If you were president...

[Crapshoot]

Someone posted this on OOTP...

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/bu...3_07_05.html#1

Public Would Significantly Alter Administration's Budget
Would Reduce Deficit, Cut Defense Sharply, and Increase Spending on Education, Job Training, Renewable Energy, Veterans

A new poll finds that the American public would significantly alter the Bush administration’s recently proposed federal budget. Presented a breakdown of the major areas of the proposed discretionary budget and given the opportunity to redistribute it, respondents made major changes.

The most dramatic changes were deep cuts in defense spending, a significant reallocation toward deficit reduction, and increases in spending on education, job training, reducing reliance on oil, and veterans. These changes were favored by both Republicans and Democrats, though the changes were generally greater for Democrats.

Sixty-one percent of respondents redirected some funds to reducing the budget deficit, with the mean respondent reallocating $36 billion (Democrats $39.4 billion, Republicans $29.6 billion), though they were not told anything about the size of the deficit.

Defense spending received the deepest cut, being cut on average 31%—equivalent to $133.8 billion—with 65% of respondents cutting. The second largest area to be cut was the supplemental for Iraq and Afghanistan, which suffered an average cut of $29.6 billion or 35%, with two out of three respondents cutting. Also cut were transportation (cut $12.6 billion or 18%), federal administration of justice ($8.7 billion or 21%), and space research and science ($1.2 billion or 5%). Majorities of 53-58% of respondents favored cuts in each of these cases.

The largest increases were for social spending. Spending on human capital was especially popular including education which was increased $26.8 billion (39%) and job training and employment which was up $19 billion or a remarkable 263%. Medical research was upped on average $15.5 billion (53%). Veterans benefits were raised 40% or $12.5 billion and housing went up 31% or $9.3 billion. In most cases clear majorities favored increases (education 57%, job training 67%, medical research 57%, veteran’s benefits 63%), though only 43% of respondents favored increases for housing.

In percentage terms, by far the largest increase was for conserving and developing renewable energy - an extraordinary 1090% or $24 billion—which also had the highest percentage of respondents (70%) favoring an increase. The environment and natural resources received a more modest increase of 32% or $9 billion, with 42% of respondents favoring increases.
As the defense cuts proposed were large, respondents were asked in a separate set of questions what areas they would want to cut. Majorities favored cutting the capability for large-scale nuclear wars, the number of nuclear weapons, and spending on developing new types of nuclear weapons. (Asked how many nuclear weapons the US needs to have on alert, the median response was just 150.) Capabilities for large-scale naval wars and large-scale land wars were both reduced by 58% of respondents. Majorities also favored cutting spending on new types of naval destroyers (55%), bombers (53%), and submarines (52%) and nearly as many cut the inventory for each of these items as well.

However, respondents particularly preserved spending for troops, including for salaries (82%), the overall number of military personnel (61%), and development of new equipment for infantry and Marines (64%). Spending relevant to fighting terrorism was also preserved, such as for intelligence (62%), troops for special operations (58%), and advanced communications systems (69%). Also preserved was spending on capabilities for conducting peacekeeping (58%), fighting insurgents or guerrillas (56%), and work on new types of high-technology missiles and bombs (55%).

<< RESUME READING >>

The variation in feelings toward US troops and other parts of the defense establishment were expressed in another pair of questions. Asked to give a rating on a scale of 1 to 10, the average rating for US armed forces was a very warm 8.0, while the Pentagon received a lukewarm 5.4.

In the budget exercise, homeland security received a robust average increase of $10.5 billion or 38%, though only 41% of respondents favored increases.

In contrast to the large cuts to defense spending in the budget exercise, respondents made substantial increases to forms of soft power. The UN and UN peacekeeping received one of the largest percentage increases—going up an average of 207% or $4.8 billion. Spending on economic and humanitarian aid went up an average of $3.2 billion or 23%, military aid went up $4.7 billion or 53% and the State Department went up an average of $3.2 billion, also 53%. However, in all these cases it was an enthusiastic minority (25-39%) that was driving these increases.

