The general idea of slicing government spending is popular, with majorities of Republicans, independents and Democrats all saying they support an across-the-board five percent reduction in federal outlays. (This poll asked only about cuts started with the so-called sequester, not about taxes, or any possible budget deal.)
. . . The large support for cutting government spending stands in stark contrast deep public opposition to decreasing spending on particular programs. In February the Pew Research Center surveyed Americans on 19 areas of federal spending, and there was majority support for decreasing spending in precisely zero of them. (See also Huffpost Pollster’s write-up of the cuts paradox.)
In short: the American public likes the idea of cutting federal spending; what they don’t like are actual cuts in federal spending.
That paradox makes it very difficult for elected officials to navigate the issue of whether — and what — to cut. It also explains why we should have seen the sequester as politically inevitable right from the start. Without any clear signal from the public of how, specifically, it wants the cuts to happen, politicians did the easy thing: They let an across-the-board cut go into effect without having to vote (read: explain) on it.
One person's pork is another person's job. This has always made federal spending cuts difficult to enact. Constituencies develop around different spending projects which aim to preserve programs.
But here's a question: Why doesn't this logic work in Texas - or why does it work only selectively? The legislature was able ti cut $5 billion in public education in the 82nd session (pending the ongoing lawsuit), but supporters of the cuts were able to survive electorally. Why? Perhaps it comes down to the nature of the political factions in the state as opposed to national factions. This would make a good research project.
