Bruce fowarded to me a remarkable poll from Gallup. He suggested that I, rather than he, was the right person to comment. I am happy to oblige one of my bloggers-in-crime.
The poll shows that, on average, Americans today believe that 50 cents of every federal tax dollar is wasted. Gallup makes a big deal of the fact that this is an increase from 46 cents per dollar in 2001.
There's one problem: the poll never defines "waste."
Is it:
- Money used for a wasteful purpose?
- Spending on a project that will have a negative economic return?
- Appropriations for something you think is not the government's responsibility?
- A program that could be implemented more efficiently?
- Benefits paid to people you think aren't legally eligible?
- Benefits paid to people you think shouldn't be eligible?
- A program that is working well but you think has outlasted its usefulness?
- Any or all of the above and anything else you can think of?
Without a definition or any other type of guidance everything in the federal budget can and will be called "waste" by someone. Because of that, I'm actually surprised that it was only 50 cents and not a much higher number.
In other words...This poll is worthless.
Bruce...Any comments?
What is government waste
Not only those, but you'll get people on the far left who think the whole Defence Department budget is waste, and people on the far right that think that the entire Education Department budget is waste.
There's absolutely no meeting of the minds there, but this poll likely counts them both in the "high amounts of government waste" category.
This poll lumps numbers that would be useful ("What part of government spending is wastful and why?") into a single concise but totally devoid of meaning number.
How undemocratic of you
Surely you are aware of the American principle that everyone's opinion, on any topic whatsoever, is just as good as everyone else's. It's in the Preamble, I think.
But seriously: I do think there is a place for public opinion in such a discussion, but offhandedly asking people how much of the government's expenses are "wasted" is itself a waste of resources.
Maybe a focus group would be better: have 100 people instead of a 1000, make them read the budget, and ask them what they think should be cut. Then have someone argue for the consequences of those cuts, and ask again if they still want to make the cuts. Lather, rinse, repeat, until the main parts of the government's budget are accounted for.
Waste
Stan, I interpreted these data as meaning that spending could be cut by half without reducing government's ability to deliver services that people think are important to them. That is, they as individuals would not suffer in any way now or in the future.
I tried to address this false notion in my last column by pointing out exactly what the government spends money on. As you know better than I, when people are asked what specific program they would cut the only one that gets significant support is foreign aid. In fact, when given a list of major programs such as health, education, support for the elderly etc. and asked whether we should spend more or less, people invariably say we should spend more on all of them.
As long as vast numbers of people genuinely believe that spending could be cut by half more or less painlessly it's not surprising that they oppose all efforts to raise taxes. I don't know what it will take to convince people that there really isn't anywhere close to 50% waste in government. But as long as this myth persists it will be impossible to fix our budgetary problem.
we could use a baseline
Maybe the next question should have been, "At your job, how much time during an average day do you waste." Followed by, "At your job, how much time during an average day do your co-workers waste."
A meaning of "waste" in that poll, seemingly overlooked.
Stan, I interpreted these data as meaning that spending could be cut by half without reducing government's ability to deliver services that people think are important to them. That is, they as individuals would not suffer in any way now or in the future.
I tried to address this false notion in my last column by pointing out exactly what the government spends money on. As you know better than I, when people are asked what specific program they would cut the only one that gets significant support is foreign aid...
There's another meaning of "waste" that is being missed: Not that 50% of government programs are waste, but that there is massive waste within government programs that people otherwise approve of. This entirely resolves the apparent disconnect between people thinking half of government spending is waste, while not wanting to eliminate government programs (and even wanting more of them). There's no disconnect at all.
As a simple example, NYC now spends near $20,000 per student in its public schools (system salaries up 43% in the last eight years) with management like this (partial update via The New Yorker). Millions of us NYers have very close personal experience with this system. It is not at all unreasonable these people to say "We really could have better schools at half the price." (Especially after looking at the operating cost of other school systems.)
But do we really expect them to then respond "Yes" to "Should we cut spending on public schools in half, close half the schools?" ???
If they don't and one responds: "Irrational NYC parents and taxpayers. They think half of school spending is 'waste' but don't want to close half the schools. Their incoherence shows their ignorance" ... who's making the naive mistake?
Or take the Post Office. You may have noted stamp vending machines have been removed from all post offices nationwide because the Postal Service literally can't maintain stamp vending machines. This is, of course, just one small symptom of the larger horrible politicized management constraints that are causing the Postal Service to lose $7 billion this year (more than 10% of revenue -- as a monopoly).
Across the street from my local post office is a deli, and selling stamps at 75 cents each has become one of its biggest customer draws, up their with lottery tickets. Because people who go to the post office to buy a book of stamps don't want to wait in a teller line forever behind others getting passports and sending boxes of certified mail.
Now these people who leave the post office to cross the street and pay 75 cents per stamp in the deli may entirely rationally believe there's massive waste in the Post Office. Does anyone really believe the fact that they don't want to abolish the postal service is a logical inconsistency on their part?
