What's wrong with this picture?

[Pangloss]

A 9/19 poll by USA Today, CNN and Gallup included the following question:

 

9. If you had to choose, which of the following would you say would be the best way for the government to pay for the problems caused by Hurricane Katrina?

 

The results were as follows:

54% Cut spending for war in Iraq

17% Raise taxes

15% Increase federal budget deficit

6% Cut spending for domestic programs

5% Other

3% No opinion

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/2005-09-19-poll.htm

 

I don't really disagree with any of these options, but I think it's interesting that ABC's George Stephanopoulis was representing, in his interview with John McCain on Sunday, that this poll shows lack of support for cutting spending on domestic programs. The poll doesn't show that at all. In fact, I'm sure that if you asked most Americans "do we spend too much on domestic programs", most Americans would say that we do. It's just that spending on the Iraq war trumped that option in this poll, which asked for what the responder felt was the best option.

 

One of the things that's interesting about that is that is demonstrates the lack of understanding about where our money is going. Estimates put the total expenditures at between $100 and 200 billion so far, but even if we assume the worst of those numbers, that's still only one percent of the total budget. Might that be a good way to pay for Katrina? Sure. But is it really likely that we can't find that amount of money anywhere else in the other 99% of the budget?

 

The recent highway bill was widely reported to contain somewhere around $24 billion in pork (a figure which probably came from a special interest group, but which has been generally accepted by the media and politicians, which I think is also a sad statement about how things work in this country). ABC News did a couple of great pieces last week where they asked politicians if they'd be willing to give up their piece of that pie. A couple (like Democrat Nancy Pelosi) had the guts to say they would. But neither the President nor the Republican leadership has any intention of revisiting the highway bill. That swine-laden ship has sailed.

 

I don't have any great answers here, but it sure seems to me that something is wrong with this picture.

[swansont]

Estimates put the total expenditures at between $100 and 200 billion so far' date=' but even if we assume the worst of those numbers, that's still only [i']one percent[/i] of the total budget. Might that be a good way to pay for Katrina? Sure. But is it really likely that we can't find that amount of money anywhere else in the other 99% of the budget?

...

I don't have any great answers here, but it sure seems to me that something is wrong with this picture.

 

One thing wrong is that our budget is not $20 trillion, it's around $2 trillion. So that represents 10% of the total, if it's over a span of one year. It's not, though - a span of three years, so it's closer to 3% of the total spent over that time.

[bascule]

http://www.costofwar.com places total Iraq expendatures at $197 billion.

[john5746]

I don't have any great answers here' date=' but it sure seems to me that something is wrong with this picture.[/quote']

 

Your correct, those who would want to cut spending picked Iraq over domestic, while those who would rather increase taxes only had one choice. It gives the false impression that people would rather raise taxes than cut domestic spending.

 

But what do the people know anyway, we are the ones who ran up this huge deficit. We want our cake after eating it.

 

It would be nice to see a pie chart of where the 2004 money went. I'm sure the two largest by far will be defense and health department.

 

By the way, the interest on our national debt was 336 billion, enough to pay for New Orleans.

[Pangloss]

LOL! That was a rather fatal math error, wasn't it? Rather blew my own argument right out of the water, I did. (chuckle) Definitely one for the highlight reel.