Why the Public is OK With Spending Cuts

For indispensable reporting on the coronavirus crisis, the election, and more, subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter.


Greg Sargent points out today that most of the public is on the side of Republicans when it comes to the budget cuts in the debt ceiling deal:

Sixty five percent approve of deal’s spending cuts. But it gets worse. Of the 30 percent who disapprove, 13 percent think the cuts haven’t gotten far enough, and only 15 percent think the cuts go too far. One sixth of Americans agree with the liberal argument about the deal.

Well, hell, I’m not sure I blame them. The debt ceiling deal doesn’t specify where the cuts are going to come from, it just sets a cap on discretionary spending over the next decade. And although the cap does make cuts compared to our current spending levels — which have ballooned partly because of George Bush’s first-term spending spree and partly because of the Great Recession — compared to 2000 spending levels, it’s hardly draconian. Using the numbers in the text of the law for spending levels, and making some reasonable assumptions about future inflation (2% per year) and future population growth (1% growth per year), my back-of-the-envelope calculation puts real per-capita discretionary spending at the following very rough levels:

  • 2000: $2,350 per year
  • 2021: $2,650 per year

(These are in 2005 dollars because that’s what BEA uses.) Given our fragile economy, I think it’s crazy to be talking about any spending cuts in the next couple of years. Looking farther out, though, it’s hard to get too outraged over discretionary caps that still leave spending at a substantially higher level than we had in 2000. Maybe that’s why the public is OK with all this.

(The follow-on cuts, which are supposed to come from the Supercommittee in November, would reduce these numbers further. At that point you might start to see real per-capita cuts. But we’ll have to wait and see how that all works out.)

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest