Despite his woeful lack of popularity, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) loves speaking on behalf of "the American people." And wouldn't you know it, John Boehner is absolutely certain that the electorate agrees wholeheartedly with ... John Boehner.
This is especially true in the fiscal debate, in which the nation's most powerful Republican conveniently ignores all available public opinion data to argue that "getting our spending under control" is "the number one priority for the American people."
There is, however, a quantifiable way of testing Boehner's boasts. Indeed, the Pew Research Center published a report (pdf) late last week that found that, nationwide, there's "little support
for cutting most programs."
In fairness, I'll concede that "spending cuts," in a vague and undefined sense, remain quite popular -- Americans want a smaller deficit, they're not eager to pay more taxes, so cutting public investments is, in the abstract, a preferable remedy.
But it's when we look at the details that the Republican argument falls apart.
Consider the chart that Pew published with its findings -- the only popular spending cut is to foreign aid, which represents less than 1% of the federal budget, and even here, a plurality of Americans want foreign aid to go up or stay the same.
This is not uncommon. On nearly every area included in the survey -- education, infrastructure, health care, national defense, environmental protections, aid to the needy, etc. -- less than a fourth of the population wants to see spending cuts, and a clear majority want spending levels to either increase of remain at current levels.
Now, I suspect Republican readers are thinking, "Well, that may be true, but the results are skewed by irresponsible Democrats who love spending. Take the liberals out of the equation and we'll see dramatically different results."
Except, that's not quite right, either. Even among self-identified Republicans, the only spending cuts that enjoy majority support are cuts to foreign aid and cuts to unemployment benefits. That's literally it. On everything else, GOP voters want spending levels to go up or remain the same.
Someone might want to let Speaker Boehner know. He may be surprised at just how much "the American people" disagree with him.
Leave a Comment:
I’m surprised that no one has yet brought up the fact that the sequester, with all its dire consequences, is exactly a small preview of what the Republican Party and its main proponents — Ron Paul, Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan — say we want. Small government, they claim, will get rid of these annoying regulations on meat and safety, get rid of social safety nets for the lazy, and will put money in our pocket to do without such frivolity. We will be happy to accept long security lines on the airport, or planes being blown up, or hugely expensive tickets as each airline takes on its own security apparatus, because only those actually using airplanes will be inconvenienced and the rest of us can buy more flowers for the garden.
This is the ideal moment to ask if the Republican ideal actually has any merit at all — do people in a technological interdependent civilization actually want to get rid of most government? Most of the people I know, when they are angry at government — and many of them are — are angry for one or two specific things. First, government employees had developed cushy, easy, safe jobs that paid more than those of the people paying for them — the Long Island Rail Road is a good example. Second, well-intentioned rules and laws had descended to the level of gossip nit-picking and byzantine make-work which strangled productivity and initiative. Although these points remain true and remain a cost of anger, they are not the same as saying everyone wants no rail road, and no regulation, and no civil service employees.
The Republican vision of no taxes and no services is finally getting the trial run that no previous administration of either party would allow. They themselves claim it is only a taste of what will happen as they gain more control — a “drop in the bucket.” Take them at their word, and hold them to that ideal, and do not let them “juggle” expenditures so that their little corners of the world are not affected by their ideology. Then we can actually see how happy our citizens will be. And then keep the focus on the Republican vision and what it actually wants to do.
These days Republicanism has more in common with religion than anything else. Just like the Communists of the old Soviet Union, one and all they are true believers. You don't confuse true believers with the facts. I mean a large percentage of the Republican party seriously believes the world is only 4000 years old despite all the evidence to the contrary.
Famously Harry Truman was once ask what we would do if the facts proved his proposals proved wrong. He answered "we will try something else." Can you imagine one of our Republican leaders saying that about Libertarianism and Ayn Rand's crackpot economic theories?
Fantastic insight......I would like the media and each party's surrogates engage in this type discussion. This sequester is a preview of GOP ideology, cuts with no revenue, shrink the government to a size that it can be drown in a bathtub etc. Their viewpoint and their governing style will be revealed clearly when the sequester is implemented!!!
This is truly lame. How about a real survey question like spending cuts or tax hikes?
I must at least credit you with chutzpah for using the word "lame" in that comment.
delete double
How about spending cuts or closing tax loopholes?
Well considering that it seems to only be the top 2% that is whining about the tax rate...sure lets have that survey
face it your out numbered...
Shooter, you are shooting blanks today.
Because Shooter, asking simply "Spending Cuts' or "Tax Hikes" is not a valid question. It's asking someone for a vague preference, not a serious answer. Most people would always choose to cut spending over paying more taxes. The real question lay in what should and needs to be cut. If I had the choice between cutting The Dept of Education or The Dept of Defense, Defense would be up a creek.
