Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Ithaca, N.Y.

DON’T take at face value the claims that Americans dislike government. Sure, a recent ABC News/Washington Post poll found that 56 percent of Americans said they wanted smaller government and fewer services. Tea Party activists, the most vocal citizens of our time, powerfully amplify those demands. Yet the reality is that the vast majority of Americans have at some point relied on government programs — and valued them — even though they often fail to recognize that government is the source of the assistance.

A 2008 poll of 1,400 Americans by the Cornell Survey Research Institute found that when people were asked whether they had “ever used a government social program,” 57 percent said they had not. Respondents were then asked whether they had availed themselves of any of 21 different federal policies, including Social Security, unemployment insurance, the home-mortgage-interest deduction and student loans. It turned out that 94 percent of those who had denied using programs had benefited from at least one; the average respondent had used four.

Americans often fail to recognize government’s role in society, even if they have experienced it in their own lives. That is because so much of what government does today is largely invisible.

Individuals’ political views partly account for their perceptions. In the Cornell poll, a respondent who self-identified as “extremely liberal” was 20 percentage points more likely to acknowledge using a government program than someone who used the same number of programs but was “extremely conservative.” Also, those who believed that the nation spent too much on welfare were less likely to admit that they had used a “government social program,” perhaps because that term had pejorative connotations.

Besides political ideology, the design of policies also influences awareness. The most visible policies are those that require people to interact frequently or intensively with public officials to qualify for benefits, like food stamps, disability payments and subsidized housing. Another set of programs, including Medicare, Pell Grants and Social Security retirement benefits, are also fairly visible, though each contains characteristics that can camouflage government’s role.

The man at the town hall meeting in the summer of 2009 who angrily told his congressman, “Keep your government hands off my Medicare,” might have been in less of a state of denial than many believed: last year, one in four Medicare beneficiaries got their benefits through a private insurance company.

In the case of Social Security, checks are sent directly by the government, making it clear why 56 percent of beneficiaries in the Cornell poll acknowledged the use of a social program. But the denial by the remaining 44 percent is also understandable, given that individuals contributed directly from their paychecks to help finance the program. President Franklin D. Roosevelt insisted on this arrangement, knowing the benefits would be understood as an earned right. That way, he said, “no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program.”

The final group of policies, what I call the “submerged state,” is largely invisible because its benefits are channeled through the tax code and subsidies to private organizations. These include the home-mortgage-interest deduction and the exemption from taxes on employer-provided health and retirement benefits. Using “submerged” benefits is nearly as common as using more visible policies.

Even personal encounters with the submerged state fail to make most people recognize that they have benefited from government. The greater the number of visible policies an individual had used, the more likely he or she was to agree that “government programs have helped me in times of need,” but greater use of policies of the submerged state had no comparable impact.

Likewise, the greater the number of visible policies used, the higher the rate of agreement that “government has provided me opportunities to improve my standard of living”; by contrast, those who had used more submerged policies were more likely to disagree. The hidden policies left beneficiaries with the false impression that their economic security was owed merely to their own efforts.

The submerged state obscures the role of government and exaggerates that of the market. It leaves citizens unaware of the source of programs and unable to form meaningful opinions about them.

Until political leaders reveal government benefits for what they are by talking openly about them, we cannot have an honest discussion about spending, taxes or deficits. The stipulation in the new health care reform law that W-2 forms must indicate the value of untaxed employer-provided health care benefits is a step in the right direction. The government should also provide “receipts” that inform people of the size of each benefit they get through the tax code.

The threat to democracy today is not the size of government but rather the hidden form that so much of its growth has taken. If those who assume government has never helped them could see how it has, it might help defuse our polarized political climate and reinvigorate informed citizenship.

Suzanne Mettler, a professor of government at Cornell, is the author of “The Submerged State: How Invisible Government Policies Undermine American Democracy.”

kalm wrote:I went fishing the other day.

