DT Fine Art

PRINCETON, NJ — Americans continue to say they enjoy saving money more than spending it, by 60% to 37%. These self-perceptions have remained stable in recent years, but across four measures from 2001 to 2008, the gap between the saving and spending options was smaller, including in 2001, when 48% preferred saving and 45% spending.

These data are from Gallup#39;s annual Economy and Personal Finance survey conducted April 4-14.

The impact of the 2008 recession is clearly visible in the trend line, with the gap between self-reported enjoyment of saving and enjoyment of spending increasing from the three- to nine-percentage-point range prior to 2009 to as large as 27 points in 2010, and 23 points this year. Clearly Americans#39; relative enjoyment in spending money, at least as measured with this question, was curtailed when the economy soured in 2008, and so far has not begun to rebound.

Little Relationship to Other Views of the Economy and Finances

Americans#39; preferences for spending or saving do not appear to be directly tethered to their views toward the nation#39;s economy or their personal finances — even though the shift toward a focus on saving occurred in the years after the financial crisis of 2008.

Americans who say the US economy is getting better are just as likely to say they enjoy saving as those who say the economy is getting worse. Similarly, the percentage of Americans who enjoy saving is about the same regardless of whether they say economic conditions are positive or negative and whether they rate their own financial situation as positive or negative.

There is also remarkably little variation in these self-reports based on worry about a series of seven different financial problems. Those who are worried about most of these seven problems are only slightly more likely to say they enjoy saving than those who do not worry about any of the seven problems.

Income Is Only Variable Associated With Saving vs. Spending Attitudes

There are relatively few differences in views of saving versus spending across standard demographic segments of the US population, including age, gender, education, and political party.

There are differences by income, with those in the lowest income category (less than $20,000 a year) tilting to the saving over spending choice by 73% to 25%. The gap narrows to 55% to 43% among those making $75,000 or more per year.

Still the majority of Americans in all demographic groups analyzed prefer saving rather than spending money.

Implications

This measure assesses how Americans like to view themselves in relationship to money but not necessarily how Americans actually behave. Most smokers, for example, say they would like to stop, but continue smoking anyhow. Similarly, although the majority of Americans say they enjoy saving more than spending money, this doesn#39;t necessarily mean they don#39;t spend while at the same time feeling guilty about it.

Of course, saving money may be a surrogate in some Americans#39; minds for having a lot of money to save in the first place, which may help explain why this alternative sounds so appealing.

These attitudes may help explain why retailers often run into trouble when they attempt to cut out sales and discounts and create lower everyday, normal prices — as happened in recent years to retailer JC Penney. Even if the ultimate cost for a product is the same, customers apparently like the idea that they are engaging in behavior that is clearly labeled as saving money.

It was never really billed as the next autobahn.

But when the new stretch of Highway 141 opened last summer between Highway 40 (Interstate 64) and Page Avenue (Highway 364) in Maryland Heights, it teased drivers with the prospect of an outer-belt highway stretching from Arnold to north St. Louis County.

The fact is that Highway 141 is still dotted with traffic signals and rush-hour traffic patterns befitting a bustling commuter route. But under a new five-year spending plan, the Missouri Department of Transportation is targeting some of those Highway 141 choke points.

The recently released $3.5 billion Statewide Transportation Improvement Program has money to make over the interchange at Interstate 44, double the capacity of the left-turn lanes for cars entering Highway 40, and to add MoDOT’s standard highway-traffic gadgetry to 141 north of Olive Boulevard.

When the latest four-mile section of Highway 141 opened last July — at a cost of about $149 million — it completed a 30-mile divided highway of four lanes, sometimes six. It was built mostly in a piecemeal fashion over nearly four decades.

Suburban growth has fueled traffic jams on Interstate 270 — which runs roughly parallel to Highway 141 — and has managed to tie traffic into knots on 141 itself. Projects listed on the state’s latest five-year spending plan target a couple of the most obvious sources of congestion.

Funding to build a flyover ramp from southbound Highway 141 to eastbound Interstate 44, and to beef up the interchange to better handle cars going from northbound 141 to westbound I-44, is a welcome investment, some say.

“It is a bottleneck there,” said Valley Park Mayor Mike Pennise. “Especially when it rains in the morning.”

