Study: Public Sees Both Parties Cutting Deficits The Wrong Way

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. You can send him an e-mail, bookmark his page; subscribe to his RSS feed, follow him on Twitter, friend him on Facebook, and/or become a fan and get e-mail alerts when he writes.

Comments

[flipperwhipper]

11:53 AM on 04/05/2011

It's really simple.

1. Slow rising health care costs (f*ck the private market, single payer system)
2. Start cutting defense and related agencies, out of Iraq / Afghanistan
3. Higher taxes (5% for $100k, 10-15% for 100k-500k, 20% for 500k and up)

Budget crisis fixed with freezes or modest increases in most spending on Education, Energy, etc.

[norkas]

01:01 PM on 03/07/2011

Democratic politicians and Republican politicians do not want to here about taxing the rich.

Lets say anyone making over $500,000 a year wold have to pay additional tax tell me how support this bill would have?

This is when Democratic Politicians and Republican show what they really think of the voters in America and it will only get worse.

One Democratic politician and others thought it would be good only to tax people who make over a million dollars a year. That poor person who make over $500,000 a year cannot afford to pay an additional tax.

[kgt49]

09:57 AM on 03/07/2011

In my version, without cutting benefits to the elderly or education, or R&D, I cut the deficit to $191B and Social Security was 100% funded.

'Of those to whom much is given, much is required.'

The Republicans should be reminded of 150th anniversary of Lincoln's 2nd Inaugural was March 4: 'With malice toward none; with charity for all...'

[BlueCollarCritic]

11:02 AM on 03/06/2011

Real slick how you did a back handed insult to the people belonging to the Tea Party. I seriously doubt that those in the Tea Party would be the least likely to make spending cuts but it does sound good if you're goal is to attack the tea party image.

They are most likely not willing to raise taxes as they should be and as all Americans should be because the government will only waste the additional money you give them.

There is only 1 way to fix this financial crisis and it means severly cutting acros the board including very large cuts in the defense budget and I'm sayingthat as a Tea Party member. In addition the government must stop driving away bussinesses with its over regulation and heavy taxes.

As of 2010 the US had the highest corporatetax rate and when Japan lowerstheir by%15 as they have said the US will then havethe highest tax rate on bussinesses. Does that make any sense? For the US whihc is loosing jobs overseas at an alarmingrate, to have the highest tax rate on bussineses?

Corporate welfare is limited to a handfull of large international corporations who have boiught themselves politicians in DC. The bussines backbone of this country which is made up of the small to mid-size bussines is NOT getting welfare but is being driven out of bussines.

Wake up America and demand a throw out of the crooks in DC!

[68Namvet]

01:24 PM on 03/06/2011

Let's begin with defense spending -

First, end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Immediately withdraw ALL troops from both countries. Maintain air and satellite surveillance and a small (no more than 5,000 member) special forces strike group for short duration operations to destroy any found Al Qaida training or operations bases.

Second - close 90% of the over 1000 military bases worldwide - and reduce the forces of the remaining bases by 90%. (Seriously - would we be any less likely to attack - say North Korea - if they attacked 4,000 troops as opposed to the 48,000 we have there now?)

Third, cut the defense budget by at least 50% (making us spend more than the other top five industrialized countries defense budgets combined instead of over 44% of all nations combined). This would return between $3.5 to 4 trillion to the U.S. treasury in the next decade.

Forth - invest $2 trillion in infrastructure building in this country, and use the remaining $1.5 to 2 trillion to pay down the debt.

Fifth - Audit the FED. Close the FED. Have the Treasury and Congress take over their Constitutional requirements to control the U.S. money supply.

[68Namvet]

01:26 PM on 03/06/2011

Next, as to taxes -

At some point, we are going to learn that HIGHER tax rates drive more economic growth than lowering taxes.

Simply put, in today's economic times, with historical­ly low taxes, there is little or no incentive for corporatio­ns or wealthy individual­s to shelter their incomes with re-investm­ent into their businesses or portfolios­. If you look at history, the greatest economic growth of the nation came when marginal tax rates were much higher than today's. In Eisenhower­'s time, the marginal income tax rate topped at 91% - and growth was great. Under Bush (the lessor) it was reduced to 35% and growth was non-existe­nt.

It's a simple idea really, either you put your excesses back into the business, re-invest, hire more people and produce more or you lose your money to taxes. And, since we're talking about marginal rates, the tax only applies to what you make over say $1 million or $10 million - other than that - you pay as does everyone else.

This is history. It worked well under Eisenhower at 91% - even at 70% it worked well under Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter - Reagan began raising rates on the middle class and reducing top rates to 50% - and the redistribu­tion of wealth began. It's time to reverse this trend while we still have some modicum of a middle class left.

[Charlene McGrady]

04:44 PM on 03/05/2011

I eliminated the deficit (based on the exercise at http://public-consultation.org/exercise/) without cutting a single social program. I did it ending farm subsidies for the largest farms, ending the cap on Social Security contributions, ending the Bush tax cuts for those making over $200K a year, increasing corporate taxes from 14.7% to 17.6% and imposing a financial crisis responsibility fee on large banks and financial institutions. Despite what the GOP would have us believe, we don't need to cut out the safety net for the most vulnerable to solve the budget crisis.

[AmyInNH]

06:46 PM on 03/05/2011

The GOP is hoping to direct the public ire away from the corporate fiscal parasites on the federal budget but it doesn't appear the public is falling for it. It is funny that we flush Washington with each election but they simplistically interpret it as a swing in support for/against their party. They're showing no indication that they're going to figure that out. In the mean time, flush, flush, flush.
Sen. Tom Coburn on the news tonight, overlapping legislation "makes us look like jackasses". Oh it's way more than just that giving us that impression.

