Where do conservatives think we can slash the federal budget?
John Sides, a political science professor at George Washington University, dove deep into the results of a 2008 survey conducted as part of the American National Election Studies. He came back with something fascinating. (The ANES is an ambitious effort to probe the evolving thoughts of the American electorate over time. After the ‘08 elections, for example, ANES researchers conducted more than 2,000 face-to-face interviews.)
In one question, respondents were asked to rate themselves on a scale of 1 to 7, from extreme liberal to extreme conservative. In another question, they were asked whether they would support a reduction or elimination of federal spending in any of 12 different categories, from public education to highways.
Sides first identified those respondents who said they were conservative or very conservative. He then compiled that group’s answers to the question about possible cuts in federal spending. The results were posted at Salon, along with the following chart:
About 50 percent of self-identified conservatives said they would like to cut or eliminate foreign aid; roughly 35 percent said they would like to cut or eliminate welfare. About 20 percent said they’d cut or eliminate funding for child care.
But the most part, when offered specific spending areas to cut or eliminate, a majority of self-identified conservatives balked. (I tried to assemble a similar analysis of how self-identified liberals answered the question, but ANES posts only raw, undifferentiated data, and frankly I lack the capacity to tease out the answer to that question. Perhaps Sites or other scholars can conduct that research.)
I did, however, dig out a Kaiser Foundation study that helps put the Sides research into context. While it dates back to 1995, I doubt the results would have changed much over time. In the Kaiser survey, Americans were given a list of six programs and asked to identify the two areas in which the federal government spent the most money. (The possible choices were defense, interest on the debt, foreign aid, welfare, Social Security and health.)
The two choices mentioned most often as big-budget items were foreign aid (41 percent) and welfare (40 percent) (See Table 16). Those also happen to be the two areas in which conservatives are most eager to cut.
So you’ve got two areas in which the public thinks we spend huge amounts of money, and you’ve got conservatives eager to make substantial cuts in both areas. Theoretically, we seem to have a formula for cutting the deficit significantly. But there’s a problem.
In 2009, the federal government spent all of $22.1 billion on international development and humanitarian assistance, i.e, non-military foreign aid. (See Table 3.2, Item 151) That’s a mere 0.06 percent of the $3.5 trillion budget.
If you define welfare as a combination of federal housing assistance such as Section 8, plus food stamps and TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families), the federal government spent $173 billion last year, or 4.9 percent of the budget, on welfare. (See Table 3.2, Items 604, 605. For TANF number, see here.)
In other words, if you take the two areas most often cited for cuts by conservatives and you eliminate them entirely, you will have cut federal spending by 5.5 percent.
Then what do we do?
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
341 comments Add your comment
Bruno
February 26th, 2010
8:21 am
Big cyberwave to USinUK. You’re back off my sh$t list–for now.
When you get a chance, maybe you can explain to some of your liberal cohorts why plagiarizing entire passages isn’t kosher, even on a blog.
Southern Comfort
February 26th, 2010
8:22 am
Well, y’all have fun spewing and getting moderated. It’s time for my morning coffee. See y’all later.
Gale
February 26th, 2010
8:25 am
Hi Bruno, I guess you and I differ on the issue of quotes on blogs. I just follow the ‘don’t sweat the small stuff’ line.
Paul
February 26th, 2010
8:26 am
@@
First we had In the News – lots of slanted posts, no comments. Then we had Mrs. Godzilla – less posts, added her original thoughts. Then Granny Godzilla with the announcement of the newbie. Now Jenifer – almost a neoIntheNews – waaaaay out there with some of the Mrs. G good commentary thrown in to keep people off balance.
So notice, no ITN, Mrs G or GG anymore…. but we have: Jenifer! Kinda like a reverse-evolutionary resurrection thing?
stands for decibels
February 26th, 2010
8:27 am
sfd, are you not reading the stories about how company after company are just shutting doors rather than trying to continue to business in this climate? Do you not listen to the complaints of those who are just giving up about government interference, regulations and taxes?