Calvin: even cut defense or cut education is still too vague. We have to get down to real specifics. Cut the F-35 but not the C-17 (the C-17 is the big transport plane that brings the tanks, etc. to the battlefields and then takes them out. It also brings in the bulldozers and back hoes and mobile hospitals to disaster areas. When the Clinton Administration came in in 1992, they negotiated a contract on the C-17 that was said to be a model of efficiency.) The problem with the sequester is that it cuts a certain amount from all programs.
The Republicans of course do not want to take responsibility for the specific cuts. That is why they want to blame the President for the sequester and they want him to identify the cuts. Then they can blame him for the damage it does to the economy.
Shorter Boner, yesterday: "The public doesn't know what it wants, so I am here to TELL it what it wants."
Today: "The public doesn't know what it wants, so I am here to TELL it what it wants."
Tomorrow: "The public doesn't know what it wants, so I am here to TELL it what it wants."
As some German fella once said, if you repeat a lie often enough teh stupids will eventually believe it. Or words to that effect. . .
Steve, you are being disingenuous. You know full well that when Boehner says "American people," he isn't referring to you and me. He is talking about the 1% who own the republican party. For "those people," we don't count, and trying to pretend that Boehner means what he seems to be saying may be an effective debating technique, but why not call him out?
Dribbler, your comment is lame: The point above is abstracts like "spending cuts" and "tax hikes" are not predictive when you get to details. This is why back in the 90s when you Repuglicans shut down the government, everyone was *very* unhappy. Polling showed people didn't like the abstract "Big Government" but when they couldn't get their veterans benefits or Medicare payments, they didn't like it.
Just a few things I think the American people will support:
1) CUTTING BIG OIL/COAL/PHARMA/Ag - off of the public welfare rolls by stopping those "subsidies".
2) Institute a .05% tax on those Wall Street transactions.
3) Closing the loopholes for corporations that off-shore.
4) Closing the loopholes that allow millionaires/billionaires to "off-shore" their money and pay NO taxes on it.
5) Cutting the DEFENSE budget.
All of these are money gobblers and a great wealth transfer to the rich and corporate from the American people! Stopping this non-sense would allow US to put our priorities on public spending for infra-structure, r&d, and would create JOBS! That is what the American people really, really want!
hear hear
Well said! Best thing I've read all day. The only problem is that the republicans---and far too many democrats as well---owe their election victories to large injections of cash from Big Pharma, Big Oil, and their own personal billionaire friends. Who now own their souls and more importantly, their votes on anything pertinent to their interests. The only thing the actual congress-critters are allowed to do, and many probably don't even do this much, is come up with ridiculous justifications for their "positions." There is a word for what this is: bribery. Well, prostitution is another word that is also appropriate, come to think of it, although the ones getting screwed AND paying for it seem to always be the public.
What we need is a serious discussion on campaign finance laws, overturning Citizens' United, and re-instituting term limits, so that being a senator or representative is not a lifelong career. At least then, at some point, some people will no longer be schmoozing their corporate donors for the upcoming election. When we didn't see anything remotely like this conversation immediately after the last auction---excuse me, I meant to say "election" (snark)---I knew that we were well and truly screwed. I still think that members of Congress, as well as the judiciary should dress like Nascar drivers, so that we would at least know to whom they have pledged allegiance.
The worst thing about all this is that we have a large segment of the population who are determined to become even stupider and with shorter attention spans by spending much of their time and energy watching corporate-owned media. And by that I just mean the dreck that the networks think that Americans are willing to veg out in front of. The whole right-wing propaganda machine is another story altogether.
Although I must say that, having been forced to sit through a couple of faux "news" shows while at the doctors' office and my insane relatives' homes, I'm betting that Rupert Murdoch has a few old German propaganda masters on his payroll. The intense focus of the "messaging," AKA party propaganda, that comes out of that black hole can only be directed by one of Hitler's henchmen. In fact, if old Adolph's fact twisters were as good as Murdoch's, we might all be speaking German and liking it. Each lie has just enough of a kernel of truth at the center to be plausible to someone who has a desire to believe it true, and that is the mark of mastering the brainwashing process.
You don't know how much joy the following brings to one's life. One can pretend that "teh stupids" (see Day) don't really exist and that they aren't intent on destroying our country (see Wayne).
Shooter242 Ignoring author
Americans would do well to remember the real tell - Boehner, Cantor, Issa et al. cannot speak for "the American people" as they were elected by the citizens of their lone districts! They can speak for Americans in their districts. McConnell and his nestlings of Cruz type senators can only claim to speak for the citizens of their respective states!
When we hear these Republicans say "the American people" we should all let out a collective, "whatever" and ignore everything said after such an utterance!