[BruceJoffe]

02:38 AM on 03/06/2011

Way2Go. I hope the politicians get your formula.
Perhaps the HuffPost could give this more Headline publicity.

[yougg]

08:14 AM on 03/05/2011

We definately need campaign finance reform. My preference is public financing. The Citizens United case that was decided by the SCOTUS has turned our government into a cess pool. After 2 years we have no reform of the financial system. Nobody has been arrested or convicted or anything over the financial meltdown.Corporations in the US don't pay their fair share of taxes. The extension of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy was absured. The Republicans are trying to cut funding to the IRS so that taxes due from entities would be lost. If I have to pay my fair share-so do the wealthy and corportations.

[MadAs]

09:00 PM on 03/04/2011

Americans across the political divide have a pretty good nose when in comes to smelling out the rats under the carpet, which is exactly where politicians try to sweep from view the vermin they are beholden to.

Get the vermin dollars out of our elections (hello pubic finance of elections) and maybe then we can see a representative democracy instead a representing blank (pick your corporation) democracy.

[TimeMaster]

08:44 PM on 03/04/2011

Here's the PROBLEM as stated in this article Q&A:
Q. 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. A lot of it can be explained by money.

Here is the SOLUTION: Tax all the political contributions over $1,000 that go to buying off the (to-be) elected officials. Or in other words - campaign finance reform.

The money is the problem, and most of the people are smart enough (could be argued) to know that the politicians no longer work for the public interest or what's best for the people.

Put an end to the elected by the people and paid for by the corporations sideshow. Repair the broken trust and the system.

[Ella Moss]

08:35 PM on 03/04/2011

Well, in our democratic country where the government is presumed to listen to the voice of the people, we, the people, are not heard.
When we protested Iraq war, we were not heard. Wisconsin protests seem to go nowhere as well.
Jasmine revolution is unlikely to work in our country. We are free to protest all we want. We just should not expect any results.
I took the "budget challenge": I raised taxes on the rich, cut subsidies to big farms, increased SS for the poor and solved the deficit. Unfortunately, I am not in Congress.

[MadAs]

09:02 PM on 03/04/2011

Ella, you got my votes and any I could buy.

[Alchemist65535]

08:29 PM on 03/04/2011

I'm not surprised at the outcome of this study since it was individuals doing it privately. The results of the politicians are very defensive so that they can't be accused of one thought violation or another. I spent decades with the group health business at one level or another. Plans we were hired to audit and supervise were able to cut costs, improve patient satisfaction and keep providers satisfied, except for incompetence or fraud. We took some managed care ideas that worked well and applied them to "fee for service" plans. We had full data access so we could see how the insurers improved their take and brought them into line. I could design a set of plans that would accomplish the goals; cost containment, improved service and hopefully improved health but there isn't a set of politicians that would ever approve it because none of those with power, especially big medical business companies and politicians, in this country would agree with everything, at the same time as finding high patient satisfaction and reasonably good provider satisfaction. Part of the question to be answered is whether it is necessary for insurance companies to make huge profits and multi-million dollar paychecks for executives.or whether it should be looked at as more of a regulated "utility" that is limited by price increase negotiations and specified and limited management fees. Insurance companies don't loose money on health and life insurance if they are decently managed, they loose money in their investments.

[RitaLouise]

08:04 PM on 03/04/2011

Here is where it should be cut:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/02/us-government-waste-idUSTRE7210CE20110302

Why is this overlooked while Planned Parenthood takes part of the rap?

[jaciem]

07:57 PM on 03/04/2011

Get the money out of elections and we'd be able to get this done. Unfortunately, the ones who would have to vote for it are the ones being bribed not to.

[Gonzo Don]

07:34 PM on 03/04/2011

Meet the new boss...same as the old boss.

[RobZantay]

07:07 PM on 03/04/2011

If you believe that the government is broke i have a bridge to sell you. The federal and state governments would all have enough money to run ALL our social project, and our schools and pay the government workers pensions if we just go back to the way we did things in the 1960's. Back then we ran a real war and started adding dozens of new social spending programs and still had enough money to fund the moon landing project. How did we do it? By having a progressive income tax program that raised the percentage that you paid as your earnings went up. A person who earned a million dollars a year back then, paid almost 90% in income tax. They still paid their workers and provided benefits and pensions. How? LESS GREED! We can see from the past 10 years that not taxing the rich or the corporations have not resulted in any jobs, in fact we lost jobs. Any politician that starts the conversation by saying "no new taxes" should be removed. These are not new taxes that I'm talking about, they are the old taxes that allowed the USA to become the leading country in every area that could be measured. It is time to stop believing the lies, and for the working class people to rise up in the same manner the Egyptians did. We share the same problem. A super rich class that is lording over the working class.

[new beginning]

02:09 PM on 03/05/2011

"not taxing the rich"? The top 1% pay 38% of all federal income taxes and the bottom 47% doesn't pay anything.

[mnyegele]

05:36 PM on 03/04/2011

We need teachers far more than we need hedge fund managers. Yet who is getting demonized as enemies of the Republic? Teachers earn pennies when you compare them to Wall Street speculators.
I support the 98% coalition. Giving tax cuts to the rich only creates political corruption, since they bribe governors, legislators, Congressmen, and judges. (including the Supreme Court.) According to the polls, the public seems to agree with me. But look at whom they elected. That's the problem. Don't blame Obama for this on, OK. The public needs to blame themselves. If they want effective government, they should not elect people who want to shut the government down.