Rasmussen Poll: 45% Say Sequestration 'Cuts' Weren't Deep Enough; That Won't Stop Dems' Threats, Press Whining
At the Politico, Darren Samuelsohn reports that "The public has largely tuned out the Democrats’ repeated warnings about ... (what will happen) if the sequester cuts stay in place." He also notes in a separate report that Republicans "Republicans are winning the sequester wars," and that "even the White House admits there’s little chance of reversing all the cuts."
Of course, what's in question here mostly aren't "cuts" at all, but reductions in projected spending increases, as pollster Scott Rasmussen explained in his note accompanying a recent poll his organization did on the topic:
45% Say Sequester Didn’t Cut Government Spending Enough
Just over three weeks after the sequester cuts in the growth of federal spending kicked in, voters feel a bit more strongly that they didn’t cut deep enough.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 22% of Likely U.S. Voters still think the sequester cut the projected growth in spending too much. But twice as many (45%) disagree and think it didn’t cut enough. Fourteen percent (14%) feel the amount cut was about right. Nineteen percent (19%) are not sure.
In the same poll, in a separate note, Rasmussen reports that only "12% Say Sequester Cuts Have Hurt Them in a Major Way."
Thus, as Politico's Samuelsohn elaborates, Democrats are doubling and tripling down on their Chicken Little Act:
But Democrats aren’t dropping the threat of disaster, seizing now on the line they think can beat the Republicans: law and order.
Prison riots, cocaine flooding the streets, terrorists on board airplanes — even hurricanes and tornadoes left undetected by budget-slashed agencies — have moved front and center as Democrats try to get the public behind blaming the Republicans.
How about this for a response: They haven't had any kind of meaningful restraint on funding for over four years, during which time "not a single senior executive from the biggest banks has gone to jail" over crimes committed during the financial crisis (that's largely because if that started happening, they would drag Democratic crony enterprises and frauds by design Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into the mix, and Eric Holder knows it), and, more recently, no senior exec from HSBC went to jail, even when the bank admitted to money-laundering actions senior management almost had to know were occurring.
Oh, and remember former U.S. Senator and former New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine? His MF Global evaporated in a wave of Europe-related bets using money taken from customer accounts; it's virtually inconceivable that Corzine didn't bless or at least condone those actions. He's still a free man, and there is apparently no prosecution on his horizon.
So if they're not going to enforce the laws anyway (similar arguments can be made in connection with illegal immigration enforcement and campaign-financial laws, as least as not applied [here and here] to the Obama campaigns), let 'em get by with a bit less of an annual spending increase then they're used to -- for starters. And we'll just sing "la-la-la" every time clowns at the Associated Press and other establishment press outlets whine about "massive government spending cuts."
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.