When asked how the US should deal with its military commitments to protect other countries, 69% said that “the US should only spend enough to protect itself and to join in efforts to protect countries together with allies or through the UN.” Only 17% thought the US should spend enough to protect other countries on its own and only 11% said the US should only protect itself and not other countries.

Steven Kull comments, “The American public as a whole takes a fairly coherent position. They favor redirecting a portion of defense spending to deficit reduction and social spending and look for savings by cutting spending on large-scale Cold War style capabilities--not unlike Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld—and sizing capabilities on the assumption that the US will be acting together with allies, not on its own.”


Besides reallocating funds to deficit reduction, a clear majority (63%) favored rolling back the tax cuts for people with incomes over $200,000. However, when the tax revisions were not specifically limited to the wealthy, only 48% favored letting the tax cuts expire and 45% wanted them extended. Those who perceive that the deficit is large (62%) allocated more to lowering the deficit ($48.4 billion), and were more supportive of rolling back the tax cuts (68%) and allowing the tax cuts to expire (57%).

The poll was conducted February 18-25 with a nationwide sample of 1,182 American adults. The margin of error was 2.9-4.1%, depending on whether the question went to the full sample or part of the sample. The poll was fielded by Knowledge Networks using its nationwide panel, which is randomly selected from the entire adult population and subsequently provided internet access. For more information about this methodology, go to www.knowledgenetworks.com/ganp. A full report and the questionnaire can be found at www.pipa.org.


For more information on the PIPA/KN study see:
Report of Findings
Questionnaire
Press Release

[Crapshoot]

thoughts ? Im impressed at the cross-party priorities - education clearly matters.

[amdaily]

"Defense spending received the deepest cut, being cut on average 31%—equivalent to $133.8 billion—with 65% of respondents cutting."

No doubt the same group of peple bitching about armor shortages and high casualty rates


Edit upon reading more of article:

"(Asked how many nuclear weapons the US needs to have on alert, the median response was just 150.) Capabilities for large-scale naval wars and large-scale land wars were both reduced by 58% of respondents. Majorities also favored cutting spending on new types of naval destroyers (55%), bombers (53%), and submarines (52%) and nearly as many cut the inventory for each of these items as well."

- That is why the public does not make the budget.

And: "respondents made substantial increases to forms of soft power. The UN and UN peacekeeping received one of the largest percentage increases—going up an average of 207% or $4.8 billion."

- As if the UN needs more funds. They don't contribute forces where necessary nor are they capable of fulfilling humanitarian crises. The increase in funding the public would give them would go right into the bank accounts of UN bureaucrats.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by amdaily

"Defense spending received the deepest cut, being cut on average 31%—equivalent to $133.8 billion—with 65% of respondents cutting."

No doubt the same group of peple bitching about armor shortages and high casualty rates

Right, because cutting the defense budget is strictly about reducing the necessary items for our soldiers

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by amdaily

And: "respondents made substantial increases to forms of soft power. The UN and UN peacekeeping received one of the largest percentage increases—going up an average of 207% or $4.8 billion."

- As if the UN needs more funds. They don't contribute forces where necessary nor are they capable of fulfilling humanitarian crises. The increase in funding the public would give them would go right into the bank accounts of UN bureaucrats.

As opposed to the US bureaucrats

[Arles]

These polls are often very idealistic, but this poll is very silly. There's no frame of reference for what each thing does (outside of the knee-jerk Education is good, environment is good, ...) and here's what people were given:

"Please imagine that you have $1,000 of your tax money to divide among these 17 areas. For each area, you’ll see how much of your $1,000 is proposed to go to that area, and then you can indicate how many dollars you’d like to see go to that area. You’ll be able to monitor how much of the $1,000 you have left as you make decisions by scrolling down to the bottom of the page."

To this question, people (in their true idealism) said to put 33% into military spending (cut about 12% - seems fair to most people). They also said to put about 0.8% into the UN, 10% into education and about 3% into renewable resources (all modest gains as these "sound" like more important things). Again, for people with little understanding of the government, these small changes sound better.

IMO, there is very little knowledge gained from this. To put it in perspective, it would be like grabbing 10 random people off the street, showing them INTEL's budget and asking them to rank how the company should spend their money. Then, watch as people increase their environmental cleanup budget and worker salaries to the point where they would be out of business in 6 months.

I certainly have my issues with the way the US government spends our money, but I don't think the country would be better served for me to tinker the % of the budget to issues based on which things sound more altruistic. I mean, to a random guy on the street, what's going to mean more to him - getting 2 or 3 extra aircraft carriers or adding 3% to education spending?

Of course, little would he know that the carriers he would remove could be stationed in a key strategic spot to protect ground forces and that the extra 3% in education spending wouldn't improve performance one bit and most likely be eaten up before reaching the classroom. But, again, it "sounds" better.

[Arles]

dola, here's the full questionnaire for those interested:

http://pipa.org/OnlineReports/budget...re03_07_05.pdf

Here's a question that isn't created to get a certain response:

"Imagine that the President and Congress decided to cut defense spending by 15% and directed this money to education, healthcare, housing, and cutting the deficit instead. Would you: Support this decision?"

The true irony in all this is that 65% of the people said "Yes". Then, in a question a few lines down, we have:

"How closely would you say you follow news about spending on defense?"

Surprisingly, about 65% say not very closely or not at all.

Imagine that

[Desnudo]

Reason number one million why everyone should be required to take macro economics 101 in high school.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

Actually, the funny part is this shows how much most Americans _don't_ know about the budget. They probably thought only giving the UN .8% was drastically cutting it's budget or something. After all, despite the fact it takes up less than 2% of the budget in reality, foreign aid is still mentioned in surveys by about 20-30% of the population about what people _think_ the top 2 items in the budget are.

[Ragone]

Honestly, the first thing i'd cut is the billions upon billions of dollars we send out to third world countries who could give a flying flip about us.. but they gladly take our money.. Instead spend it to bolster social security.. and supporting some kinda mandatory job's program for the unemployed on welfare..

[mhass]

I think is worthwhile to note that we spend more per student than almost any other nation. Spending MORE on education is likely not the answer - spending BETTER could certainly help.

I am also quite glad that my jackass neighbor and the lady with the "If you're not rich, I'm a bitch" bumper sticker I saw this morning aren't helping create the federal budget.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by Jesse_Ewiak

After all, despite the fact it takes up less than 2% of the budget in reality, foreign aid is still mentioned in surveys by about 20-30% of the population about what people _think_ the top 2 items in the budget are.

Originally Posted by Ragone

Honestly, the first thing i'd cut is the billions upon billions of dollars we send out to third world countries

Oh, irony.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by amdaily

No doubt the same group of peple bitching about armor shortages and high casualty rates.

Here's a fun thought: how much body armor could you buy for the cost of one B2 Bomber?

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Ragone

Honestly, the first thing i'd cut is the billions upon billions of dollars we send out to third world countries who could give a flying flip about us.. but they gladly take our money.. Instead spend it to bolster social security.. and supporting some kinda mandatory job's program for the unemployed on welfare..

Roffle - how much foreign aid do you think the US gives ? as a percentage of per capita, its the lowest in the western world. At least get your facts straight.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Ragone

Instead spend it to bolster social security.. and supporting some kinda mandatory job's program for the unemployed on welfare..

Just curious - have you ever been in a situation where you needed to draw unemployment benefits?

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Here's a fun thought: how much body armor could you buy for the cost of one B2 Bomber?

1 B2 Bomber = $2billion. If I remember prices quoted around here correctly, body armor was running about $1500 a pop? That is 1.3 million sets of body armor.

Of course, we're not building any more B2 bombers...

(http://www.clw.org/milspend/b2_1999.html)

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

1 B2 Bomber = $2billion. If I remember prices quoted around here correctly, body armor was running about $1500 a pop? That is 1.3 million sets of body armor.

