See Sue Run (or deficit polling and taxing workers to fund programs for people who could get by without help) [New]
The National Journal polled Americans on questions surrounding the federal budget deficit (linked from Jon Walker). Did Americans blame the safety-net programs for the deficit in the federal budget?
As important, the survey found Americans unconvinced that safety-net programs represent a major source of the deficit problem. When asked to identify the biggest reason the federal government faces large deficits for the coming years, just 3 percent of those surveyed said it was because of “too much government spending on programs for the elderly”; only 14 percent said the principal reason was “too much government spending on programs for poor people.” Those explanations were dwarfed by the 24 percent who attributed the deficits primarily to excessive defense spending, and the 46 percent plurality who said their principal cause was that “wealthy Americans don’t pay enough in taxes.” While minorities were more likely than whites to pin the blame on the wealthy avoiding taxes, even 43 percent of whites agreed.
Given that diagnosis, it is perhaps not surprising that relatively few respondents said they would support major reductions in safety-net programs to reduce the deficit. Fully three-fourths of those polled said Social Security should be cut “not at all” to reduce the deficit, and exactly four-fifths said the same about Medicare. Nearly two-thirds even agreed that Medicaid should be entirely spared from cuts; just 5 percent said it should be cut a lot. There was more receptivity to retrenching food stamps and housing vouchers for the poor (only 51 percent said they should be entirely spared), but even so, just 9 percent said they should be cut “a lot.” Twice as many said defense should face big cuts.
And the accompanying graphic:
The 53% who think “the government taxes workers too much to fund programs for people who could get by without help” left me wondering who exactly are those “people who could get by without help.” Because Wall Street, Big Oil, Big Banks and so on certainly don’t need any government help. Another portion will define “people who could get by without help” as those that receive help from safety net programs. Probably many of those exclude themselves from those who get government help that they don’t need. B. Deutsch at ‘Alas! a Blog’ (linked by Meteor Blades), used data from Suzanne Mettler’s “Reconstituting the Submerged State: The Challenge of Social Policy Reform in the Obama Era” that was published in Perspectives on Politics on September 2010 (pdf) and built a revealing table showing how little many people know about the government programs that they receive a boost from:
Percentage of Program Beneficiaries Who Report They “Have Not Used a Government Social Program” Program “No, Have Not Used a Government Social Program” 529 or Coverdell 64.3 Home Mortgage Interest Deduction 60.0 Hope or Lifetime Learning Tax Credit 59.6 Student Loans 53.3 Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit 51.7 Earned Income Tax Credit 47.1 Social Security—Retirement & Survivors 44.1 Pell Grants 43.1 Unemployment Insurance 43.0 Veterans Benefits (other than G.I. Bill) 41.7 G.I. Bill 40.3 Medicare 39.8 Head Start 37.2 Social Security Disability 28.7 Supplemental Security Income 28.2 Medicaid 27.8 Welfare/Public Assistance 27.4 Government Subsidized Housing 27.4 Food Stamps 25.4
Deutch based a cartoon on the data he gathered:
What Do You Think?
3 Responses to 'See Sue Run (or deficit polling and taxing workers to fund programs for people who could get by without help)'
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Emocrat [New]
Wednesday, 15 Feb, 2012 at 8:45 pm
Most excellent, TBH.
The chart is interesting in the way it illustrates relative ignorance amongst the polity, along with some preferences. It also explains why both parties are looking at Food Stamps as a sacrificial lamb. The GOP can make some hay on those numbers and the Dems will “be forced” to compromise somewhere along the way.
The numbers on “defense” spending (really, shouldn’t we just call it “War Spending”? DoD used to be called The War Department and I think we should bring that back, just for the sake of accuracy) have been rather consistent for at least a few years now. That’s interesting, since a Liberal Party might want to make hay out of that one.
Certainly, any party with an interest in public opinion would take interest in that, yes?
David [New]
Thursday, 16 Feb, 2012 at 11:03 am
What I find most interesting about this is that the submerged state was a conscious strategy by neoliberals, who thought they could deliver benefits for people while not generating anti-government backlash. Of course, Americans were never anti-government, and they certainly weren’t against programs that directly benefited themselves. The result is that more overt and less politically insulated programs have been under attack (those that benefit the poor) while increasingly both parties go after the more overt more popular programs that previously were politically insulated. That no one talks about the basic idea behind social insurance (instead we talk about programs ‘working’ what ever that means) is a travesty. And since many people don’t realize all these benefits they are getting, they think they made their own way and blame others when they fail (and even themselves when they fail.) More destruction brought on by the DLC / New Democrat crowd.
The way to fight back is for activist to make the substantive case for these programs including expanding them. The public option remains a good vehicle for this, as would public option banking.
Emocrat [New]
Thursday, 16 Feb, 2012 at 5:50 pm
10 “thumbs up.”
Putting aside the fact that our media infrastructure is remarkably totalitarian, as social conditions continue to decline, notions like “public banking” should have a natural appeal. Especially now that the administration has given the banksters yet another bailout and a Get Out Of Jail Free card. A public bank, like the one they have in North Dakota, will become a deliriously good idea to many in the ensuing years.
And now that so many of the former middle-classes are learning all about poverty programs–because they need them now–and just how badly they suck, it seems millions are now finally on the learning curve they should have paid attention to many years ago. The Food Stamp bias is weird to me, given that 46 million people, including most military people of low rank, now need them to put food on their families. (Ever thankful for that, Dubya!)
People have to learn at their own speed, it seems. First they learn how the rich are raping them. Then they eventually figure out why that’s actually wrong more generally. Then they realize that things don’t have to work the way they currently are. Then they want answers.
Perhaps once Obama has done his term as Destructor-In-Chief, we can actually make some progress!