Highway 141 is a primary access route to Valley Park and other St. Louis County towns. Pennise said the new stretch that opened last July was a dramatic improvement.

Commuter Eric Stephens, of Arnold, agrees there is still room for improvement on Highway 141. The self-employed handyman drives the route about twice a month, on average, and can usually count on backups once he reaches Valley Park. He attributes delays to all of the traffic signals.

The flyover ramp “will eliminate one thing that clogs up the traffic,” he said. “There are several that clog it up through that area.”

Farther north, MoDOT will add second left-turn lanes for Highway 141 travelers trying to enter Highway 40. Currently, there are only single left-turn lanes. MoDOT also will add an extra, auxiliary lane between Highway 40 and St. Luke’s Hospital.

Both of those projects were supposed to be part of the work completed last summer with the help of federal stimulus funds. But they were cut and had to wait until more money became available, said Tom Montesdeoca, project manager for the southwest St. Louis County area.

Another project will tie Highway 141 north of Olive Boulevard into the state’s “intelligent transportation” system. MoDOT took over that portion of highway after St. Louis County completed its share of the work between Page Avenue and Olive.

Features such as electronic message boards, traffic cameras and traffic sensors will be hooked up, thanks to $2.25 million in federal transportation dollars targeting traffic congestion relief and improved air quality.

Having the state monitor traffic flow on that highway will help to ease traffic congestion in the corridor, said Lee Hillner, a MoDOT project manager for intelligent transportation systems. That’s because the system relays valuable information to drivers and helps first responders get to traffic incidents faster.

Don Mueller, a network engineer who lives in Creve Coeur, has commuted on Highway 141 for the past 10 years and said the latest expansion project “absolutely made that better.”

But Mueller noticed during his daily commute to Town and Country that more drivers have flocked to the highway, and that has fueled backups between St. Luke’s and Highway 40. As a result, other drivers turn right at Brooking Park Drive and then turn left on South Woods Mill to avoid the traffic knot.

Mueller said adding the left-turn lanes from Highway 141 to Highway 40 should help relieve backups.

The five-year spending plan has numerous projects — large and small — throughout the state. Because of the shrinking availability of transportation dollars, highway planners say they will have less to spend in the next five years than in recent times.

Much of the emphasis, therefore, will be on maintaining roads and bridges.

“The funding that we have for the program that you see is a little over half of what it has been in the past,” said Machelle Watkins, MoDOT’s transportation planning director in Jefferson City. “As a result, the type of work that you see is different. There is a lot less of the more exciting expansion, economic development type of projects.”

MoDOT is accepting public comments through the end of the month on the spending plan, which covers $700 million per year in highway and bridge projects. Those interested in reviewing the program can find it at MoDOT’s website, www.modot.org, or at any MoDOT district or regional office.

Even as demonstrators were outside the New York Public Library’s flagship Fifth Avenue building on Wednesday, protesting the library’s renovation plans, the library’s trustees were inside deciding to make the first public expenditure on that plan: $9 million for the project’s architect, Norman Foster.

The allocation is the first part of $150 million in financing that New York City has committed to the project. All told, Mr. Foster will be paid $11.5 million for the project’s design phase; the additional funds will come from private sources, the library said.

The library has already spent $10 million on its renovation to date. The city money is expected to cover half the renovation cost, the library has said. But Anthony W. Marx, the library’s president, has also said that the project’s budget might ultimately exceed $300 million. The rest of the money will come from private donations, and selling off properties.

The library plans to sell its Mid-Manhattan circulating library across the street on Fifth Avenue and the Science, Industry and Business Library, on Madison Avenue at 34th Street, and to fold their operations into space at 42nd Street now occupied by stacks.

Critics have opposed the plans on the grounds that the library’s resources would be better spent on the system’s many branches and on a renovation of Mid-Manhattan in its current location. The library earlier this week released designs by Enrique Norten and his firm, Ten Arquitectos, for a replacement for the old Donnell Library on East 53rd Street that closed in 2008. The new library will be in the base of a hotel that is under construction at the site.

A version of this article appeared in print on 05/10/2013, on page C2 of the NewYork edition with the headline: Library Moves Ahead With Its Renovation Plans.

In 1998, when President Bill Clinton signed the bipartisan Internet Tax Freedom Act, which prohibited state and local taxation of Internet access and Internet-only services, the purpose was to promote the commercial potential of the Internet, especially for start-ups and small businesses. Congress extended the bill three times, the latest until 2014.

Now theres the Marketplace Fairness Act, which, writes The Washington Post, would allow states and local governments to require large Internet retailers and other remote sellers with sales over $1 million annually to collect sales taxes and send the revenue to the appropriate location. This bill, which the Senate voted 69-27 to approve, would undo the protections Republicans and Democrats once felt necessary to promote e-commerce.

The debate over taxing Internet sales isnt about fairness, as the cleverly worded title of the bill suggests; it is, or ought to be, about spending, which is where the real problem lies. Government never seems to have enough of our money and doesnt appear to care whether we have enough.

More tax revenue only leads to more binge spending.

The reasons for promoting e-commerce and small businesses in a tax-free environment have not changed. Retailers have complained for some time about people who shop in their stores without buying and then go on the Internet to purchase the same product at lower prices because its tax free. Real fairness would cut the taxes retail stores must charge, as some states sometimes do at back-to-school time. If cutting those taxes in order to promote commerce is a good idea, why not make it permanent? Just try convincing Congress. Youd have a better shot at getting Dracula to go vegan.

Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), whose party supposedly favors lower taxes, authored the bill, but a recent Wall Street Journal editorial noted that even he is unsure of some of its specifics. For example, under the definition of what constitutes a state for taxing purposes, myriad entities, including the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin and Mariana Islands and any other territory or possession of the United States could also force distant e-sellers to collect taxes.

And get this. Tribal organizations could also qualify as taxing entities. According to Steve DelBianco of the e-commerce trade association NetChoice, there are 566 federally recognized tribes and Alaska Native Corporations. The Journal contacted Enzis office to ask if the senator knew how many of these would be able to tax Internet sales. It reports that as of Monday, an Enzi spokesman was still seeking an answer.

The Journal says Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has been working his dark magic on the bill behind closed doors in order to rewrite the definition of state. If his definition is broadened, notes the editorial, The new bureaucratic headaches could number in the hundreds of thousands.

Supporters of the bill claim there would be just one auditing authority in each state, not a potential claim from each of the 9,600 state and local tax collectors. But as another Journal editorial notes, What matters is not what the bills supporters have explicitly stated, but whats in the bill. And whats in the bill gives no assurance that supporters claims will come to pass. Any way you slice it, its going to be a lot more bureaucracy and a burden on small businesses to collect what will amount to a paltry 1% increase in tax revenue for state and local governments. Better they should cut spending by that amount.

Calvin Coolidge noted, Collecting more taxes than is absolutely necessary is legalized robbery. Too bad the Senate sergeant at arms cant arrest the robbers.

Cal Thomas is a syndicated columnist. Email tmseditors@tribune.com

Raleigh, NC North Carolina would put constitutional limits on the growth of state spending under a bill that cleared the House Government Committee Thursday.

The measure, which has only begun a long legislative journey, would ultimately have to be approved by voters in order to become law.

Often called a Taxpayer Bill of Rights, or TABOR amendment, such measures are favored by political conservatives who say lawmakers cannot be trusted to set aside money in flush times in anticipation of downturns in the economy.#160;

Within the last 20 years, weve had three budget emergencies, the latest being probably #160;the worst, said Rep. John Blust, R-Guilford, the measures lead sponsor. Each time, the genesis has #160;been same. We had good years. We had the fat years where we spent the whole thing.#160;

States throughout the country have used different routes to limit spending, including both laws and constitutional amendments. Blust argued that a simple law would not be enough, since state budget-writers could choose to ignore it in any particular year. Only an amendment to the North Carolina constitution, he said, would keep legislators in check.#160;

Under his bill, the growth of state spending would be limited to a calculation based on inflation and the states population growth. Any taxes raised that exceed that spending limit would be plowed into an emergency reserve fund or returned to the taxpayers. Lawmakers could grant themselves an exemption to the spending limit with a two-thirds vote of the House and Senate.

This moves spending in the right direction, said Rep. Bert Jones, R-Rockingham, the measures co-sponsor. If theres one overriding issue that I hear over and over and over again from the people who sent me here, it is that government needs to spend within its means.#160;

Becki Gray, vice president for outreach at the conservative John Locke Foundation, held up a chart to show that, over the past decade, spending has grown much faster than either inflation or population would account for.#160;

This illustrates to you how out of whack this has gotten, Gray said.#160;

But Tazra Mitchell with the liberal NC Budget and Tax Center said lawmakers should be trusted to make decisions on the budget.#160;

The flawed formula doesnt take into account costs like education and health care that rise faster than inflation, Mitchell said.

The end result of a TABOR amendment, she said, could be cuts to government services such as education. She pointed to Colorado, where voters had to roll back TABOR requirements after cuts to services proved too draconian.

Meanwhile, Vance Holloman, North Carolinas deputy state treasurer, worried that a TABOR amendment could hurt the states AAA bond rating, which makes borrowing cheap. #160;

Dallas Woodhouse, state director for the conservative Americans for Prosperity, said other states have used TABOR with will impact.#160;

It doesnt slash spending at all, Woodhouse said. Rather, it places a reasonable limit on how fast government can grow.

He cited Oregon and Utah as two states where TABOR had been successful. He pointed out Utah has a AAA bond rating, just like North Carolina.

However, Utahs TABOR measure is a state law, not a constitutional amendment. That gives the state more flexibility to respond in case of a fiscal crisis.#160;

This bill seems to not trust the voters and people of North Carolina, said Rep. Paul Luebke, D-Durham. If the legislature is overspending, he said, voters should choose different lawmakers.

Blust said he didnt agree.#160;

We already have some constraints, he said, pointing out the state constitution forbids the state from passing a budget with a deficit.#160;

Other Republicans said they ran on TABOR.

My constituents expect me to vote for it, said Rep. Rayne Brown, R-Davidson.

The bill next goes to the House Finance Committee and then on to the Appropriations Committee. Once it gets to the House floor, it would need to earn a three-fifths vote in order to go to the Senate. Should the Senate also approve the measure, voters would have final say over whether TABOR should be added to the state constitution.

Five Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee who frequently rail against government spending voted to increase federal appropriations on border security by an undetermined billions of dollars during the Senate Judiciary Committees mark-up of the bipartisan senate immigration bill on Thursday, agreeing to deploy twice as many border agents to the South Western border than will be on the ground in Afghanistan at the start of 2014. The measure failed in a vote of 5 to 13.

The debate came during consideration of an amendment offered by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) to triple the number of border patrol agents on the border and quadruple the technological infrastructure. The measure, which would have delayed the path to legalization for the nations 11.1 million by almost 10 years, could have required as much as $60 billion in additional government spending.

Were talking $30 or $40 billion to do that, Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) , a member of the Gang of 8, who voted against the measure, warned. Thats a substantial sum. It would take a lot of time. Border patrol says it would take at least 10 years to hire, to contract and to deploy these resourcesWe have fiscal restraints here.

Border security has improved significantly since Congress last considered immigration reform. The federal government spent $18 billion — more than on every other federal law enforcement agencies combine — to secure the border during the 2012 fiscal year and has now exceeded the goals and targets set out in the failed 2007 immigration legislation. Border Patrol has deployed 21,000 agents to the border and the government has built 650 miles of fencing in the last 8 years.

The proposal offered by Gang of 8 will expand security further. The Secretary of Homeland Security will submit a comprehensive border security plan and the bill appropriates $3 billion to implement the strategy. The government can also spend billions more for priorities like fencing, more funding for customs agents, border crossings prosecutions, and additional patrol stations.

I would like to be the governor of one of those states or the company that makes the drones or helicopters, Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) joked before the committee voted on Cruzs amendment. Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Jeff Sessions (R-AL), John Cornyn (R-TX), Mike Lee (R-UT) and Cruz all supported the increase in government spending. The amendment itself didnt specify the cost of the increased resources to the border, noting only that Any amounts appropriatedshall be offset by an equal reduction in the amounts appropriated for other purposes.

Whether it is via the auction of allowances or the taxation of carbon emissions, climate policy is increasingly being seen as a source of revenue into the national treasury. For example, the Australian carbon pricing mechanism will raise several billion dollars per annum in its fixed price period (currently $23 per tonne CO2) and EU member state revenues from the ETS have risen as power generators in particular now face full auctioning of allowances, rather than the mainly free allocation that has existed since the system started in 2005.

The issue that the collection of revenue raises is what to do with it. Government already has a long established process for this. Money flows into the national treasury, with spending set through the Budget process that occurs on an annual basis. The principal link between revenue collection and spending is the political agreement on the size of the deficit or surplus, otherwise the two are largely independent. But carbon revenue challenges this model. For example, although the EU ETS Phase III Directive doesn’t (nor can it) dictate how auction revenue should be spent by Member States, it does suggest that it is used as follows:

Member States shall determine the use of revenues generated from the auctioning of allowances. At least 50 % of the revenues generated from the auctioning of allowances referred to in paragraph 2, including all revenues from the auctioning referred to in paragraph 2, points (b) and (c), or the equivalent in financial value of these revenues, should be used for one or more of the following:

1. to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including by contributing to the Global Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Fund and to the Adaptation Fund as made operational by the Poznan Conference on Climate Change (COP 14 and COP/MOP 4), to adapt to the impacts of climate change and to fund research and development as well as demonstration projects for reducing emissions and for adaptation to climate change, including participation in initiatives within the framework of the European Strategic Energy Technology Plan and the European Technology Platforms;
2. to develop renewable energies to meet the commitment of the Community to using 20 % renewable energies by 2020, as well as to develop other technologies contributing to the transition to a safe and sustainable low-carbon economy and to help meet the commitment of the Community to increase energy efficiency by 20 % by 2020;
3. measures to avoid deforestation and increase afforestation and reforestation in developing countries that have ratified the international agreement on climate change, to transfer technologies and to facilitate adaptation to the adverse effects of climate change in these countries;
4. forestry sequestration in the Community;
5. the environmentally safe capture and geological storage of CO2, in particular from solid fossil fuel power stations and a range of industrial sectors and subsectors, including in third countries;
6. to encourage a shift to low-emission and public forms of transport;
7. to finance research and development in energy efficiency and clean technologies in the sectors covered by this Directive;
8. measures intended to increase energy efficiency and insulation or to provide financial support in order to address social aspects in lower and middle income households;
9. to cover administrative expenses of the management of the Community scheme.

A new report out recently from the International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM)provides a detailed look at the current revenue recycling practices around the world. These include areas such as the following;

1. Compensating trade exposed industries
2. Support for lower income people to offset the carbon price.
3. Support for Research and Development on low carbon technologies.
4. Investing in low carbon / low emission projects and energy efficiency schemes.
5. Adaptation to climate change.

ICMM have built the report around a core principle which they extol, namely “apply climate change related revenues to manage a transition to a low carbon future”. The report is excellent and well worth reading, but it does raise a very fundamental issue around the direct hypothecation of carbon revenue. This is isn’t just a governance issue though.

Australia serves as an interesting recent example. The decision to link the Australian ETS with the EU ETS followed by the precipitous drop in EU carbon prices has caused Australian government carbon revenue projections to be adjusted (down) accordingly. Recent headlines in Australia suggest that those relying on government support for various energy initiatives are now concerned about the certainty of that support and the overall level of it going forward. This concern stems from the fact that carbon revenue has been earmarked against certain objectives, such as in the categories listed above.

The alternative approach is to largely delink the collection of revenue and its use, which is the standard practice for most government expenditure. After all, why should we imagine that the collection of carbon revenue and the needs of the economy to make the transition to a much lower emission state should follow the same path. In the very early years, expenditure on Ramp;D and demonstration projects (eg CCS, solar thermal etc.) may require funding far in excess of the available carbon revenue, which is often low at this stage as governments introduce a new tax at a modest level or give the bulk of the ETS allowances away for free. Further, at this time the need for guaranteed support for those first tentative investments is critical for long term deployment pathways.

Some years down the road carbon revenue may be very large and probably in excess of the transitional needs, which then argues for the bulk of the money to flow to general revenue. This will lead indirectly to reductions in other taxes, but the linkage would be unspecified. In this case, forcing the use of a large revenue stream on specific objectives may become a market distortion in itself. It is the job of the underlying mechanism (eg carbon tax, cap-and-trade, energy pricing) to drive deployment of a new set of energy technologies, not government against the need to spend earmarked revenue.

This is an issue that will likely run and run, assuming carbon prices ever recover to some meaningful level. The ICMM report is a useful contribution to the discussion and certainly gives an excellent overview of current practices. However, it does enter the discussion with the somewhat myopic view of ongoing hypothecation.

WELLINGTON, Kan. – On a bright morning, a dozen friends gather around a table at the Daylight Donuts.

The days topic? The federal governments unquenchable thirst for tax dollars.

The verdict: Some Washington programs waste money, others dont. Too often, its hard to tell which is which.

People dont connect the dots, said Shelley Hansel-Williams, who runs the area chamber of commerce.

They dont. Thats true, said Elaine Freeman, who runs the shop with her husband, Wendell.

Vince Wetta, a former state lawmaker, drops by with an explanation.

We tend to be very conservative, and railing about smaller government, he told the group. Yet were dependent on big government.

I think its a contradiction.

Its a conflict almost all of America shares.

This table, and the Kansas county that stretches around it, might be among the very best places to understand what that means – for our politics, our government, and our nations fiscal future.

Some 24,000 people, give or take, live in Sumner County, a farming county south of Wichita on the Oklahoma border.

Thats just a few thousand less than a century ago, when expanding, publicly backed railroads eclipsed the Chisholm cattle trail that crossed the county. Freight trains still split this rich farmland, their honk stirring the memories.

Huge concrete grain silos form a skyline as a constant reminder of the countys farming roots and its special pride in a self-reliance tested by 125 years of blistering heat, brutal snow, floods, drought and a generally unforgiving world.

The locals are deeply conservative.

So conservative, in fact, that a year ago Sumner Countys commissioners flatly told the federal government that they had no use for the money it offered to provide for sustainable community planning.

Voters here elect reliably anti-tax and anti-spending lawmakers to the Kansas Statehouse. Their congressman, Republican Mike Pompeo, ranks as one of the 10 most conservative members of the US House. He defeated his last opponent by a 2-to-1 margin.

Last November, 68 percent of Sumner County went for Mitt Romney.

We have a very large contingent of people who are very much against federal spending, said state Rep. Ed Trimmer, a Democrat who represents part of Sumner.

Or, as retiree Fred Christian puts it at the doughnut table: They think the governments too liberal.

A COUNTYS BENEFITS
So its likely most Sumner voters nodded in agreement last year when Romney called 47 percent of Americans takers – so reliant on federal aid that they couldnt be persuaded that runaway federal debt threatens economic freedom.

Yet, as Wetta suggests, Sumner County is a taker.

In fiscal year 2010, for example, the US government spent roughly $189 million in Sumner County, almost $7,900 for every man, woman and child. Thats an estimated 40 percent more, on average, than each county resident paid in federal taxes.

Much of that spending went for Social Security and Medicare. Almost 16 percent of Sumner Countys residents are older than 65.

But the federal government provides food stamps for more than 2,400 people in the county, on average, every month. It spent $15.7 million in 2010 to provide Medicaid coverage for 3,700 of the countys poor. It spent $69,284 that year for aviation improvements.

Washington sends subsidies to eight county school districts for teachers – and for lunch. It spent more than $7 million from the 2009 stimulus bill for the countys schools. It provides housing assistance for those in poverty.

The federal government sends checks big and small. It helps pay for wastewater disposal and economic development in Sumner County. It insures home mortgages. It spent $13,500 in 2010 for small-business loans. It spent $2,266 in burial expenses for Sumner County veterans.

And it sends millions of dollars to Sumner Countys farmers.

IT IS HYPOCRISY
Scott Van Allen has farmed 2,300 Sumner County acres for more than three decades, mostly wheat. Hes a conservative, worried Washington is going broke.

But Van Allen takes federal farm subsidies – direct payments and taxpayer-subsidized crop insurance. Hes lost uninsured crops to bad weather and wont do it again.

From 2007 to 2011, according to a database compiled by the Environmental Working Group, Van Allen has taken more than $200,000 in subsidies from a Washington he doesnt fully trust.

It is hypocrisy, he said with a rueful smile.

But like Van Allen, almost all of us are takers, whether we know it or not.

People dont have an honest view of what theyre getting from the government, said Steven Maynard-Moody, director of the Institute for Policy and Social Research at the University of Kansas. We take an enormous amount for granted.

