Take note, Republicans: 62% want Smaller Government
By zroxx Posted in Policy — Comments (15) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
This aimed particularly at that majority of Republicans voting to pass the Farm Bill, who apparently believe they should be swimming against the tide when it comes to the public's desire for limited government and the lower taxes that could accompany it, but also to those occasional posters on RedState who are under the impression that the fight against big government has been lost:
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 62% of voters would prefer fewer government services with lower taxes. Nearly a third (29%) disagrees and would rather have a bigger government with higher taxes. Ten percent (10%) are not sure. [cite]
The specific question asked was, "Generally speaking, would you prefer a more active government with more services and higher taxes or a smaller government with fewer services and lower taxes?". Pretty straightforward.
Republican voters overwhelmingly prefer fewer government services—83% of the GOP faithful hold that view while just 13% prefer more government involvement. Democratic voters are evenly divided on this question: 46% prefer more government services, while 43% prefer less government services.
So to compound the counterproductive behavior of many (R) legislators, not only are they acting against overall public opinion, they're really giving the shaft to their own party members. How can their actions in support of the Farm Bill, among other big government activities, be reconciled with the will of their own party members? Will it occur to them to consider whether this is a significant part of the reason they are now out of power, and may lose even more seats come November?
I know things like, say, repealing NCLB or even downsizing (or eliminating) the Federal Dept of Education are considered by many to be beyond possibility. But these numbers give me optimism - optimism that there is already popular support for significant downsizing, and also optimism that, if they re-embrace their small government principles and actually start mapping actions to philosophy, Republicans may yet be able to come back and fight the good fight again.
That people got elected to office to do what the people wanted.
P.S. CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL IS AT 13%
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
To me it's another point in favor of some optimism. It seems reasonable to speculate that the low approval rating indicates that not only are (R) congresspersons acting against the wishes of their own party, so are (D) congresspersons - perhaps with regards to defunding the war, impeachment, and so on.
So even without a majority, the door seems open for Republicans who will actually walk the walk and put their votes where they claim their principles are.
A really good start would be supporting the presidential veto of the Farm Bill that I hope we will shortly see, rather than voting to override it. In the latter worst case scenario, at least it generates more data to help ferret out those Republicans who are actually pork-bellied socialists, and see that they're (rhetorically) beaten senseless for their poor governance and lack of resolve and commitment.
As long as individual politicians can derive significant personal benefit from looting the public treasury there will be no solution.
Someone once observed the budget doesn't have a vote. Until there is a consistent and powerful mechanism to PUNISH politicians for expanding the public sphere nothing will happen.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
To some extent greater public discourse and the ability to shine more light on these matters offered by the Internet and a site like, say, RedState, could provide a very effective means of publicly punishing those politicians who perform poorly.
Porkbusters and the CAGW are two good examples of specific organizations attempting to make people aware of whats going on and provide them with the information needed to further punish through voting.
But yes ultimately it does require putting principle above party. Which is why I hope RedState never shies away from pointing out really terrible Republican behavior. Also having a president who puts principle first and vetoes crummy spending sent up by a (R) congress as well as a (D) congress could go a long way too.
Polls have always shown this kind of thing, but when you make is specific and start talking about taking away a specific program, they change their tune. Everyone is for smaller gov't unless ther ox is getting gored.
That's right. Without exception, every time I see a poll question that begins, "Should the government be doing more..." the answer is an overwhelming yes, often even among Republicans.
What those numbers tell me is that 83% of republicans understand the issues and are voting based on that while only 46% of democrats understand the issues and are voting based on the candidate's stance on those issues. I guarantee you a huge number of Obama's supporters want a smaller government but they don't understand that "universal health care" is the exact opposite of a small government and they don't understand that all of the trillions of dollars in promises that Obama is making would give them much higher taxes and a lot of government intrusion into their lives. All they see is a younger candidate who would make history and is fairly good at delivering a speech.
to end illegal immigration, and a big majority want the government not to tell them what to do, what to eat, what to drink, or who to hang out with.
And lots of Americans want less taxes, but none of that seems to matter.
Democrat or Republican they just can't seem to stop stealing our money, telling us what to do, interfering in our lives, and generally screwing up all the legitimate functions of government.
We never do seem to get what we want do we?
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
I agree the country is headed in the wrong direction -- that wrong direction is left
Wrong direction with the ever increasing lack of morals
Wrong direction with the obsession with celebrity and fame
Wrong direction with the obsession with sex, money, entertainment
Wrong direction with the obession in seeking constant and instant gratification
Wrong direction on fiscal spending
Wrong direction on every growing government
Wrong direction on energy dependence
Wrong direction on blaming others
Wrong direction on the victimhood seeking a government fix
Wrong direction on excessive regulation of business
Wrong direction on education
Wrong direction in looking to the rest of the world to like us
Wrong direction on illegal aliens staying in this country without consequences and entering unabated
So yes, the United States is headed in the wrong direction.
this is the problem with the Obama campaign -- Change we can Believe in -- everyone is thinking their own little idea of change. The Change I believe in is for people to exercise personal responsibility and develop a sense of modesty and morality. The change I believe in is for people and government to become fiscally responsible. The change I believe in is for people to become independent of government and develop some self-reliance.
M Penny
voted against the Farm Bill. But then he's willing to throw money at global warming!
http://samuelatgilgal.wordpress.com/2008/05/21/john-mccain-global-warmin...
This reminds me of the polls that show that a majority of cigarette smokers believe that smoking is hazardous to one's health. People know one thing intellectually and then go and do something totally different.
When people say they want "smaller government," what they really mean is that they want pork for others taken out of the budget. It's less clear they want their own pork taken out. In my lifetime, I have never seen citizens band together to oppose pork for their own districts, unless it's some facility that is perceived as threatening (e.g., a nuclear waste dump).
And it's definitely true that they don't want the social safety net of Social Security and Medicare shredded. Reagan and Gingrich both found that out the hard way.
Still, I think there is more popular support for the elimination of earmarks, then for privatizing Social Security. Generally, the more established a program and the more people that benefit from it, the harder it is to reform it or get rid of it. And SS has now been around for over 70 years, and every worker has a stake in it. Few people alive today remember a time without it.
Bush should have tried to reform earmarks, before taking on SS. He had enough political capital to shoot down the "Bridge to Nowhere." So far, no politician in my lifetime, not even Reagan, had the political capital needed to touch SS.
And yet every candidate running, Democrat or Republican, wants to increase the size of government.
Reap what you sow, I guess.
the number of politicians. Then the number of bureaucrats. Then the administrivialists. Just for starters.
My co-workers in IT who are lazy AND want high salaries and great pensions all wish they'd gone into public service. What does that tell you?
You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.
I hope Citizen McCain is reading your article!
No if only our politicians cared what we the people want. California did not care what we the people wanted.
When it comes to expanding fuel exploration they don't care about we the people.
I AM glad to see the report and I will try to stay optimistic but our Republican leaders have a long way to go to earn back my respect and trust.
Your optimism is refreshing though!
MelZ