Of course, there's the cost of re-training all the people that have jobs building that B2 bomber to learn how to make body armor instead.

Uh, the government contracts out work, dude. You just buy 1.3 million sets of body armor instead of a B2 bomber. It's not a difficult concept.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Uh, the government contracts out work, dude. You just buy 1.3 million sets of body armor instead of a B2 bomber. It's not a difficult concept.

Another interesting point is I wonder if all the people severly slashing the defense budget would realize the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs that would involve. I bet most people that voted that way wouldn't connect those dots. And, if it was brought to their attention, many would change it up a bit.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Uh, the government contracts out work, dude. You just buy 1.3 million sets of body armor instead of a B2 bomber. It's not a difficult concept.

Sorry, I went back and edited while you were typing your reply. Basically, I pointed out that we're not building B2 bombers any more, so the money isn't there anyway.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Of course, we're not building any more B2 bombers...

Good point. Substitute "B2 Bomber" with "Missle Defense".

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Arles

Another interesting point is I wonder if all the people severly slashing the defense budget would realize the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs that would involve. I bet most people that voted that way wouldn't connect those dots. And, if it was brought to their attention, many would change it up a bit.

Yes, that's an interesting point, and it's also a big reason why it is so difficult to get bases closed in this country.

But with that being said, why should we exempt defense industry workers from market forces?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by mhass

I am also quite glad that my jackass neighbor and the lady with the "If you're not rich, I'm a bitch" bumper sticker I saw this morning aren't helping create the federal budget.

Heh. So true.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Here's a fun thought: how much body armor could you buy for the cost of one B2 Bomber?

How many lives can one B2 Bomber save by annihilating enemies from afar as opposed to sending ground troops in to a fortified position?

We can make this argument all day long.

D-Day had enormous casualties precisely because pre-assault bombardment from planes and naval artillery failed miserably, due to weather. The assault probably should have been postponed until allied bombing could have done more to take out German defenses and bomb craters for cover in the beaches of Normandy.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

How many lives can one B2 Bomber save by annihilating enemies from afar as opposed to sending ground troops in to a fortified position?

We can make this argument all day long.

D-Day had enormous casualties precisely because pre-assault bombardment from planes and naval artillery failed miserably, due to weather. The assault probably should have been postponed until allied bombing could have done more to take out German defenses and bomb craters for cover in the beaches of Normandy.

You realize the B2 wasn't designed for strategic battlefield strikes - it was designed as a means of delivering nuclear bombs. But it's a moot argument seeing as how we didn't buy many anyway and it's no longer made so far as I know.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Good point. Substitute "B2 Bomber" with "Missle Defense".

Whoa. How much do you know about "missle" defense? What exactly are you talking about?

My unit saved probably thousands of lives at Camp Doha and Camp Commando two years ago with missile defense so think before you speak.

[Raiders Army]

Dola, have you ever served in the military, flere?

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Whoa. How much do you know about "missle" defense? What exactly are you talking about?

My unit saved probably thousands of lives at Camp Doha and Camp Commando two years ago with missile defense so think before you speak.

I think he's talking about the system that is supposed to protect us from an all-out Russian ICBM attack...

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Whoa. How much do you know about "missle" defense? What exactly are you talking about?

I mean the blue-sky project currently underway to shoot down ICBMs that continues to fail miserably.

My unit saved probably thousands of lives at Camp Doha and Camp Commando two years ago with missile defense so think before you speak.

Of course I didn't mean that "missile defense". My apologies for the misunderstanding.

[HomerJSimpson]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Whoa. How much do you know about "missle" defense? What exactly are you talking about?

My unit saved probably thousands of lives at Camp Doha and Camp Commando two years ago with missile defense so think before you speak.

I believe he is talking about Ballistic Missile defense.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I mean the blue-sky project currently underway to shoot down ICBMs that continues to fail miserably.

Of course I didn't mean that "missile defense". My apologies for the misunderstanding.