I researched my destination via the internet which was first used by the military and eventually brought to my home through county easements. But I got thirsty while on line, and thanks to a nearby city that ran it's water utilities out to my corner in the country I didn't have to rely upon a local aquifer that is drying up. I left my home that is protected by county police and a fire station close enough that it lowers my homeowners insurance rate. I drove my truck down county, federal, and state roads that were spacious, well maintained, well patrolled, and safe. On the way I stopped at a convenience store and picked up some beef jerky that I knew was OK because it had been processed in USDA inspected facilities. I assumed the brauts in the hot dog machine were kept above 140 degrees and thus free of harmful bacteria because the business was regularly inspected by the county health district. I had access to and fished a gorgeous stretch of water that the BLM purchased from a private land owner years ago and has since kept pristine and wild. Had I chosen the lake just up the road I would have found a public access point with a boat launch and a ton of stocked trout courtesy of the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. I would have stayed longer, but I needed to work early the next day to lay out instructions for my wonderful staff of state educated employees some of whom would never have earned a degree without the benefit of education grants. A healthy number of the customers they serve are kept alive through the affordability of medicare and have enough disposable income thanks to Social Security of which they paid into that they can occasionally afford my product.

God I love America!

Great post Hank.

Ivytalk wrote:

kalm wrote:I went fishing the other day.

I researched my destination via the internet which was first used by the military and eventually brought to my home through county easements. But I got thirsty while on line, and thanks to a nearby city that ran it's water utilities out to my corner in the country I didn't have to rely upon a local aquifer that is drying up. I left my home that is protected by county police and a fire station close enough that it lowers my homeowners insurance rate. I drove my truck down county, federal, and state roads that were spacious, well maintained, well patrolled, and safe. On the way I stopped at a convenience store and picked up some beef jerky that I knew was OK because it had been processed in USDA inspected facilities. I assumed the brauts in the hot dog machine were kept above 140 degrees and thus free of harmful bacteria because the business was regularly inspected by the county health district. I had access to and fished a gorgeous stretch of water that the BLM purchased from a private land owner years ago and has since kept pristine and wild. Had I chosen the lake just up the road I would have found a public access point with a boat launch and a ton of stocked trout courtesy of the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. I would have stayed longer, but I needed to work early the next day to lay out instructions for my wonderful staff of state educated employees some of whom would never have earned a degree without the benefit of education grants. A healthy number of the customers they serve are kept alive through the affordability of medicare and have enough disposable income thanks to Social Security of which they paid into that they can occasionally afford my product.

God I love America!

Great post Hank.

You aiming for a guest column on the Times? What a suckup!

kalm wrote: I would have stayed longer, but I needed to work early the next day to lay out instructions for my wonderful staff of state educated employees some of whom would never have earned a degree without the benefit of education grants.

Ivytalk wrote:

kalm wrote:I went fishing the other day.

I researched my destination via the internet which was first used by the military and eventually brought to my home through county easements. But I got thirsty while on line, and thanks to a nearby city that ran it's water utilities out to my corner in the country I didn't have to rely upon a local aquifer that is drying up. I left my home that is protected by county police and a fire station close enough that it lowers my homeowners insurance rate. I drove my truck down county, federal, and state roads that were spacious, well maintained, well patrolled, and safe. On the way I stopped at a convenience store and picked up some beef jerky that I knew was OK because it had been processed in USDA inspected facilities. I assumed the brauts in the hot dog machine were kept above 140 degrees and thus free of harmful bacteria because the business was regularly inspected by the county health district. I had access to and fished a gorgeous stretch of water that the BLM purchased from a private land owner years ago and has since kept pristine and wild. Had I chosen the lake just up the road I would have found a public access point with a boat launch and a ton of stocked trout courtesy of the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. I would have stayed longer, but I needed to work early the next day to lay out instructions for my wonderful staff of state educated employees some of whom would never have earned a degree without the benefit of education grants. A healthy number of the customers they serve are kept alive through the affordability of medicare and have enough disposable income thanks to Social Security of which they paid into that they can occasionally afford my product.

God I love America!

Great post Hank.

You aiming for a guest column on the Times? What a suckup!

D1B wrote:Crickets from the Conkets.

AZGrizFan wrote:

D1B wrote:Crickets from the Conkets.

What other response do you need besides JSO's? The fact remains, living IN the system doesn't mean we shouldn't be trying to change the system. And the issues/benefits brought up by Kalm are rarely the ones with massive fraud/waste/abuse, nor are they where the bulk of the $$ is spent.

D1B wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:

You aiming for a guest column on the Times? What a suckup!

Great reply Ivy.

Ivytalk wrote:

D1B wrote:
Great reply Ivy.

Actually, it was. With no disrespect for Hank intended, the article that he posted was patronizing and intellectually dishonest. The implicit theme was: look at all the great little things -- regulatory and otherwise -- that government does for you without your knowing it. Ergo, you should be eager and grateful to get more, openly bigger government to do bigger and better things for us. Well, that stupid theory foundered on the rocks of ObamaCare and the Big Bailout.

AZGrizFan wrote:

D1B wrote:Crickets from the Conkets.

What other response do you need besides JSO's? The fact remains, living IN the system doesn't mean we shouldn't be trying to change the system. And the issues/benefits brought up by Kalm are rarely the ones with massive fraud/waste/abuse, nor are they where the bulk of the $$ is spent.

Ivytalk wrote:

D1B wrote:
Great reply Ivy.

Actually, it was. With no disrespect for Hank intended, the article that he posted was patronizing and intellectually dishonest. The implicit theme was: look at all the great little things -- regulatory and otherwise -- that government does for you without your knowing it. Ergo, you should be eager and grateful to get more, openly bigger government to do bigger and better things for us. Well, that stupid theory foundered on the rocks of ObamaCare and the Big Bailout.

D1B wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:
Actually, it was. With no disrespect for Hank intended, the article that he posted was patronizing and intellectually dishonest. The implicit theme was: look at all the great little things -- regulatory and otherwise -- that government does for you without your knowing it. Ergo, you should be eager and grateful to get more, openly bigger government to do bigger and better things for us. Well, that stupid theory foundered on the rocks of ObamaCare and the Big Bailout.

Paranoid conk.

D1B wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
What other response do you need besides JSO's? The fact remains, living IN the system doesn't mean we shouldn't be trying to change the system. And the issues/benefits brought up by Kalm are rarely the ones with massive fraud/waste/abuse, nor are they where the bulk of the $$ is spent.

Just funny - you fucks refusing to recognize anything good about government.

kalm wrote:Social Security currently has a surplus and is solvent for another 25 years. It can be adusted to remain solvent going forward. Medicare has issues - especially Part D, but it too is fixable. Besides, think of all the money Granny's Buffet and the healthcare industry has made due to these programs pulling seniors out of poverty and helping them to live longer.

A couple of years ago, we were denied a claim by our insurance company on our homeowners policy. Thank God for the government office of insurance commissioner and the AG. They helped us little guys win the battle against a large corporation. Of course if we had lost, we could have hired an attorney and taken them to court. Perhaps we wouldn't have been the only victims and eventually a class action suit would have been filed.

Hey Ivy, if one of my vendors breaks a contract and owes me money, am I **** out of luck or do I have recourse? What value does our local, state, and federal court system bring to the taxpayers? What is the cost of all of this?

D1B wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
What other response do you need besides JSO's? The fact remains, living IN the system doesn't mean we shouldn't be trying to change the system. And the issues/benefits brought up by Kalm are rarely the ones with massive fraud/waste/abuse, nor are they where the bulk of the $$ is spent.

Just funny - you fucks refusing to recognize anything good about government.

CID1990 wrote:I stopped reading at the point where the author had the unmitigated gall to classify the mortgage interest deduction a government social program.

What a glaring example of gross liberal big government arrogance.

AZGrizFan wrote:

D1B wrote:
Just funny - you fucks refusing to recognize anything good about government.

Patently untrue, and you know it. Now you're just fishing for a fight.

In fact, ALL the things mentioned in Kalm's rant are (for the most part) the "good" in government. And anybody with a brainstem realizes that the gov't has at least some part to play in providing those services or benefits. But IT hit the nail on the head in his analysis....the argument is disingenuous.

D1B wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Patently untrue, and you know it. Now you're just fishing for a fight.

In fact, ALL the things mentioned in Kalm's rant are (for the most part) the "good" in government. And anybody with a brainstem realizes that the gov't has at least some part to play in providing those services or benefits. But IT hit the nail on the head in his analysis....the argument is disingenuous.

Good to see you finally waking up Z. Cap'n Cat and I are doing a great job with you.

AZGrizFan wrote:

CID1990 wrote:I stopped reading at the point where the author had the unmitigated gall to classify the mortgage interest deduction a government social program.

What a glaring example of gross liberal big government arrogance.

Apparently then, Cash for Clunkers was too.