay. I see no possible way we can hope to cover our debt under the current system. I’m told there literally isn’t enough physical gold in the world to cover our debt. That’s rather a sobering thought, eh?
Not to worry Bob, people will not stand for cuts of any kind. So we’ll continue to borrow until the system eventually goes bankrupt. Then it’s a toss up- invasion by a foreign power? Civil war? Utter anarchy? Communism? Got me.
i vote anarchy
Scatchy,
Yes, NCCAM is pretty much worthless. We’ve been testing “alternative” and “complementary” medicine for well over ten years, to the tune of a couple of billion dollars and have yet to find a single effective “alternative” or “complementary” medical discovery. Do you really think its worth taxpayers dollars to determine if prayer is an effective medical technique? It’s either medicine or it isn’t. There is no complementary or alternative. If something works effectively and is proven safe, it’s incorporated into medicine.
But the thing is police, fire, roads, courts, NIH, reduced school lunches, food stamps, none of those things are what are the major part of the federal budget or even the state budgets.
You have to cut four things at the federal level, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and defense. If you don’t do those it is all window dressing.
63% of the federal budget in 2009 were those four things alone.
I just read in Time where the US spent $30 Billion on health R&D and $80 billion on military R&D.
How about if we dropped both and asked the military to get the R&D money by going into the Poppy business in Afghanistan?
In ancient times, the military made money. Now all they do is spend it.
As far as health R&D, all that does is keep people alive and miserable longer so the doctors, hospitals, drug companies and insurance companies can make money off of people for a longer period of time.
If you actually think anyone in government, business or religion really care about you, you are living in a dream world. All you are is money to them.
PNElba ,
What about chiropractic care? It’s certainly effective for many back problems. Herbal remedies such as milk thistle, ginger, green tea, etc. are effective for some things. The medical establishment wants you to believe if it isnt a drug that’s made in a factory it’s not effective.
Okay. So Bret you will give up your social security. That’s a start. How about a little of your pension so we can hire more law enforcement? You’d be defended better. And speaking of defense, how about a chunk of that National Defense you love(you know where we pay warlords millions in the name of National Defense.) Mervel is right and Brian showed us the data unless we due something about the big four well why repeat what is already been said.
Scratchy,
What about Reiki, Therapeutic touch, homeopathy, naturopathy, energy medicine, bioidentical hormones, accupuncture, qi, chakra’s and many, many more supposed “alternative” medical treatments. Wasted money as NCCAM has not been able to find any scientific basis for any of those “treatments”. As for chiropractic, I suggest you get up to date. The whole basis of chiropractic, vertebral subluxation, has been disavowed by the General Chiropractic Council of Great Britain. But the point is, there are places to cut spending that are not going to have a lot of effect on the average taxpayer.
What gets me is people not wanting to sacrifice ANYTHING. You know why not have everyone give up 5% of their social security or medicare? Why not cut defense by 5%? The cuts don’t have to be draconian they have be wide.
just the first result of a google search pie chart of u.s. defense budget, i’m sure you could find more…
http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm
PNElba,
I’m not that familar with most of the treatments you mentioned, but
I can say from personal experience that chiropractic care works (or at least it did for me).
Bob, I’ll repeat this again- I paid into my pension. It’s not FREE money. I EARNED it. And while we may need more LEO in some areas, the truth is the North Country is awash in cops these days. That’s great when you’re on the bottom of the pile in trailer park fight and backup is coming fast. But we did the job with a lot less years back.
And please don’t put words in my mouth. We need a National Defense. Do I believe the Clown in Chief and his pals are fixing things? Nope, but it’ll end someday. And then we’ll cut. And just maybe we’ll learn from the past this time.
Say no, those figures kind of pale in comparison to the $14 TRILLION in debt we’re moving towards.
“Nope, but it’ll end someday. And then we’ll cut. And just maybe we’ll learn from the past this time.” Who’s “we” Kemo Sabe?