Got it. I understand your stance now....but, in missile defense, there is a convergence going on that will be applicable to not only the previously named SHORAD and HIMAD, but THAAD as well.

PLANS TO TRANSITION THAAD PROGRAM FROM MDA TO THE ARMY IN THE WORKS, Inside The Army, 21 Mar 05. A road map for transitioning the THAAD system from the oversight of MDA to the Army should materialize over the next year, Army SMDC chief LTG Larry Dodgen told lawmakers last week. Accordingly, an integrated product team has been assembled to help with the transition, as well to iron out testing details, Dodgen said during a March 15 HASC strategic forces subcommittee hearing. “The Army has not formally finalized the actual transition . . . and we are discussing with MDA exactly how that should transition,” Dodgen said. “We want to man the system and put the system into effect as soon as we possibly can,” he later added. “At the same time we don’t want to divorce ourselves from the developmental capabilities that MDA brings to integration and enhanced capabilities as we do a global [Ballistic Missile Defense] System.”

During the hearing, Rep. John Spratt (D-SC) said he was concerned that the Army’s procurement budget might be stretched too far to ensure THAAD’s future. “If we are going to field it, deploy it and use it, we’ll need a lot more money then is in the FYDP at the present time,” Spratt said. THAAD budget issues should be resolved with the forthcoming transition plan, Dodgen said. “Any system that’s transitioned to the field always maintained its connectivity to the developmental community, and how that gets worked out will determine where the money needs to be,” Dodgen explained.

THAAD will need more money to actually work well (it has worked in the past, but only under optimum conditions). As far as what we did, we were still fielding PAC-3, and it worked two years ago in combat. Did it work in the test phase? Well, yes and no. But when the rubber met the ground, it worked as well as can be expected of something that is travelling at 2000 meters/second attempting to produce a kinetic kill on something travelling about the same speed.

Is it hard to accomplish? With the variances in missile apogees and ballistic trajectories (and not all missiles have ballistic trajectories), it is extremely difficult. Factor in a cruise missile threat, an anti-radiation missile threat, and unmanned aerial vehicles, and yeah...I can see where it would be difficult to defend against the various threats out there.

The question is, do you think the money is worth it? I'm admittedly biased, but I saw the level of confidence of soldiers after we intercepted, so I think they would agree with me too.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

Yes, that's an interesting point, and it's also a big reason why it is so difficult to get bases closed in this country.

But with that being said, why should we exempt defense industry workers from market forces?

Partly because we have given a demand to these businesses from a production standpoint, we certainly need most (if not all) of the items they will be producing and having the ability to threaten military action is a large part of our success in diplomacy.

I can just imagine the outcry if we didn't have enough aircraft carriers, planes, body armor or vehicles to go into North Korea if they announced their intent on attacking us with a nuke. I'm sure all those people advocating that we cut the military spending wouldn't have one problem if we didn't have the resources/equipment/manpower to follow up on Usama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda or other terrorist acts because of those cuts.

[flere-imsaho]

RA: Good to hear. Maybe a transition from blue-sky to real-world applications will help. Also of interest:

March 17, 2005 – Pentagon leaders charged with protecting the country against a ballistic missile attack asked Congress March 15 for $7.8 billion to sustain development of the nation’s first missile defense system through fiscal 2006.
The request is approximately $1 billion less than the fiscal 2005 budget.

Emphasis mine. Point being that it's completely possible to shift money from R&D (some of which has to be pure pork, given that the Army's asking for $1 billion less than the White House wants, to immediate needs (i.e. body armor).

Anyway:

The question is, do you think the money is worth it? I'm admittedly biased, but I saw the level of confidence of soldiers after we intercepted, so I think they would agree with me too.

A very tough question. You don't want to see soldiers underprotected in any circumstance, but there's a finite amount of money out there. Given that the threat to citizens from ICBMs is pretty small, the question here is what's the greater threat to troops: missiles or small arms/explosives?

