Excellent Polling Data on Spending Restraint vs. Deficit Reduction
by Dan MitchellWhen big-spending politicians in Washington pontificate about “deficit reduction,” taxpayers should be very wary. Crocodile tears about red ink almost always are a tactic that the political class uses to make tax increases more palatable. The way it works is that the crowd in DC increases spending, which leads to more red ink, which allows them to say we have a deficit crisis, which gives them an excuse to raise taxes, which then gives them more money to spend. This additional spending then leads to more debt, which provides a rationale for higher taxes, and the pattern continues – sort of a lather-rinse-repeat cycle of big government.
Fortunately, it looks like the American people have figured out this scam. By a 57-34 margin, they say that reducing federal spending should be the number-one goal of fiscal policy rather than deficit reduction. And since red ink is just a symptom of the real problem of too much spending, this data is very encouraging.
Here are some of the details from a new Rasmussen poll, which Mark Tapscott labels, “evidence of a yawning divide between the nation’s Political Class and the rest of the country on what to do about the federal government’s fiscal crisis.”
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 57% of Likely U.S. Voters think reducing federal government spending is more important than reducing the deficit. Thirty-four percent (34%) put reducing the deficit first. It’s telling to note that while 65% of Mainstream voters believe cutting spending is more important, 72% of the Political Class say the primary emphasis should be on deficit reduction. …Seventy-four percent (74%) of Republicans and 50% of voters not affiliated with either of the major parties say cutting spending is more important than reducing the deficit. Democrats are more narrowly divided on the question. Most conservatives and moderates say spending cuts should come first, but most liberals say deficit reduction is paramount. Voters have consistently said in surveys for years that increased government spending hurts the economy, while decreased spending has a positive effect on the economy.
I wouldn’t read too much into the comparative data, since the “political class” in Rasmussen’s polls apparently refers to respondents with a certain set of establishment preferences rather than those living in the DC area and/or those mooching off the federal government, but the overall results are very encouraging.
Oh, and for those who naively trust politicians and want to cling to the idea that deficit reduction should be the first priority, let’s not forget that spending restraint is the right policy anyhow. As I noted in this blog post, even economists at institutions such as Harvard and the IMF are finding that nations are far more successful in reducing red ink if they focus on controlling the growth of government spending.
In other words, the right policy is always spending restraint – regardless of your goal…unless you’re a member of the political class and you want to make government bigger by taking more money from taxpayers.
So we know what to do. The only question is whether we can get the folks in Washington to do what’s right. Unfortunately, the American people are not very optimistic. Here’s one more finding from Rasmussen.
Most voters are still not convinced, even with a new Republican majority in the House, that Congress will actually cut government spending substantially over the next year. GOP voters are among the most doubtful.







Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
52 Comments
From this compromise by republicans on the obama tax hikes (Bush tax cuts), we see clearly they still don't get it.
More work to do come 2012….
Politicians believe the only way to reduce the deficit is to INCREASE TAXES. Then when they get the taxes they create new programs and spend the money foolishly! So, the ONLY WAY to reduce the deficit is to REDUCE GOVERNMENT SPENDING!
Like this past round of BS and extending the "current tax rate", NOT tax cuts, the Democrats believe it is "their" money and therefore should be spent. This is not adding to the deficit, if it were, the taxes would have already been law, and the money being collected.
Typical of Progressives to claim that any "future" money earned by us is theirs to spend.
ENOUGH ALREADY! — STOP THE 2010 SON OF PORKULUS BILL (Polls at End!)
http://www.practicalstate.com/?p=3984
Cheers
"sort of a lather-rinse-repeat cycle of big government."
More like an ETERNAL lather-rinse-repeat cycle. Trouble is, you eventually run out of lather.
A while back I saw Jerrold Nadler D NY on tv and he was talking about IRAs and he said that the government had to do something because we (the citizens) were sitting on billions of the government's money. Say What???
The 2,500 year history of failing democracies tell us the mere idea of reducing spending is not a serious or sustainable solution. We have more than $13 trillion in debts rung up by the crooked politicians in Washington, in your state, in your county and in your local city. The reality is that every spending cut comes with the built-in opposition of the liberal party members who oppose any reduction in spending and control the media. So the outcome is that you get crucified for suggesting even the most modest of cuts. It's time to get real. President Obama proposed a salary cap that would reduce federal spending by less than 1/100th of 1.00% of the federal budget and the liberals came unglued at him for that. Can you imagine what these corrupt people will do when we say you have to reduce spending by trillions of dollars?
