How Much Do Conservatives Want to Reduce Spending? This Much
So much that they would be willing to accept small tax increases to get it done.
The commentariat here is very conservative. We have a group that hates tax increases, supported the Bush tax cuts, and fought the effort to let them expire.
And yet, when I put up a poll that asked whether people would prefer the status quo, or a scenario where we combined Paul Ryan-level tax cuts with tax increases taking us back to Clinton-era levels, an overwhelming majority rejected the status quo in favor of the latter.
Now, I stacked the deck with that example. The cuts proposed by Paul Ryan are not nicks, like the relatively small cuts that occupied the recent budget discussions in Congress. They are serious cuts that would go a long way towards reforming entitlements. And the tax increases we’re talking about are, let’s be honest, relatively small. I deliberately gave a skewed example because I believed that the readers here would be so opposed to tax cuts that they would reject them no matter how skewed the example might be.
But to my great surprise, after about 800 votes we have 88% percent of the voters here choosing small tax increases and large budget cuts over the status quo. Those percentages were constant over the life of the poll. From the time we had only 20 votes, there was never a smaller than 86% level of support for an alternative to the status quo.
Now, there are some caveats here. First, those numbers would change if you replaced the Ryan cuts with smaller ones, or if you proposed a more draconian set of tax increases. Second, I made it an explicit stipulation in the poll that the tax increases would be tied to the spending cuts — and that any repeal of the spending cuts would automagically mean a repeal of the tax increases. That would be tough legislation to craft, and any future Congress could re-enact the tax increases without the cuts. Republicans have an eternal suspicion that spending cuts are short-lived, while tax increases are forever. Third, I stipulated in the poll that we could not get the spending cuts without the tax increases. That may or may not be true, politically. So the poll, to put it mildly, does not necessarily reflect a real-world scenario.
So don’t get the idea that Republicans don’t really care about tax increases. That would be the wrong lesson to learn from these results.
The right lesson is this: conservatives are absolutely fed up with the status quo. They are desperate for real budget reform. And they are so thirsty for a change that, contrary to conventional wisdom, they would even accept some mild tax increases — if they had to do so to accomplish the goal of saving our children’s future.
UPDATE: I initially said “Republicans are absolutely fed up with the status quo.” We can’t really call that a “slip of the keyboard” — so just call it a brain freeze. Stashiu points out in comments that it is conservatives who are fed up, not “Republicans” — hence, the Tea Party. I have rewritten the sentence (and the headline) to make it conform with reality.
Conservatives are absolutely fed up with the status quo. If Republicans were, there wouldn’t be a need for the Tea Party. Just sayin’ đ
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 4/16/2011 @ 11:38 amThe problem is that we have been down this road before. Reagan agreed to tax increases in TEFRA and was assured by Bob Dole that there would be three dollars of spending cut for every dollar of tax increase. It was a lie. I was unhappy with Reagan for allowing spending on non-defense to keep rising but he always had a Democrat ruled House. Bush had less excuse. Nobody trusts Obama and the recent revelation about the alleged 38.5 billion cuts that shrank to 385 million doesn’t encourage trust.
I didn’t vote in your poll because I didn’t think you had a realistic option.
Mike K (8f3f19) — 4/16/2011 @ 11:45 amI, like I suspect many, punted on the question by choosing not to answer. My reasoning was that any question that premises large budget cuts with acceptance of tax increases must, given how our politicians and government employees operate, lead to either temporary of misleading budget cuts and definite tax increases. The true feeling among the conservative electorate is that the reach and function of the government has gone way too far, and that budgets, deficits and taxes are mechanisms that embody the symptoms of that reach and function. The only way to stop the endless shell game is to directly attack the core motivation.
Larry Rupert (fc4755) — 4/16/2011 @ 11:50 amI admitted up front that it was at least arguable that I didn’t have a realistic option. I’m still glad some people did vote anyway. I think it was instructive — and, for me, surprising.
