All research indicates that the majority of Americans, not having the IQ’s of Pet Rocks, recognize that our bloated government is corrupt, inept and wasteful. Pew Research polling concluded that 56% of Americans felt that way last year. “Nearly 2/3 of Americans fear that our government is run by corrupt officials, stated another survey. In January, A.P.-NORC researchers found that 70% of Americans believe corruption in the federal government is a serious problem.
Despite these beliefs, only 39 % of Americans polled gave DOGE a “favorable” rating in the latest The Economist/YouGov poll, with”unfavorable” at 36%, and the human slugs who chose “don’t know” came in at a whopping 25%. Another poll this month found only 49% approving DOGE’s cost-cutting efforts.
Conclusion? Americans love the idea of efficient government and getting serious about waste, fraud and abuse, but they can easily be discouraged by the reality that real reform involves. Making meaningful reforms requires acceptance of the reality that the government can’t do all of the things we are used to having it do. It means some nice people with families lose their jobs. It means short term chaos and disruption.
Right now, Democrats are hopelessly in thrall to the ideal of a huge government doing all sorts of wonderful things for everybody. That Pew poll found that 49% of respondents “would prefer a smaller government providing fewer services” while 48% wants a bigger government providing more services, even though they agree that the government wastes money and doesn’t do a very good job at what it undertakes. Democratic support for larger, more powerful government grew from 49% in 1976 to 74% now. You wonder why the Democratic Party thinks it can get away with its totalitarian proclivities? There is your evidence.
Predictably, majorities of both parties as well as independents say they want more federal spending on Social Security, Education, and Medicare, according to the A.P.-NORC survey. With its crippling debt, the government can’t afford to spend more on anything, but that is the siren song of socialism. Once the public gets free stuff—remember, Social Security was supposed to be self-funding, and it is not—it cannot tolerate the idea of getting less of it.
It is foolish and irresponsible for the Social Security “safety net” to go to millionaires, or, frankly, those with rich pensions. The retirement age should have been ratcheted up as the actuarial tables showed people living significantly longer, but that has always been “politically impractical.” As for Medicare, the amount of money the system pays for the last, useless, painful, pathetic months of life is the epitome of wasted funds, but socialism is either a brutal system, or a profligate one. Voter will always choose profligate.
Similarly, all those Trump voters who had government jobs are shocked that when he said he was going to cut down the size of the federal workforce, he meant them too. Now they are yelling and screaming their indignation at Congressional town meetings. J.D. Tucille concludes at Reason, “Americans are lukewarm about DOGE because they’re torn about its mission. Sure, they have a low opinion of the federal government, but they might be willing to put up with its deep flaws so long as it delivers their goodies.”
Unless somehow Trump, Musk and Republican leadership can explain to the public that the nation’s finances and addiction to big government has to be fixed as soon as possible and that Americans are obligated to make personal sacrifices—fewer “goodies”— in the interests of the nation and its future, the Democrats will take over one or both Houses of Congress in 2026, and we will see a re-run of the 2016 Post-Election Ethics Train Wreck, with impeachments and organized obstruction to all Trump policies.
Then the death spiral will continue, the debt will continue to explode, and eventually, it will all come crashing down. When it does, the United States will have reaped exactly what it has sowed with its dishonesty, irresponsible leadership and civically ignorant population, churned out by the ideological indoctrination of its educational system.
The Founders knew well and wrote often about how democracies were always at risk because most people aren’t smart, educated or ethical enough to govern themselves, much less others. The theory was that a republic insulated a government from the worst instincts of the common voter. They agreed on a system that they thought might give the new nation its best chance to thrive despite that inherent weakness. I am increasingly coming to believe that the next two years will finally answer the question of whether or not their experiment was doomed from the outset.
Ethics Alarms 
One of my sister’s friends just posted on Facebook about cozying up to billionaires and accusations of fraud that don’t exist.
Yep, we may have reached the precipice.
I wonder if these results are related to how fiscally respinsible voters are in their personal finances.
I think we need to be careful with polls, as these can be biased and unreliable. I just see some numbers from the Harvard Harris poll on X with results that are quite different than the YouGov poll:
https://x.com/MarioNawfal/status/1894055959976190245?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1894055959976190245%7Ctwgr%5E70c29c70cf6a7ca1e912ade4a73b26c0c921a3f7%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Finstapundit.com%2F704694%2F
I am an advocate of raising the cap on social security. If you are interested, the link below provides a fair analysis of the issues. FICA taxes are regressive in nature which means lower income employees pay a larger share of gross income than those above the cap.
Should We Eliminate the Social Security Tax Cap?
Ironically, the employees least likely to suffer employment losses with such a tax increase are the very beneficiaries of the cap. Not all employees have the same market power. As a result those who are harder to replace will not suffer reductions in employment.
Currently, the cap is set at about $176,000. This means that all income earned above that amount is not subject to the overall amount of 15.3%; half being paid by the employee and half by the employer.
I want to remind people that those, who claim that large companies pay no taxes forget that they pay 6.65% on all wages paid per employee up to the cap amount. Thus a firm with 1000 employees all earning an average of 50,000 annually would pay at least $3.38 million even if the firm is struggling and just broke even. How much would an individual pay if he or she had no net income. We all know the answer, zero.
If you read the article in the link I conclude that the donut hole issue could be collapsed faster by not narrowing the gap over time for the employer but allow the gap to be narrowed over time for the employee. We might actually see a side benefit such that over priced college professors, coaches, and administrators or public sector employees see their salaries capped or reduced as well.
To address the issue of non-salary compensation such as deductible increase in retirement programs or pension funding could be addressed by developing a tax structure that reduces social security payouts as pensions rise. A payment floor could be established so that the higher income retiree gets something back.
Chris, thank you for your presence here, and continuing to share your knowledge with us. I appreciate it so much!!
Thank you Joel. I must that I get far more from everyone else than I am able to supply in exchange.
I would have no problem with eliminating the cap on Social Security, nor with phasing out benefits for higher earners — maybe $250k or the infamous $400k earners. Retired folks at those income levels can likely fund their own retirement.
I would also have no problem with continuing to raise the full retirement age. Perhaps even think about raising the age to get early benefits.
I think those are all relatively simple and relatively painless ways to improve the viability of the Social Security system. Maybe we’ll get 80% instead of 70% when it runs out of money.
Likely? SS was never intended to fund retirement. It was intended as a safety net so seniors didn’t starve to death or end up in a gutter.
Yuck.
I’m likely never going to see a dime of social security unless something drastic changes in the next 30 years.
I also make quite a bit more than the SS cap but am by no means wealthy.
All in, my current effective tax rate is around 33% (meaning federal, state, property, and a rough calculation for sales tax).
Right now, about one third of all I produce is going to the government. How much of my time, my life, my production should belong to the government?
I noticed that democrats have embarked on a massive social media propaganda push, equating the elimination of waste and corruption with the cutting of services. And it seems a lot of people are unable to grasp the distinction, and fearing service cuts, have come out against the DOGE efforts.
Is tgis not the same side that saya we need to conserve resources for future generations?
All it takes is a couple thousand unhappy people for a movement and assuming the news is correct, there are probably that many angry unemployed people. No one seems upset when this happens in the private sector. I believe the catch phase was “learn to code” or “get a green energy job”.
“No one seems upset when this happens in the private sector. I believe the catch phase was ‘learn to code’ or ‘get a green energy job’.”
Bravo Indigo November Golf Oscar!!!!!
PWS