The only nationally elected office in my beloved nation is the POTUS - and whomever is in that office speaks for the American people as a whole! -Kevo
They stopped trying to represent their constituents a long time ago. They represent the money that fuels their campaigns which mostly comes from outside of their districts. When the tea partier won 50.9% of the vote in my district two years back, they voted full on crazy. Zero attempt to represent all of her constituents. Thankfully she was booted out in this past election.
Whenever a Republican talks about "the American People," the No True Scotsman fallacy built in to it is implicit.
To put surveys like this in context, it should be added that the vast majority of the public either has no idea how much the government does spend in various categories, or has badly mistaken ideas about it.
For example, most people believe that a large part of or federal budget goes to foreign aid (in fact, it's less than 1 per cent of the budget). If you ask them "What percentage of federal money should go to humanitarian aid to other countries?" you'll usually get figures ranging from 5 to 15 per cent, which would be a huge increase over current levels. But if you ask "Should foreign aid be cut?" almost half the people say yes, as shown here.
By the same token, if you ask the public what percentage of the budget should go to the military, very few support the current levels. But if you ask "Should we cut back on our national defense?", that sounds bad, so most people say no.
This is why we should all be in favor of a "prospectus" or "receipt" going out to all citizens every tax year.
Or how abouit we discontinue the Combined Budget method of reporting on spending v. income? Any program with dedicated funding should only be reported if moneys from the general fund are used to finance the program. Therefore, Social Security, whose funding comes only from the payroll tax should be excluded from the budget reports. Social Security is a major expenditure on the combined budget, but the fact that it has been running a surplus for over 30 years hides the true scope of deficit spending elsewhere. The same goes for Medicare, Federal Employees Retirement Trust, Railroad Employees Retirement, and other self funded trusts. Federal Highway Trust is funded mostly by fuel taxes. Not building roads we already paid for is just plain thievery. AND anti-business!
When "no government" finally happens the rich will be the first to fall as armed gangs strip their possessions from them with no cops to protect their estates, no army to repel foreign government takeovers of their property, no courts to defend their rights or contracts, and no employees to produce their wealth. They will have to become that which they hated; a government in and of themselves. We already tried that; it was called fuedalism, Monarchy, the devine right of Kings.
Ronald King, you are absolutely right. Your point is a very good one.
The Pew Research Center must have forgotten to include "tax cuts for the very wealthy" on its list of budget priorities to ask people about. You can bet that item will always, always be top priority for John Boehner and his crew.
Boehner is the perfect propagandist: He's either to drunk to know what he's talking about, too immoral to care, or delusional. Probably a combo of all three.
Spending cuts = job loss. Job loss = less revenue. Less revenue = more spending cuts. And so it goes, on and on. There are'nt enough jobs in the private sector to absorb all government job losses. Unemployment will soar probably causing another recession or worse. But that is the republican plan for America. Take down the economy if for no other reason than to make the President look bad so they can return to power. And what happens if they return to power? Spending will increase just as it did in the Bush years. If not through direct spending it will be through tax cuts for the wealthiest among us. However they try to put the spin on it, those tax cuts have the same result as spending, which is less revenue. Did those tax cuts create jobs? Did'nt we find that out from 2000 thru 2008. Did'nt we find out that giving away $600+ plus in budget surplus plus billions more "did not" contribute, but did harm to the economy and added to the deficit? And that is where Boehner and his caucus would take us again. Their hypocrisy is really something to behold.
Is this the presidency of Chicken Little?
Elucidate, please!
If any future historian wants to know what whole party political suicide looks like the Repubs are providing a wealth of examples.
"Getting rid of John Boehner should be the number one priority for the American people."
"Getting rid of John Boehner should be the number one priority for the American people."
That's one of the oldest stunts in the book -- look at all of the other politicians who spoke (constantly!) for "the People:" Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev, Mao, etc. The more they talk about the sovereignty of "the People" ("People's Republic," anyone?) you can bet the less input actual breathing people (not capitalized) have.
There is a great article in Time magazine explaining how hospitals and other healthcare providers are regularly ripping off the country with excessive charges exceeding 400%. If Medicaid and Medicare are the largest expenditures with exception to the dept of defense, why are we so willing to cut needed federal programs and jobs that will adversely affect the economy, in order to free up more money to give to healthcare providers who are grossly over charging you in the first place? This defies logic! I think the entire MSNBC pundits and news teams need to get this story out there. Healthcare is literally bankrupting the nation and we are doing nothing to stop it. It's high time we push to regulate the cost. We do it for utility companies, rent control, cable tv, and others, but not to healthcare which is 20% of our GDP...I don't get it, are we that dense? Hurt the poor, cut meals on wheels to seniors, cut education and head start, to knowingly over pay for healthcare...Really America...Really?
What a worthless survey. To vague to be useful. Lets face it, everything needs to be cut.