No, I am not not (did I get that right?) reading the stories; I try to keep up with the binness pages. However, anecdote /= data. I see nothing to suggest that America is uniquely hostile to business in general.
And most of the complaining I read on the Internets concerns the horrible, dreadful, OH NOES prospect of maybe raising the top marginal income tax rates to what they were under Clinton. Which really is a separate argument; I don’t think that’d impact actual business development one whit.
stands for decibels
February 26th, 2010
8:28 am
oops. forgot to apply Teh Slanties to Dave R.’s quote @ my 8.27.
godless heathen
February 26th, 2010
8:28 am
I could cut the Federal Budget by 25% before lunch.
1690 Federal DOT employees make over $170,000 per year. I would start there. Cut them all to $100,000 or less. What are they going to do, go get real jobs?
Gale
February 26th, 2010
8:30 am
I totally get that it is nice to develop relationships in a blog. What I don’t get is dwelling on the posts of people you disagree with. It really should not matter that someone changes their online name. We know there are trolls that do that. (Not saying Jennifer is a troll.) But if you don’t like a post, ignore it and get back to an interesting line of conversation.
stands for decibels
February 26th, 2010
8:30 am
I can think od about 787billion in cuts.
Bob, are you going to give back the tax cut you received, as well, as part of that 787 billion?
Bruno
February 26th, 2010
8:32 am
“Hi Bruno, I guess you and I differ on the issue of quotes on blogs. I just follow the ‘don’t sweat the small stuff’ line.”
In a way, I agree with you, Gale. I don’t take blogging quite as seriously as many here do. The brouhaha last night came about because the poster in question not only didn’t attribute the quote, but accepted congratulations on the brilliance of the post without any acknowledgment that the words were authored by someone else. Beyond that, it was just a lot of fun to razz her.
md
February 26th, 2010
8:32 am
Merit pay for congresspeople?
Only if it has a clawback provision.
Gale
February 26th, 2010
8:33 am
Got it, Bruno. Thanks for enlightening me.
Keep up the good fight!
February 26th, 2010
8:35 am
Peadawg, are you capable of reasoned thought before you spew? Again, you attack the poster but not the thoughts or logic. So you are not for smart government? Which part of those words are invalid as to their import?
stands for decibels
February 26th, 2010
8:35 am
I could cut the Federal Budget by 25% before lunch.
1690 Federal DOT employees make over $170,000 per year. I would start there. Cut them all to $100,000 or less. What are they going to do, go get real jobs?
Let’s see–so you’ve managed to save a whopping 118 million.
You’ve got a ways to go. Unless you believe that our total budget is about 600 million dollars, in which case, go ahead and break for lunch.
Peadawg
February 26th, 2010
8:36 am
“So you are not for smart government?”
Of course I’m for smart government, geeze. I’m against plagiarizing and taking credit for a thought that wasn’t her own. Get it?
Bruno
February 26th, 2010
8:38 am
“Got it, Bruno. Thanks for enlightening me.”
Have a great day, Gale. I always enjoy your level-headed opinions.
I Report :-) You Whine :-( mmm, mmmm, mmmmm!
February 26th, 2010
8:39 am
SHOCK CNN POLL: MAJORITY SAY GOV’T THREAT TO RIGHTS…
Yeah, shocking to those at CNN, maybe.
The rest of us already know this.
Paul
February 26th, 2010
8:41 am
Gale
Might want to think about all the assumptions in your 8:30 -
ken R
February 26th, 2010
8:43 am
It’s a start.
Paul
February 26th, 2010
8:44 am
It’s not health care reform – it’s a jobs bill. 4 million, 400,000…. what’s the difference?
I think Spkr Pelosi’s trying to match VP Biden.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/02/25/pelosi_health_reform_will_create_400000_jobs_almost_immediately.html
md
February 26th, 2010
8:44 am
“Let’s see–so you’ve managed to save a whopping 118 million.”
