Skip to comments.Rasmussen poll shows most voters want govít spending reduced
Posted on 12/26/2011 1:13:44 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Should government intervene to improve the economy, and if so, by what means? Three years ago, a Rasmussen poll showed that almost two-thirds of respondents worried that the government would try to do too much in response to the unfolding economic collapse. Now a bare majority worries that government hasn’t done enough — but that’s not a signal that voters want another round of neo-Keynesian intervention. They would prefer that government start reducing its size and its tax haul:
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 42% of Likely U.S. Voters worry more that the federal government will do too much rather than not enough in reacting to the nations economic problems. But even more (50%) worry that the government will not do enough.
Those figures reflect quite a change from the immediate aftermath of the financial industry meltdown in September 2008. At that time, 63% of voters worried more that the government would do too much. In recent months, a plurality has expressed a fear that the government will do too little in response to the economic troubles gripping the nation. Earlier this month, for the first time ever, the number worried that the government would do too little reached 50%, a level matched in the most recent survey.
As a result of the growing concern that the government will not do enough, Rasmussen Reports explored the type of action that voters were looking for the government to take. Among all voters, 77% want the government to cut deficits, 71% think the government should cut spending, and 59% want the government to cut taxes. This is consistent with long held voter views that cutting spending and taxes is good for the economy.
The majority of interventionists want to see action on the spending side of the ledger:
Among voters who worry that the government will not do enough, 52% favor cutting government spending, and 64% favor deficit reduction. Those who want the government to do more are fairly evenly divided between those who want tax cuts and those who want tax hikes. Even among those who want the government to do more to help the economy, only 31% want to see an increase in government spending.
These figures suggest that most Americans consider the governments current policies as an obstacle to economic growth, explains Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports. As the economic weakness continues, a growing number Americans are hoping the nations politicians will do more to help the economy by reducing the burdens and restraints that government places on economic growth.
That’s good news at the meta level. I’d like to see Rasmussen dig into the details of spending reductions, however, to see where these same people will accept specific cuts. The problem, as Allahpundit often points out in these polls, is that spending cuts poll well in the abstract, but specific cuts poll very, very badly. Even in entitlement programs, which represent the single greatest fiscal threat this country faces, few people will support specific and actual reductions. Paul Ryan got pilloried for trying to push seniors off of a financial cliff with his reform of Medicare and the overall budget — and Ryan doesn’t cut current spending in that proposal. He just makes rather significant cuts in the projection of future spending, which is the limit of political reality these days. The cuts needed to reduce actual spending would seem so dramatic that it’s questionable whether they would get significant political support from voters at all.
The good news, though, is that 77% of voters oppose increasing the deficit, and opposition to higher taxes runs 2-1, 59/27. Spending cuts are favored over spending increases by more than two-thirds, 71/18. The demographics of that question show a broad consensus. Majorities of both genders and all age and income groups widely favor cuts over increases. Even a plurality of Democrats agree, 47/33, a majority of black voters at 50/30, and another plurality for self-described liberals at 46/37. This shows that spending increases — presumably including new stimulus spending, although the question isn’t specific to that idea — have very little support even in Barack Obama’s core constituencies.
The only demographic that favors higher spending over spending cuts? The political class, at 53%.
Conservatives are winning the larger, conceptual argument. In order to put this into action, they need to start winning the specific arguments, and Paul Ryan is at least succeeding a little, drawing Ron Wyden into a new version of his budget plan and giving a bipartisan platform for sharp reductions in the rate of growth, at least. That’s a very good start, but we need to spread this consensus further and deeper.
Bottom line: Everybody wants spending cut as long as it isn’t their pet project getting cut.
You said it ahead of me.
Exactly. Everyone wants it in theory. But there also are polls that everyone is against any Medicare reform that would change it much from its current form. Even when Paul Ryan buys off current seniors by having the program changes impact only people under 55, people still hate it. People think cutting off foreign aide is going to balance the budget. Its crazy. The only thing that is going to balance the budget is a headlong assault on middle class entitlements. But today’s America wants to have its cake and eat it too. Cut other peoples’ spending, raise taxes on “the rich.”
The Establishment is not the solution, they are part of the problem big time ! This is one reason why I liked Reagan, he didn’t care who he pissed off but got his job done. This is also why I didn’t care for Bush Sr. too much plus he got then “wimp” name. Bush is also very establishment and what turned me off besides reneging on no new taxes pledge is how he caved to each and every one of the democrats new legislation.
Also time to end this “to get along, you go along” mentality !
It’s a crying shame, isn’t it? That’s why nothing is going to change until the whole shitiree collapses.
“...evenly divided between those who want tax cuts and those who want tax hikes...”
“Don’t tax you, don’t tax me, tax that fellow behind the tree!”
~Russell B. Long
Agreed. See my tagline.
Yet, Obama remains in the high 40s for job approval. Are Americans still of the muddled mindset that he’s for cutting spending?
“Its a crying shame, isnt it? Thats why nothing is going to change until the whole shitiree collapses.
And I hope it starts right here in California! We need, once again, to be the “country’s leaders” out of the financial morass the country, indeed the whole world is in. California needs to completely collapse financially. Someone has to pick up the can and not allow any additional “kicks down the road!”
You know as well as I do that obama will ride to the rescue with our tax dollars if California collapses. The whole country is gonna pay.
IOW, those not wanting it cut are getting more than their fair share.
But obama doesn’t want to cut spending.
And his job approval goes up.
People are disconnected from the facts.
Speaking of repugnant, 16 Trillion...with a T, trillion in debt?
No, we don't need tax hikes, we need a massive shrinking of this federal behemoth. We need term limits on Congress and a balanced budget amendment.
We need to turn out the lights at the depts of education, transportation, commerce, energy.
Shutdown the EPA to the LMNOP. Change the tax code and get rid of the anti-American IRS.
I am about at the point where I think that it
will all collapse in on itself and have to be rebuilt.
I'm really taken back by the corruption we are witnessing in this government. Hell, Congress thinks it's business as usual, nothing wrong with the way they carry on.
We need statesman. Duty to country. Money has so perverted our representative republic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.