More on Budget Ignorance

The more closely I re-read Adam Davis' Oregonian article, the more clever it appears. Its purpose is to de-legitimize critics of bigger government, higher taxes, and more spending, and to pave the way for a tax increase, a sales tax, or both.

Davis establishes that "at least eight out of 10 Oregon voters oppose cutting services to seniors and funding for K-12 education" in order to balance the state budget. Using popularity as a proxy for legitimacy, he implies that any reduction in spending in either area is illegitimate. (This is consistent with the findings of public choice theory, that no specific cut is ever as attractive as the general idea of cuts. Davis would probably find majorities favoring protecting every area of the budget.)

Yet both "services to seniors and funding for K-12 education" contain wasteful programs that can and should be cut, in order to free up money for the programs that do work. Why is it a good idea to follow Davis' lead and assume that neither area should be scrutinized for efficiencies?

Davis then reports that random voters cannot accurately guess budget numbers. This is a surprise? And why does it rate as newsworthy? Yet Davis wants us to believe it means that cuts are unjustified.

He then flat out lies: "more than 90 percent of the state budget goes to" seniors and K-12 education. No, less than half does. (It's about 90% of the General Fund that he means, but by being vague and over-stating his case Davis again gives the false impression that there's nothing else to discuss.)

As the piece unfolds, Davis attributes all disagreement with his position to "the information gap" and condescendingly says that politicians just can't help themselves when they claim that there's money to be saved or waste to be reduced.

But any such claim is a "something-for-nothing" promise that inherently cannot be fulfilled - and if the public is cynical, it's the fault of those politicians who said something could be done to save money.

Meanwhile the responsible politicians are stuck with brutal, evil, heartless, fill-in-the-blank choices to either slash "vital" services, throw grandma into the street, or (sniff) raise taxes.

Therefore, Davis concludes, the only way to solve things is to "educate" (i.e. indoctrinate) the voters into understanding that no savings are possible, that those who disagree are ignorant or dishonest, and tax hikes are inevitable.

All in all a sweet piece of propaganda. Too bad the facts are not on his side.