Paul Brandus: Americans don't really want spending cuts

[Winehole23]

The sound of metal on asphalt is becoming painfully familiar to many Americans. It's the sound of the can being kicked down the road by our feckless lawmakers. The latest can to be booted, of course, is that $1.2 trillion in debt reduction the super committee (http://theweek.com/article/index/221684/the-super-committees-epic-failure-what-now) was supposed to have come up with by Thanksgiving. Now, supposedly, an automatic budget ax will drop in a year, cutting $600 billion from defense and $600 billion from domestic spending, most of the latter portion from Medicare.



The less-than-surprising inability of the overhyped super committee to accomplish anything set off the usual snarky headlines and contemptuous utterances from the commentariat. Super failure, some sneered. Why can't our politicians do what the voters sent them to Washington to do?



Many of the pundits have it wrong. Americans did not send their elected leaders to Washington to cut spending — at least not in a meaningful way. And let's face it: The automatic cuts, at least as currently outlined, are unlikely to occur.
read more:

http://theweek.com/bullpen/column/222107/americans-dont-really-want-spending-cuts/1

[scott]

Duh!

[Winehole23]

that public attitudes stand in stark contrast to stated political preferences, is a valid op-ed point to make. it bears some repeating in the face of the vehemence of that attitude, JMO.

[boutons_deux]

iow

Human-Americans' votes don't frickin count, voting is a charade. UCA vote$ are the only ones that count. UCA corporatocracy literally operates govt (and the Fed) to its exclusive self-interest.

"government of the UCA, by the UCA, for the UCA, shall not perish from the efforts of Human-Americans voting"

[scott]

that public attitudes stand in stark contrast to stated political preferences, is a valid op-ed point to make. it bears some repeating in the face of the vehemence of that attitude, JMO.

I agree... but still... DUH!

[Jamtas#2]

I think an issue might be that the public has been conditioned by their politicians (both Democrats and Republicans) that the government will provide what they need but not make them pay for it. So we are left with a country that wants government spending/debt to decrease, but not at a cost of the programs we want (i.e. programs that don't affect me are ok) or at a cost of higher taxes (for me no, for someone else - it's ok.)

Need to move to a pay as we go format. Can't kick the can down the road for other generations to pay and can't have programs in place with no legitimate funding without accounting tricks.

We are at a pain point and need to realize to better the future for our country, sacrifices have to be made.

For taxes, i beelive everyone should pay into the system if even jsut a few dollars. If we do this, no longer can politicians promise programs to get votes that someone else has to pay for. If we are all having to pay for these services - we'll all be a bit more responsible on what gets put in place.

Re-write tax law to get rid of all the special deals. A nice simple code may, strike that will, have an effect on jobs as companies who sole focus is on helping those interpret tax law will not have much use, but the benfit to the greater good makes up for that.

Term limits and the such also would help to eliminate the long term corruption that can occur from "going to washington for public, staying for myself" mentality.

So much is broken - but I am not of the belief that we are screwed and no recovery can be made (to clean up a commonly thrown out phrase on this board)

[RandomGuy]

I think an issue might be that the public has been conditioned by their politicians (both Democrats and Republicans) that the government will provide what they need but not make them pay for it. So we are left with a country that wants government spending/debt to decrease, but not at a cost of the programs we want (i.e. programs that don't affect me are ok) or at a cost of higher taxes (for me no, for someone else - it's ok.)

Need to move to a pay as we go format. Can't kick the can down the road for other generations to pay and can't have programs in place with no legitimate funding without accounting tricks.

We are at a pain point and need to realize to better the future for our country, sacrifices have to be made.

For taxes, i beelive everyone should pay into the system if even jsut a few dollars. If we do this, no longer can politicians promise programs to get votes that someone else has to pay for. If we are all having to pay for these services - we'll all be a bit more responsible on what gets put in place.

Re-write tax law to get rid of all the special deals. A nice simple code may, strike that will, have an effect on jobs as companies who sole focus is on helping those interpret tax law will not have much use, but the benfit to the greater good makes up for that.

Term limits and the such also would help to eliminate the long term corruption that can occur from "going to washington for public, staying for myself" mentality.

So much is broken - but I am not of the belief that we are screwed and no recovery can be made (to clean up a commonly thrown out phrase on this board)

Not a big fan of term limits.

All that does is get a ton of people with no experience into the legislative process.

Not exactly a recipe for excellence, IMO.

Term limits have their benefits and their drawbacks.

If you are looking to get rid of corruption, you would be better off encouraging more transparency.

[ElNono]

Americans definitely want to see wasteful spending gone. And you get the feeling that there's a lot of that going around (pork, the amount paid for lobbying, etc). The problem seems to be that wasteful and non-wasteful spending is so inter-winded, it's hard to figure out where the axe should really cut.

I know, more DUH! material.

[Wild Cobra]

The problem seems to be that wasteful and non-wasteful spending is so inter-winded, it's hard to figure out where the axe should really cut.

I think we could start by not allowing non related items in bills passed.

[scott]

I think we could start by not allowing non related items in bills passed.

This is a good start. Agreed.

[RandomGuy]

I think we could start by not allowing non related items in bills passed.

Yup.

[boutons_deux]

"pork"

a minuscule percent of the total budget, like 1%

"lobbying"

the tax-evading wealthy pay for lobbying, not a budget item.

People want cuts, but they don't understand how nearly all Americans depend on federal spending.