e21 Asks: Do You Support the Budget Deal?

Over the course of the week, we asked readers whether or not they support the Ryan-Murray budget compromise, and provided different options for readers to state their reasoning. “No, it does not cut enough spending” was the overwhelming favorite, with 50 percent of the vote. “Yes, it keeps the government open

” followed with 29 percent and “Yes, it cuts long-term spending” had 13 percent. “Yes, it relaxes sequestration cuts” and “No, it raises fees” received only 5 and 3 percent, respectively.

Despite the landslide victory for “No, it does not cut enough spending”, breaking down the votes into just “Yes” or “No” tells a different story. Opposition to the budget compromise still wins out, but only by the close margin of 53 to 47 percent.

It is no surprise that so many voters opposed the budget compromise for its lack of meaningful spending cuts. Entitlement spending now makes up 60 percent of the federal budget, compared with around 45 percent 15 years ago, a proportion that is growing faster with time. The budget compromise fails to address this concern at all by leaving entitlements untouched. The compromise actually increases spending by a combined $65 billion over the next two years, although this only amounts to a one percent increase.

The next largest group of voters was happy about a deal that appears to keep government shutdowns off the table for a couple years. The October government shutdown had a significant effect on the political attitudes of the American public. It was clear that neither Democrats nor Republicans were happy about the shutdown. The shutdown did raise a level of uncertainty for businesses that depend on the government, but serious negative economic effects failed to materialize in the shutdown’s aftermath.

Thirteen percent of voters supported the budget compromise because it cuts long-term spending. Despite the spending hikes in 2014 and 2015, the Ryan-Murray budget compromise introduces new spending limits in 2022 and 2023 that had not previously existed. Technically, the new spending limits make the bill an overall spending cut, but the cuts are largely symbolic. Future Congresses, legislating in different economic and political environments, are unlikely to leave promised spending cuts in 2022 and 2023 untouched. Even if the cuts transpired as planned, they would only reduce the budget deficit by a mere three percent.

A small section of voters, five percent, were moved to support the budget compromise on the grounds that it relaxes sequestration cuts over the next two years. Sequestration cuts limiting the growth of government are one of the few positive achievements for Congress since the Obama administration took office. While the initial cuts were arbitrary at times and limited only one percent of federal spending, the economic downfall that many predicted never occurred.

Lastly, just three percent of voters opposed the deal on the grounds that it raises fees. The budget compromise more than doubles an airline ticket fee that funds the Transportation Security Administration. Travelers will be charged $5.60 for every pat-down, or every one-way flight booked. Given its narrow base and small effect, the fee increase will not spell economic doom for the American economy or the airline industry. However, there is no reason that travelers should have to be singled out to pay for government deficits. 

For further commentary on this topic see The Good, Bad, and Ugly of the Budget Compromise.