Patterico (c218bd) — 4/16/2011 @ 11:57 amUPDATE: I initially said “Republicans are absolutely fed up with the status quo.” We can’t really call that a “slip of the keyboard” — so just call it a brain freeze. Stashiu points out in comments that it is conservatives who are fed up, not “Republicans” — hence, the Tea Party. I have rewritten the sentence (and the headline) to make it conform with reality.
Patterico (c218bd) — 4/16/2011 @ 12:02 pmStashiu3 is correct. Too many R office holders are no different than their D counterparts. They will say whatever it takes to keep their jobs and their power. A conservative will risk losing the power to do the right thing. probably why we’ve been in the political wilderness so much of the last 50 years.
Obama can not be trusted by his own party, the Republicans, or The American people. Neither can the dinosaur media but that is a different discussion.
His budget includes a poison pill called a âdebt failsafe triggerâ. Obamaâs scheme would automatically raise taxes if politicians spend too much.
Let’s pause a moment and calculate the odds the congress will overspend… Times Up, and we all lose.
Obama and the collectivists in the union dollar controlled dimmicrat party have to be stopped.
MaaddMaaxx (25e27f) — 4/16/2011 @ 12:08 pmIf we can’t stop the country from going communist, I’d at least like to see us pay for the privilege up front instead of borrowing.
All that borrowing is going to do is put off the day we have to pay, and it adds interest into the equation as well. Scumbag pols like the idea of borrowing because they can sell bonds to their rich friends, which means a profit for said rich friends and campaign contributions and votes for sumbag pols, and also it lets today’s pols stick responsibility for part of the tax burden on tomorrow’s pols (It won’t be Obambi who has to worry about where to come up with the trillions needed to pay off the debt that Obambi is running up, some guy down the road wil have to deal with that). But, it doesn’t do anything good for people like me, or for the country.
Bad enough I have to pay the salaries of a horde of useless federal employees. I don’t want to have to pay interest to the Red Chineses Commies on top of that. If they want to piss away trillions, let them collect the money for it on the day they spend it.
Dave Surls (6c2015) — 4/16/2011 @ 12:18 pmWe’ll have to have those small tax increases to pay the Unemployment Compensation of all of the Federal Bureaucrats that will be RIF’ed.
AD-RtR/OS! (be87c2) — 4/16/2011 @ 12:35 pmI think we either seize the moment to reform the tax code to where it’s considerably less banana republic or we fail. Raising or lowering rates is less important than not having a tax code what our corrupt congresswhores can be constantly molesting.
happyfeet (a3410c) — 4/16/2011 @ 12:53 pm“Weâll have to have those small tax increases to pay the Unemployment Compensation of all of the Federal Bureaucrats that will be RIFâed.”
AD – I would like to see a Republican propose reducing the deficit and making the government more efficient by sending at least 50% of its jobs off shore. Just think of the head assplosions!
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/16/2011 @ 12:59 pmYou could walk into any federal or state dept and cut the bottom ten percent employees and NEVER miss them.
Of course, as noted above, these slackers suddenly become adroit at getting on the unemployment rolls and work hard staying unemployed until the money runs out.
SteveG (cc5dc9) — 4/16/2011 @ 1:25 pmAnd they are so thirsty for a change that, contrary to conventional wisdom, they would even accept some mild tax increases…
Here’s the only scenario under which I would not oppose a tax increase: With the exception of defense, cut EVERY government entity down to the bone or eliminate it entirely. Whatever shortfall that remains, if any, can be covered by a tax increase.
Blacque Jacques Shellacque (a45b86) — 4/16/2011 @ 2:02 pm“With the exception of defense…”
We could get rid of a lot of that too. Spending tons of dough defending Euros or ROKs has never had much appeal for me.
Antyway, there’s nothing left to defend the Euros from, now that the Soviets are history.
Dave Surls (6c2015) — 4/16/2011 @ 2:27 pmThis isn’t even a question.
When you restructure personal debt, the first step is to stop spending, not demand a raise.
When you restructure business debt, the first step is to stop spending, not make an immediate price hike.
And yet, when it becomes time to deal with government debt, the first thing ever done is to demand a raise and hiking the price of the services rendered (taxes).
I will agree to a tax hike when the concomittant amount of spending is cut in the previous budget year. Otherwise, no deal. Period.
