Budget battles: Do you want a say? What would you cut?
Should American citizens vote directly on big issues in the federal budget? A new poll shows that most of us want that authority.
Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons
Over the weekend, we narrowly averted a partial government shutdown, putting off the next turnoff date to this Friday. The cost or benefit (depending on your point of view) was $2 billion more in spending cuts. It’s a strange budgeting process. Almost week by week, Republicans demand 2X in cuts, negotiators settle on X, and the shutdown is delayed a bit more.
Maybe we can do better than this run-and-shoot process. How about holding nationwide referendums on the big budget decisions? Proposals to raise taxes, privatize Medicare or raise the age for Social Security — all would require a vote. It’s a far-fetched idea, but would you support it?
Almost seven in 10 Americans “feel any proposed changes to Medicare and Social Security should be approved by a vote of the American people,” according to a poll conducted by Rasmussen Reports a few days ago.
About six in 10 say that any increase in federal income taxes should be approved by a vote as well.
If we had this authority, where would we make cuts? Defense, Social Security and Medicare? What about raising tax revenues?
These questions won’t go away. The recent budget agreement is only a skirmish in the long-term budget battle. On that everyone seems to agree. The only way to reduce the deficit is to cut spending, raise taxes, or both.
About half of Americans (48 percent) believe that major changes to defense, Social Security, and Medicare are necessary to make “truly significant, long-term cuts in government spending,” according to a new Rasmussen Reports poll. Just over a third (37 percent) of Americans aren't sure.
For Republicans, especially the Tea Party branch, talk of raising taxes is verboten. So is any cut to defense spending. That leaves Social Security and Medicare. The 2012 budget plan proposed by Republican Paul Ryan finds its savings in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid — meaning that the old and the poor will shoulder the burden. Is that the right area to cut?
We hear that the president will propose a long-term deficit reduction plan that will include increases in taxes for the super-rich and cuts to defense, as well as cutting back Medicare and Medicaid. The details will be revealed in a speech tomorrow.
Where do you stand? Do you want authority to vote directly on the big budget decisions? What would you cut? Would you hike taxes?
Dr. Wayne E. Baker is a sociologist on the faculty of the University of Michigan Ross School of Business. Baker blogs daily at Our Values and can be reached at ourvaluesproject@gmail.com or on Facebook.
Comments
clownfish
Wed, Apr 13, 2011 : 1:10 p.m.
Savings or increased revenue by 2030: Estate tax returned to Clinton era levels- $104 Billion Capital gains taxes returned to Clinton era levels- $46 Billion Reduction in SS benefits for high income earners- $54 Billion Raise SS to age 68- saves $78 Billion Medicare to age 68- $71 Billion Troop reduction in the ME- $150 Billion Canceling certain weapons programs $17 Billion Defense reductions to pre-war levels- $49 Billion Eliminate farm subsidies - $14 Billion Reduce nuclear arsenal and star wars programs- $49 billion Pretty soon we will be talking real money!
clownfish
Wed, Apr 13, 2011 : 12:50 p.m.
Bring back the inheritance tax as it existed under Reagan.
clownfish
Wed, Apr 13, 2011 : 12:47 p.m.
As taxes are at a 60 year low I would raise the federal income tax on incomes over 150k/250/family back to the rate it was under Clinton, when the economy was doing fine, thank you. Cut defense spending by 10-12% across the board, starting with the Raptor fighter. Raise the age of acceptance to Medicare and SS to 67 with new means testing requirements. increase staffing at the IRs to step up enforcement of existing tax laws. Close corporate loopholes to keep more money here at home. Simplify our tax code to decrease the legal cheating that goes on now. Do NOt cut EPA or education, this is our air water and future we are talking about. No federal or state contracts to companies that have off-shore subsidiaries that exist solely to skip out on paying taxes, that money is made up by the rest of us. .
katie
Tue, Apr 12, 2011 : 11 p.m.
Spending huge amounts of money to wage wars in countries far away is just a waste. I'd start there, for sure. I'd end bailouts for large corporations, and while I am at it, I'd make sure that corporations no longer have the same rights as natural persons. There is an interesting article in the latest Rolling Stone Magazine that details how billions are also going to off-shore corporations from the federal reserve system. Two of these corporations are headed by wives of large corporations. There are many other abuses. If we'd do away with corporate bailouts, stop fighting wars that are hugely expensive, and make sure corporations and rich individuals pay their fair share, we'd have no need to cut spending for education, the poor, the elderly, the disabled, and other important groups.