Millions of people have first-hand personal experience of such government operations, both inside (as employees) and outside (as "customers"). Their view from experience of "50% waste" being inside programs entirely squares with the fact that they don't want to eliminate such programs (public schools, postal services). They do want the programs, but without the waste. Is there really any irrationality in that?
This is such a simple resolution to the polling paradox ("programs are wasteful, but we don't want to eliminate the programs") that missing it might be considered "naivete of the experts" (not to mention "condescension toward the masses") -- and for policy mavens, perhaps a sign of having viewed things from inside the beltway outward for too long.
Ah, but what about entitlements, the really big thing that matters? Of course the same waste is there too -- why would they be different? -- and millions of people have personal experience with that as well.
Medicaid is notoriously fraud ridden (forget mere waste) to the point of graft rates of 40%(!) reported in both New York and California. We're talking deca-billions of dollars nationally. And the government's response:
"Over half of states now spend less than one-tenth of 1 percent of their Medicaid budgets to fight fraud ... Federal supervision of fraud-fighting efforts is almost nonexistent. The GAO reports that the federal agency responsible for overseeing Medicaid employs just eight people, wielding a minuscule budget of $26,000 annually ..." (CJ)
As to Medicare, Obama himself is saying "30% waste".
Are those who recognize all this massive fraud in Medicaid and waste in Medicare really irrational for not wanting to cut health care for the poor and seniors?
Just maybe, when millions of people with personal experience of the government, inside and out, report that they believe there is massive waste in it, y'all shouldn't rush to so glibly dismiss their opinion as "worthless" -- because, oh, what do irrational average citizens know?
I don't know what it will take to convince people that there really isn't anywhere close to 50% waste in government.
You'll have a hard time convincing even me. If I were Emperor with the power of that kid on the Twilight Zone who could make his enemies "go away", I bet I could cut well over a trillion dollars from the government while making the world clearly a better place -- and not have to imitate any paleo-libertarian doing it.
I'd start with the tax expenditure budget. Item #1 ... hmm... Home mortgage interest deduction. How many economists endorse the way it supports over-investment in housing while subsidizing the well off? It's the equivalent of giving a housing subsidy to those with above-average income that rises with income (by tax bracket rate).
That's near $100 billion annually. Just one item and I'm 7% there already!
There are proven ways to get waste out of services like the Post Office and public schools too. Maybe follow the "Scandinavian Model". As Scott Summner has pointed out, in response to the high efficiency cost of their very high social policy taxation, the Scandinavians have aggressively privatized public services to recoup that efficiency.
Sweden has a public school system that is 100% voucherized; given up the postal monopoly while closing most traditional post offices and contracting out their former services to local businesses; privatized operation of public transport (for 40% savings!), etc. The other side of the "Swedish Model" is a veritable Cato front.
But for all the waste-cutting that's driven that, Sweden still has a full allotment of public schools, postal service, public transport, etc...
Maybe another part of the Swedish Model we should emulate is that when average citizens report there is a whole lot of waste in government to get rid of, our mavens of government should listen to them seriously, rather than find reasons to deride them?
Note the Reagan effect
It's interesting to notice the changes before Reagan's election (a rise probably due to campaigning against waste, so people see more of it) and then after (a large drop, due either to Reagan's spending priorities or the loss of attention).
the poll's potential worth
I agree that "waste" is quite open to interpretation. But what that slowly rising line may signal is a growing measure of dissatisfaction, cynicism, (distrust?) in and about government. Certainly there is a better way to measure cynicism but that Gallup poll may be pointing to something else worth examining.
the line is not real
"that slowly rising line" is a result of infrequently polling and the drawing of a straight line through the intervening years as if there was no cyclicality to popular opinion. The up and down movement during the earlier period of more frequent polling =suggests the line may not have been slowly rising during the latter period either.
Important Point
I just want to note that there are only two data points in this chart over the previous 20-plus years and none at all from either the George H.W. Bush administration or the Clinton administration. This is unfortunate because those were the last administrations to take fiscal responsibility seriously. Both Bush 41 and Clinton supported serious deficit reduction efforts that included higher taxes. The Bush 43 administration, by contrast, demonized government but made no effort whatsoever to cut spending for anything--unless one counts firing anyone in government who wasn't slavishly devoted to George W. Bush and willing to do whatever it took to get him re-elected. But I don't think that counts as exercising fiscal responsibuility because their positions were just filled by Republican hacks--see Bush speechwriter Matt Latimer's piece in the Post today for confirmation. The jury is still out on the current administration.
FWIW, I covered the intended
FWIW, I covered the intended meaning, the real meaning, and the objective of a politician's statement "I'll eliminate wasteful spending" in my Official 2007-2008 Political Glossary at http://swordscrossed.org/node/1721