North Dallas Thirty (643204) — 4/16/2011 @ 2:28 pmAmen to that, ND30.
JD (d48c3b) — 4/16/2011 @ 2:32 pmNo Federal job needs to be off-shored;
just use the “snow lists” to set staffing levels.
I second SteveG!
AD-RtR/OS! (be87c2) — 4/16/2011 @ 2:56 pmI voted for the spending cuts and tax increase, but only because it specified returning to the rates of the 90’s. If the choice had been to raise taxes only on “the rich” I would have voted for the status quo. This isn’t because I’m rich or a high income earner, but because it’s my opinion that if tax rates are too progressive, revenue swings will be greater. In good times, the “rich” will make a lot of money, and pay a lot of taxes. In bad times, their income will plummet. Politicians will vastly increase spending when money is coming in, and then be way short when a recession comes around. If we have to raise taxes to balance our budget, then we should raise them on everyone.
DouglasDubh (4713b0) — 4/16/2011 @ 3:24 pmAs far as I’m concerned, you’re drawing exactly the right conclusions from the poll you ran. I voted for “spending cuts combined with tax increases” because continuing the status quo will destroy the country financially.
On the other hand I would oppose tax increases alone, because in the past fifty years or so, every income tax increase has been accompanied by larger spending tax increases. If they increased the income tax by $1.00 per person, they increased spending by $1.20 per person — that sort of thing. I said “income tax” because I don’t know if that holds true for every type of tax increase… but it wouldn’t surprise me.
So I’m not willing to trust a tax increase alone. Congress has squandered those opportunities for fiscal sanity in the past, and they’re giving me no reason to think they won’t do so again.
Robin Munn (623285) — 4/16/2011 @ 3:27 pmP.S. That’s for the federal government. I’m sure some states like Texas have done slightly more sane things with their tax increases. OTOH, Texas has no state income tax, so my example doesn’t apply to it anyway…
Robin Munn (623285) — 4/16/2011 @ 3:28 pmI’d be willing to accept tax increases, after spending is controlled, and only if they were tax increases on everybody. Tax increases prior to spending reductions means that spending won’t be reduced, and tax increases only on the most productive people is just more pablum to allow the less productive to continue with their thinking that they can have more and other people will pay for it.
The realistic Dana (5a4fb2) — 4/16/2011 @ 3:57 pmI will accept tax increases for the 2nd half of deficit reduction. When Congress shows over at least 2 budget cycles that it is acting to reduce actual spending, not just reducing rates of spending growth, then we start talking about tax increases to finish closing the deficit out. Not before. I don’t think Congress will show that sort of discipline any time soon, but there it is.
PaulD (5a9e35) — 4/16/2011 @ 4:45 pmComment by daleyrocks â 4/16/2011 @ 12:59 pm
Daley, you were reading this, weren’t you? Fess up.
[Obviously written by a Democrat, but still–there’s even a shout out to Mr. Feets.]
The University of Minnesota study contains several proposals, such as outsourcing the U.S. government to the worldâs largest democracy, India.
âThe work done by Congress could be accomplished much more efficiently by a series of electronic phone prompts,â the study recommends.
But Mr. Boehner warned that eliminating Congress entirely would have disastrous effects: âThat would destroy entire sectors of our economy, especially the prostitution industry.â
kishnevi (38f6c3) — 4/16/2011 @ 6:22 pm(Found permalink to the above:)
kishnevi (38f6c3) — 4/16/2011 @ 6:24 pmhttp://www.borowitzreport.com/2011/04/10/exporting-democracy-has-led-to-shortages-of-it-in-us-experts-say/
Considering that Obama is actually trying to do that, with his czars, the humor seems quite forced
narciso (8a8b93) — 4/16/2011 @ 6:31 pmkish
I’m willing to accept tax increases (just as I accept that Social Security will not be around by the time I’m old enough to retire), but ONLY if they CUT SPENDING TO THE BONE FIRST!!! Then, once they’ve cut spending and they’ve let it stay that way for at least 4 or 5 years, THEN they can raise taxes to a point where we might actually have a chance of paying off the national debt in my lifetime…
Joshua (9d40f0) — 4/16/2011 @ 7:39 pmeliminate all exemptions and go with a flat tax across the board. Fight over the flat percentage rate not whether or not rates will increase.