Even then, it's not an either/or question. Each budget has a lot of money for pure military R&D. But the same military lacks, in some cases, basic needs. It's about priorities. If you're going to be fighting a ground war, I'd think you'd prioritize some body armor, and maybe take a bit away from blue-sky projects.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Arles

Partly because we have given a demand to these businesses from a production standpoint, we certainly need most (if not all) of the items they will be producing and having the ability to threaten military action is a large part of our success in diplomacy.

I can just imagine the outcry if we didn't have enough aircraft carriers, planes, body armor or vehicles to go into North Korea if they announced their intent on attacking us with a nuke. I'm sure all those people advocating that we cut the military spending wouldn't have one problem if we didn't have the resources/equipment/manpower to follow up on Usama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda or other terrorist acts because of those cuts.

I think we are talking about two different things here. I am not talking about driving defense contractors out of business, it is obviously in the best interests for the defense department to be able to turn to companies that have a track record in the industry. But why does that imply that the workers should also be shielded from job loss? The defense companies should be able to operate like those in other industries, and hire/lay off employees as the business environment dictates.

[HomerJSimpson]

I love that Republicans don't think the government should be a jobs program....unless it is a defense contractors job. Then, Democrats decry every job loss...unless it is a defense contractors.

It could be done this way, too:

Republican say government spending is waste and can't help the economy...unless it is defense spending. Democrats say that government should spend more to help the economy...unless it is defense spending and then it is waste.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Point being that it's completely possible to shift money from R&D (some of which has to be pure pork, given that the Army's asking for $1 billion less than the White House wants, to immediate needs (i.e. body armor).

It should be noted that this isn't the first or only time the Pentagon has disagreed with either the White House or Congress on spending provisions, with the Pentagon arguing in favor of less, ergo the White House or Congress was attempting to force things on the military in the name of pork barrel spending that the Pentagon didn't find necessary.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

I think we are talking about two different things here. I am not talking about driving defense contractors out of business, it is obviously in the best interests for the defense department to be able to turn to companies that have a track record in the industry. But why does that imply that the workers should also be shielded from job loss? The defense companies should be able to operate like those in other industries, and hire/lay off employees as the business environment dictates.

I think they currently do. I was just saying that by summarily cutting $100+ million from defense spending, it would drive a lot of people out of a job. And, I don't think many that took this poll realized that.

Now, if defense spending decreases from a need standpoint over the next 5 years that same amount, I don't think anyone would have a problem with that.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Arles

I think they currently do. I was just saying that by summarily cutting $100+ million from defense spending, it would drive a lot of people out of a job. And, I don't think many that took this poll realized that.

Fair enough, though if that $100 million were to be shifted to social spending that the poll takers cared about even more, or if that $100 mil was cut out of the budget altogether, I think that the poll takers wouldn't really care about the defense contractor employees who lost their jobs.

I don't really have any issue with the current level of defense spending myself--just trying to figure out what is going through the minds of the poll-takers, as I realize you are also doing.

On another note, you raise a good point about the fallout and ripple effects you get from any policy decision you make--this reminds me about how the recent US steel tariffs ended up hurting the US auto industry more than it helped the US steel industry. You see quite a bit of that with the social policy issues surrounding the Schiavo case too...

[randal7]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Given that the threat to citizens from ICBMs is pretty small

Granted. But, if you wait until the threat is large to start preparing for it, it's probably kind of late. Plus, the threat probably seems a little bigger right now to the people in Hawaii who are in range of the North Koreans' missiles.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by randal7

Granted. But, if you wait until the threat is large to start preparing for it, it's probably kind of late. Plus, the threat probably seems a little bigger right now to the people in Hawaii who are in range of the North Koreans' missiles.

Note, however, that I didn't say cut funding off entirely.

My point is that given a finite level of resources, you need to prioritize. While it is within the realm of possibility that NK could launch a missile at Hawaii, it's not a great likelihood at the moment or in the immediate future. Furthermore, it's nowhere near the likelihood that a U.S. serviceman is going to get killed by an IED this month in Iraq.