Have to start somewhere. When congress considers several billion to be a rounding error, we got problems.
stands for decibels
February 26th, 2010
8:44 am
SHOCK CNN POLL: MAJORITY SAY GOV’T THREAT TO RIGHTS…
A modest proposal:
could we please please please ban people who copy/paste Sludge Report headlines?
And with that, I’m off to produce. Later, kids
Tall
February 26th, 2010
8:47 am
Mr. Bookman does raise a good question. Saxby Chambliss recently argued against closing an underused Dunwoody USPS branch. Neither side will want to make the hard choices. The currency and bond markets will do that for them(us). Recent activity in the Treasury bond auctions suggest a total lack of interest from foreign buyers. What this means is that if no one will buy U.S. soverign debt to fund the Federal Government’s spending, the Treasury will have to print money to pay for it. That results in a debased currency and runaway inflation until the bitter steps are taken to control it.
The situation in Greece, Argentina, Venezuela, Spain…is just an appetizer for what lies ahead in this country. California is in such bad shape that even Mexico won’t take it back.
There is a telling photo in this morning’s Wall Street Journal. A group of protestors is urging the Illinois state legislature to raise revenues in order to protect entitlement programs. I suspect the protestors don’t want their taxes raised. Clinging to our Second Amendment rights, as President Obama hinted, may be a good idea.
Paul
February 26th, 2010
8:48 am
sfd
Drudge merely copied and pasted CNN’s headline. You want to ban CNN?
Gale
February 26th, 2010
8:49 am
Paul, I tend to be an idealist. I tend to take what people say at face value. Some might call me gullible. I do not think we have all that many different people posting what seem to be similar opinions. But then again, who am I to say there are not people who share opinions and even verbiage used to make their points. I either do or do not agree with the comment.
Gale
February 26th, 2010
8:51 am
Like dB, I have to leave to do real work. Have fun.
Keep up the good fight!
February 26th, 2010
8:54 am
Peadawg, still dont see your ironic twists. But since we agree on smart government with smart regulations (which means more when needed and effective enforcement of regulations), then you must be against helping those who have lost jobs and need food to feed their families. Or are you also for those programs too?
Paul
February 26th, 2010
8:55 am
Gale
I’ve had a bit of fun when Jenifer popped up and others dropped out. No need to assume dark motives or make anything serious out of it.
stw
February 26th, 2010
8:57 am
JAY: Congratulations, its seems as if everyone who subscribes to the AJC has blogged you today. Has the papers circulation topped 2,500 ??
godless heathen
February 26th, 2010
9:00 am
“Let’s see–so you’ve managed to save a whopping 118 million.”
But it only took 10 secs.
USinUK
February 26th, 2010
9:03 am
g’morning, Bruno!! hope you’re doing well
(and I’m glad to hear I’m off your list … )
RWT – “But we need to take of our own country first, prosperity now, aid to others later. We simply can’t do it the other way around”
considering the teeeeeeeniny amount that goes to Foreign Aid, I suggest to you that we DO help our own first
godless heathen
February 26th, 2010
9:07 am
118 million here, 118 million there. Pretty soon we are talking about real money,
Why should a recession be a time of unprecedented prosperity for Federal workers?
Kamchak
February 26th, 2010
9:07 am
The situation in Greece, Argentina, Venezuela, Spain…is just an appetizer for what lies ahead in this country.
Nope. That particular business is behind us.
As in the American subprime crisis and the implosion of the American International Group, financial derivatives played a role in the run-up of Greek debt. Instruments developed by Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase and a wide range of other banks enabled politicians to mask additional borrowing in Greece, Italy and possibly elsewhere.
Paul
February 26th, 2010
9:14 am
Kamchak
Are you saying we don’t have a continuing debt crisis caused by appropriating far more than revenues because the subprime issue has passed?
Kamchak
February 26th, 2010
9:43 am
Kamchak
Are you saying we don’t have a continuing debt crisis caused by appropriating far more than revenues because the subprime issue has passed?