vor2 (20a759) — 4/16/2011 @ 7:50 pmObama is repeating almost exactly all the mistakes FDR made in the 30’s. FDR had a 79% marginal tax rate (we’re not there…yet) and wanted a 100% tax on all income over $25,000. Obama has merely moved a decimal place and is working his way up the percentage ladder. Roosevelt also went for big government expenditures (stimulus!) and paid off the party faithful with largesse funded by strapped taxpayers. He was also a “redistribute the wealth” kind of guy.
FDR’s policies did achieve a 20%+ unemployment rate (but back then they counted all the unemployed, unlike today). Considering real unemployment numbers, Obama is still 3-4 percent away from approaching FDR’s levels. But you just know he’ll get there…especially if he gets another four years.
navyvet (db5856) — 4/16/2011 @ 9:06 pmOn the contrary; bad enough to waste all that money, but at least if it’s borrowed the burden falls on the lenders, not on us. If our children decide to default on that debt, I won’t blame them at all.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/16/2011 @ 9:27 pmIf we really get down to it, we are arguing, or discussing, exactly how much bureaucracy we need.
Most government funding goes to entitlement programs and defense. Those programs need money essentially to hand out the checks.
If we can’t agree on how that money should be spent, maybe we should look at how efficiently it is doled out.
In my mind, the problem isn’t the programs, although many are wasteful, it is the accordant bureaucracies required to assure the money is spent as wastefully as possible so that bureaucrats can draw a paycheck while continuing to spend wastefully.
Ag80 (6134b7) — 4/16/2011 @ 9:29 pmI would accept Clinton-era tax rates IF we go back to Clinton-era levels of spending (adjusted for inflation, of course).
Machiavelli (c08eac) — 4/16/2011 @ 9:41 pmkishnevi @22&23 – Never heard of the guy.
I just happened to be having an email debate last night with a liberal friend in the executive recruiting field who decided to “educate” me on the issue of off-shoring jobs. He wanted to point out it didn’t just apply to union smokestack jobs. He had forgotten that I had some experience in the area as well as a number of Fortune 500 clients who had shared their thinking on the subject with me. He was not happy when I pointed out the possibilities of off-shoring a number of government functions.
I did not hear back from him today.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/16/2011 @ 9:51 pmthere is no need to raise taxes if we gut spending, getting the Federal government out of all the things it has no business being in.
fundamental tax reform, with a zero deduction flat income tax for every entity, human and other wise, no exceptions, no excuses, no write offs or loopholes, X% on all income (with “X” being a small number, definitely no larger than 10), will not only save money on both ends, due to no need for the gargantuan IRS, but also eliminating the hordes of accountants, lawyers and lobbyists that so many companies and other organizations retain at great expense.
those savings will be to the economy what Ear Leader’s “stimulus” wasn’t.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 4/16/2011 @ 10:10 pmI like the FairTax – simple, reduces the reporting burden and saves billions in non-productive annual compliance related expenditures. It would repatriate the trillions of corporate profits stashed off-shore and allow immediate reinvestment in US based productive assets. And this is a revenue neutral consumption tax that eliminates the whoring in Washington by politicians of all stripes.
Read about it at http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer.
in_awe (44fed5) — 4/16/2011 @ 11:22 pmA 30% VAT? No, thanks. 10% would be fine, if the income tax were permanently capped at 10% as well, or repealed entirely. But not 30%.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/17/2011 @ 12:05 am“And yet, when I put up a poll that asked whether people would prefer the status quo, or a scenario where we combined Paul Ryan-level tax cuts with tax increases taking us back to Clinton-era levels, an overwhelming majority rejected the status quo in favor of the latter.”
??
Did you mean to say, “…Paul Ryan-level tax cuts…”? Or did you mean to say spending cuts?
Brad (ab3e97) — 4/17/2011 @ 1:38 am