In the end you have to have a plan and by the time the bite gets bad enough that enough Americans will actually stand up and demand a reduction in spending it will already be too late. Look at where we are – we have obligated ourselves to future spending equal to almost twice the combined wealth of every person on the planet and nobody stopped that from happening. This isn't a plan and it is not even the beginning of a plan. This is a recipe for the destruction of our freedoms as this will never reduce spending.
You are trying to fix the wrong end of the beast. Would it not be better to find a source of revenue that was as unlimited as our penchant for spending? Would not that be a more realistic solution than to tell people they have to do without in order to make up for the corruption and avarice of those who came before us?
Would not that be a real plan?
When a democrat cries for "deficit reduction" what they actually mean is "higher taxes to support bigger government", this is undeniable when the totality of progressive history is considered.
Democrat and republican progressives have never met a tax hike they didn't like or met a voter they believed they couldn't buy with the public's money.
DINOs and RINOs that believe in Robin Hood political budgeting are buying the public's loyalty with the public's money aka bribing the voters with the voters own wallet.
While Fed easy money policies stoked serial bubbles in technology and housing, many in the public got intoxicated with the same deficit spending habits as the government. Now reality re-asserted itself, and many are getting re-acquainted with the value of living within ones means. At the same time we see government not only continue the same reckless borrow-and-spend habits, but faster. Personal experience makes the solution obvious. Borrow less. Spend less. And stop confiscating individuals' hard-earned money to dole out to poltical cronies, or to filter through bloated bureacracies to get where it's needed. IIn short, the public is sobering up. Time for government to do the same.
Across the board reductions in everything are the only fair and effective way to make up some ground. And keep reducing every year until our expectations of federal government are reduced. All the while having no tax increases to reduce the expectations of the Fed on the taxpayers.
At some point, the ruling class had better learn we're tired of them taking our property, using on programs we have NO interest in, using it to enable a huge slass of parasites, and doing it while bypassing the restraints of the Constitution. If not, they might find themselves facing an armed mob.
How about both a deficit reduction and a spending cut of say 50%? Until we take a strict stand on spending cuts, there will be no deficit reduction. However, I am dreaming the impossible dream since politicos depend on this excessive spending to buy votes to continue their hold on both the rice bowl and the large chair to hold their protruding posteriors. They talk the talk, but once the votes are counted and their near future guaranteed for two to six years, the voter is cast aside as so much chaff.
Wake up folks. Time to warm up the tar and gather the feathers. I do believe this type of punishment would be so much cheaper than court costs for impeachment. Just tar 'em, coat 'em, and run 'em out of town on a rail.
"Would it not be better to find a source of revenue that was as unlimited as our penchant for spending?"
Yeah, if only someone could come up with a way to do that. If only I had a link to someone with just such a plan.
)
The money we get to keep is referred to as "untaxed revenue" or something like it which implies that the government "earns" it all, and they're just "generous" enough to allow us to keep some.
What we really should be doing is spending money on building more printing presses so we can make enough money to pay for all the crap the gov't wants.
Until they start closing down agencies and reducing the federal workforce by a meaningful amount – say, over ten or fifteen percent – I won't take them seriously. The proper formula is to reduce spending by twice as much as you also reduce tax rates. To do that, useless agencies and their budgets need to disappear.
and hair to wash……………
Heard they are going to target the IRA's. Greed and power, it's that simple. I wouldn't be surprised if Obama pulls an FDR and goes after gold and silver too.
Many of us have been saying this for awhile. I say 90% reduction. Start with the newest and most misnamed boondoggle, the Department of Homeland Security (leaving the separate entities that were combined to make it and cleaning them up as far as possible); then Dept of Education, Dept of Energy, Dept of Labor, HUD… pretty much strip it down to DOD and Dept of State, with some ad-hoc agencies, Congressional committees that might sponsor some research, and privatize everything else.
It's time that we the Big people get these kiddos back in line and reduce their allowance.
Rome wasn't built in a day. Having said, I am working on the following white papers that will soon be available:
(i) Universal Health Care Benefit Program White Paper.
(ii) Universal Education Benefit Program White Paper.
(iii) Universal Retirement Insurance Benefit Program White Paper.
(iv) Universal Poverty Benefit Program White Paper.