No, I am saying that Greece is only now coming to grips with the impetus of their current crisis. We’ve known for a while, and I believe that a large part of the Tea Party anger is driven by this, but that anger has been artfully diverted.
samuel
February 26th, 2010
9:54 am
For Republicans and conservatives concerned about budget deficits and national debt: http://www.omb.gov. After that, “Hstorical Tables”. After that Tables 1.3, 7.1 and 10.1. I’ll trust you conservatives to make your own conclusions. You can’t dispute facts.
reasonable
February 26th, 2010
12:09 pm
Having been away awhile, its nice to see that things have not changed. For the sake of sanity can we agree on certain definitions and facts in this discussion?
First, a deficit is merely where the budget’s expenses outpace its revenues for a year. At the risk of riling up some folks, there are times when running a deficit is a good thing, when the economy has turned sour, war, to pay for long term investments, etc: There are other times when a deficit is a bad thing, in a booming economy, repeated year in and year out deficits, deficts that are structural and lead to heavy loans to meet on-going obligations.
The real issue here is the long term debt encurred by the government. That is what economists are addressing when they talk about percent of GDP, the burden for future generations and the fears of lenders. You could balance the budget tomorrow and that would not change this underlying reality. Only surpluses such as we saw in 1999-2000 which could be applied to the debt will actually lower the debt percentage of GDP. Unfortunately, both parties have neglected the boom part of reduced spending to build up surpluses.
Anyone who has read Keynes’s work recognizes that he advocated cutting government expenditures or enhancing revenue in good times to build surpluses and increasing spending and cutting taxes in bad times to pump additional money into the economy. Its called countercyclical thory and was at the heart of his economic theory. Unfortunately, its good in theory but bad in practice as it is politically very difficult to increase revenues and cut spending in good times, a failing that both parties have exhibited since the 1980s.
This matters a great deal because too much focus on annual federal budget deficits rather than the underlying long term debt that has build up over many years and administrations masks the structural issues. That is why you hear economists talk of bending the cost curve and in 10 to 20 year cycles. Addressing this issue is not simply a matter of dealing with a budgetary deficit. Given the small percentage of discretionary funds available for cutting and the large amounts locked up in entitlement areas, the danger to the economy of sudden sharp yearly shifts in such a large economic entity as the federal budget, and the reality that the debt can not be addressed in a simple one shot deal, any changes will have to be gradual and directed toward reducing the long term expenditure picture.
Jay
February 26th, 2010
2:20 pm
M Percy, 2000 remains the appropriate base year, because Bush made his tax cuts retroactive to 2001. Therefore, 2000 was the last year before those cuts took effect.
However, let’s go ahead and use 2001 as the base. By then, the dot-com collapse had already occurred, which removes that excuse. Even then, gov’t revenue still did not recover to that 2001 level until 2006, five years later, and again it wasn’t by much.
Of course, the numbers I use in this post and the previous post take inflation into account. In other words, they reflect real revenue gain, not false revenue gain created by inflation. I used the same inflation-adjusted dollars in the Clinton-era numbers. Using the raw, unadjusted numbers would have made the Clinton post-tax-increase revenue growth even more impressive.
I took no issue with the spending figures. The discussion was about the claim that cutting taxes increases revenue, which it does not.
Jay
February 26th, 2010
2:41 pm
MPercy, explain your thinking for using 2003 as your base year.
2000 was the last year before the tax cuts.
2001 is the year of the tax cuts, and also is after the dot.com bust had played out. So I could see a logicial argument for it.
I see no logical argument for choosing 2003 as your base year.
And don’t you agree that using inflation-adjusted dollars is the only valid way to gauge it?
Stew Day
February 26th, 2010
11:12 pm
What our founding fathers never envisioned was a US government for the world–in charge of taking care of other countrys–let’s take care of our own problems first–Cut cut cut cut until we actually resemble a functioning government.
JB
March 2nd, 2010
12:51 pm
To Report @7:03 pm:
Wow, would love to see those highways and airports you built all by yourself in private-land without massive taxpayer dollars and oil subsidies…