The Public Wants to Spend Less on Defense

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

National surveys have long confirmed a stubborn public unwillingness to cut federal spending (aside from foreign aid, which people always think is much larger than it really is). Generally speaking, people support budget cuts in the abstract but oppose them when it comes to cutting specific programs.

But a recent survey pinpoints one area that’s exactly the opposite: defense spending. Not only are large numbers of both Democrats and Republicans willing to cut the Pentagon’s budget, but it turns out that once you get into the weeds they’re even more willing to cut it:

Interestingly, when given the opportunity to specify their exact proposed level, a substantially larger  percentage made cuts than had said they would in the earlier question which offered them three approaches to dealing with the deficit (see above). In the earlier question, 62% had said they thought Congress should reduce defense spending. Among the 38% who did not select the option of cutting defense, when given the option to specify the number, half of them gave a number below 2012 levels and thus a made a cut.

….For the whole sample, the average proposed level of spending was $435 billion — $127 billion below 2012 levels, representing a 23% cut. Among Republicans, the average proposed level was down $83 billion (a 15% cut); among Democrats, it was down $155 billion (a 28% cut); and among independents it was down $147 billion (a 26% cut).

I don’t imagine this will make much difference to our elected representatives, especially since I suspect that the strength of the public’s budget cutting fervor is low. It’s also likely to melt in the face of Pentagon assurances that Iran could launch a missile at New York City just as soon as they can get a ship within 600 miles of New York City. Still, this is how the public feels, and it doesn’t get much attention. Maybe it should.

Via Suzy Khimm, who has more details.

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

We Recommend

Latest