(v) Universal Housing Finance Benefit Program White Paper.
(vi) Universal Corrections System Benefit Program White Paper.
As I get these done I will be posting them. I just have a big consulting load right now so my time to work on the individual white papers is limited. I'm going to try and finish the health care one tonight as there have been many questions on how we can replace Obamacare. I want to get to the education one though because it demonstrates a new way forward for education that, like the health care program, relieves government of the funding requirement and if your take health care and education away from the government funding pie, you suddenly have a budget that runs at a surplus. Something to shoot for without a doubt.
Well said. The Trollinator strikes pay dirt again.
"Most voters are still not convinced, even with a new Republican majority in the House, that Congress will actually cut government spending substantially over the next year. GOP voters are among the most doubtful."
Doubtful is an understatement!
After watching the recent "Tax Cut Compromise" unfold, It is obvious that we cannot let up on these crooks in Washington. We do not need another pork laden stimulus. Just kkeep the taxes the same as they are. It is not rocket science.
It's the spending stupid!
Guess that's to be expected,it's obvious that they can't stop on their own. We must get the American people to feel it in their bellies that these politicians are stealing our hours of work, to really feel that they are working for free just so politicians can look generous by spending our money on others' projects or needs.
I'm looking forward to these white papers. Atleast you have solutions.
Issa and his investigations are a good start…….IF they happen in earnest. When they are found guilty of corruption, fraud and the myriad of other crap they do, they need to feel the bite of justice, not the feather whipping Rangel had in front of his other corrupt assheads, who after Pelosi's little spiel, gave him a standing ovation.
Prison.
With no conjugal visits!
It sickens me to hear people constantly refer to Clinton as the President who got the economy on it's feet again! They give absolutely NO CREDIT to the fact that the Republicans FORCED his hand during his second term!! All the Democrats want to do is spend, spend, spend…other people's money!
Tax breaks DO NOT create debt…out of control spending by the government creates debt!!
And these are the same Americans who elected Bush twice while he was piling onto the national debt and foolishly believed Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11. The rosy appraisals of Reagan and Clinton's presidencies prove how uniformed the electorate is. Polls are great for taking the pulse of the mob, but are useless for governance.
Can you name some out of control spending to cut?
Yep …they're trying to figure out how to take over all IRA's, 401K's, Annuities …possibly CD's and they will decide your monthly allotment. We weren't in the market for long – got out just before the last implosion.
In order for the extension of the Bush tax cuts to add to the deficit
the Democrats must have already spent the money in a budget they
don't have.
You talk like a taker. Are you a taker?
Your welfare check. Taker.
Heard on one of the talking heads today that if the Bush tax cuts are not extended, they will be retroactive?
Can this be …what, for this year …the past 9 years? Additionally, the Dems are trying to insert an amendment that will not allow for ones mortgage interest to be tax deducted as well.
What I DO KNOW …this Tax/Unemployment Bill MUST FAIL at all costs. Obama, Soros & Camp KNOW that this IS their one and ONLY chance to truly takeover. And if they succeed, we will become the USSA, guys.
Medicare/Medicaid, EPA, FCC, military, all departments, and all other government agencies.
The list to too long to name all, so I just gave you the short version. Something I forgot to add to, all government unions and their pension plans as well, and all politicians paychecks to.
The only people who will have any so called wealth left after Obama will be ones who own land. But, like here in CA, the are already beginning the Eminent Domain thefts.
What the Progressive's are doing is lobbing half court balls, they have very little chance of making any of them.
They'll eventually get it, but it will be the Liberals who get it last cause by 2016 all the old rank & file will be out of offce. maybe some time in our life time will be witness to all the state power that the Fed's stripped from us will have been returned back to the states, while average Americans taxes will be at there lowest since Gov't started collecting taxes. maybe Americans will start to run for office as it was intended to have ordinary people represent the American People, we can only hope !!!
Does your father know you're using his computer?
You talk like a douche. Are you a doucher?
Stop the damn spending – decrease all fed employees salary by 20 percent, abolish the departmnet of education – what a total waste of our money and our children are not learning because they are not even being taught the basics. Get back to 2006 budget numbers – sadly, none of them are really serious about this.
The worst part of the tax & spend cycle is the political class acts like every dime they spend is well-spent. If $1.00 is cut from any program some child will go hungry or some grandmother will be kicked out of her nursing home. I bet if the truth was known the government could cut spending by 75% and almost no one would notice except welfare recipients.
Doncha just love this BS tax hike deal? The GOP establishment got rolled, and spending goes UP…
I wish we could put all of our politicians in a limo in London and drive them into a mob…
Well this is all screwed up from the start. Congress (the democrats) have loaded the bill down with billions of dollars of our money to pay off the usual and even themselves. The bill can't be passed now….or can it. If the Repubs want the bill passed before the end of the year they will have to let us eat the billions of more debt that the bill is loaded down with. All of the democrats theater is just for show. They will use the dumb Repubs to do what they want, pay off their special interest groups, themselves and anybody else they can.
Until the new congress comes in, expect nothing good to come out of Congress. And even after that if the Repubs behave as they always have, expect nothing except more debt and bad bills.
Papa Ray
You plan to break this all down into manageable chunks is spot on. We couldn't change the entire system without chaos, or it would take chaos to change the whole system. My only caveat on the whole thing is that Congress would supply the initial seed money to get the program off the ground, then hands off. Income generated by the program would not be part of the general revenues of the Republic.
"Would it not be better to find a source of revenue that was as unlimited as our penchant for spending? "
Do you plan on mining unobtainium?
Answer your own question and learn something in the process. How do we obtain money? The government is a stakeholder in the private-sector economy just like everyone else. That means the government can only obtain money by one of three (3) ways.
The government can steal it. When government steals it calls the theft "taxation" and yet it is still stealing and stealing is a limited activity resource.
The government can get it as gifts. This would be great, but it would be unrealistic to assume we can pay for all the spending we want with gifts, so scratch gifts too.
That leaves earning it. You earn money by working and investing. We know the government bankrupts every enterprise it runs, so earning it won't be a consistent plan for success. Investing however it exactly what we want, because:
(i) equity investing is not inherently inflationary in nature; and
(ii) there is no limit to the investment-income opportunity – you can invest as much as you like; and
(iii) equity investing can be used to replace liability-inflation as the means of creating currency and that creates the opportunity to pay off our national debt as if by magic, but really by smart design.
How's that for mining unobtainium smart ass?
The beauty of the system is that Congress would be placed in the position of never being able to corrupt our economy again. Read the banking system white paper on this (http://www.capitalismbookstore.com/The-Consumption-Banking-System.pdf) and you'll see that by changing the means of fiscal appropriations we completely change the outcomes that Congress and our economy can routinely create.
How does the government pay off the investment? (If we buy stocks of the government)
Or, how does the government get the money to invest? (If the government buys stocks)
How does the government investing in particular areas affect the market? Does it affect it negatively or positively? Does large investments by the government devalue the investment?
Frankly, I would be a little frightened at the thought of the government tapping into a "unlimited source of revenue". If they could some how have unlimited amounts of funds coming in, then they can promise anything they wanted to the leach/looter class. Why work when the government can provide you everything? What would happen to the investments once everyone decides to live off of the dole?
Equity-expansion means that instead of the government agreeing that new money (currency) entering the economy constitutes a loan owed to the banking industry, the government exchanges new currency for equity share ownership in companies. Under the system I created (called Lovellian Economics – and you can learn about the basics by downloading the FREE white paper on this subject at http://www.capitalismbookstore.com/The-Consumptio... the government is restricted to buying a specific class of limited-risk equity securities under stringent conditions so that government is not in a position of control with any company receiving investment. The government's position is limited to no more than 1/3rd of the total ownership of any company the government seeks to invest in and this creates a stimulus to the demand schedule for capital investment and a stimulus to the demand schedule for labor (answering your question as to why people won't live off the dole). The hilarious part is that while the system would provide for unlimited revenue for government, the reality would be quite different.
Here's why…
Under our current organization, units of government are endogenous stakeholders in the economy. This means they get their money from us – they eat at our table. Under the equity investment-income method, the money units of government would use for fiscal spending would all be exogenous funds – meaning it would all be "new money" to the economy and therefore 100% stimulative. When something is stimulative, it is self-regulating, so the government would never spend on an unlimited basis because it would run out of things to buy.
Looks like your plan would piss off a lot of bankers.
The credit part is a bit over my head, but if I studied your paper longer, I guess I would understand it better.
Anyway, interesting idea, maybe you can convince some small country to adopt it and see how it would work in the real word (if you haven't already done that).
You must be logged in to post a comment.