Indeed, understanding the full extent of the federal spending juggernaut can be difficult. Buried in a blizzard of fiscal cliffs, sequesters, budget resolutions and ticking debt clocks, Americans have become jaded about the ways the government spends its money.

THOROUGH REVIEW
For three months, The Kansas City Star reviewed dozens of databases and hundreds of federal records to more fully understand how the government spends its money in Sumner County, Kan., and elsewhere in Kansas and Missouri. The newspaper examined spending for health care, Social Security, education, welfare and scores of other federal programs.

The Star picked Sumner County because its typical of most of rural America. Except for its agriculture spending – which is often higher than in any other county in the state – federal expenditures here appear to fall within expected ranges.

We didnt count the noncash federal benefits Sumner Countians enjoy along with all Americans: a strong national defense, for example, or sound currency.

We didnt count tax breaks such as tax-free health insurance benefits or deductible home mortgage interest. Those cost the treasury hundreds of billions but arent considered direct government spending.

Instead, the study examined how deeply the federal government has embedded itself in the daily life of Sumner County – as it does everywhere. The figures suggest that Washington has steadily entangled itself with almost every American, from the cradle to the casket: our health, our education, our housing, our retirement.

People have no idea how important federal spending is, said Rebecca Thiess of the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal think tank. Education, the elderly, service to the disabled, firefighters. … Its vastly important.

ABSTRACT IDEA
In the book A Nation of Takers, conservative author Nicholas Eberstadt writes: A treasure-chest of government-supplied benefits is open for the taking for every American citizen – and exercising ones legal rights to these blandishments is now part and parcel of the American way of life.

And that, in turn, may help us understand why cutting federal spending is so devilishly difficult.

Almost all Americans support cuts to federal spending as an abstract idea. But if Washington dramatically changes meals for seniors, or Head Start, or Medicare payments to hospitals, or mortgage supports, communities could be devastated.

It might be even worse in Sumner County.

Eliminating food stamps would mean less traffic at the Wal-Mart, for example. Cuts in Social Security would mean fewer trips to the Freemans doughnut shop. Lower farm subsidies might mean less money for purchases at Rausch Seed in Belle Plaine or a new piece of equipment at the Tractor Supply Co. in nearby Wichita.

That, in turn, would mean fewer jobs, less local tax revenue, fewer teachers _ a county death spiral.

Its no mystery why Americans are hooked on federal spending.

In every little aspect of our lives, weve inserted some sort of a government program, said state Rep. Kyle Hoffman, a GOP conservative who represents part of the county.

Yet solving the nations ruinous budget gap may not be possible unless Americans more fully understand their reliance on Washington.

Democrats and Republicans have argued over federal spending and deficits for years. This month, President Barack Obama proposed a $3.8 trillion spending blueprint sharply at odds with the GOPs vision.

Neither party, though, seems committed to a central truth: Ending trillion-dollar deficits will require substantial constituent sacrifice, either by slashing popular programs or raising taxes. Or both.

We dont have leadership in either political party, said former US Rep. Jim Slattery, that is honest with the American public about the very significant change that is needed.

Change would mean pain for Sumner County, and for all of us.

The spending plan for the next fiscal year won final approval in a cloud of controversy after House and Senate budget negotiators made a last-moment switch in the funding source for several politically popular programs. Their acknowledged intent was to pressure Nixon into signing a separate bill that eliminates a tax-credit for low-income home renters #x2013; something the governor originally proposed but upon which he has since parsed his position.

Nixon did not take too kindly to the maneuvering. He issued a written statement Thursday calling the budget plan #x201C;a cynical attempt to pit children with developmental disabilities #x2026; against low-income seniors.#x201D;

The governor can wait until the budgets July 1 effective date to decide whether to sign or veto the dozen-plus budget bills. He also can veto any of specific expenditure lines contained in them.

The budget would increase Missouris total spending authority by more than 3 percent compared to the current year. It adds $66 million to the $3 billion core budget for public elementary and secondary schools, and it gives public colleges and universities a $25 million increase to be distributed based on whether they meet performance criteria such as student retention and graduation rates. State employees also would get a small raise.

House Majority Leader John Diehl, R-Town and Country, declared it a #x201C;responsible and accountable budget to the taxpayers.#x201D;

When Nixon outlined a budget plan in January, he assumed almost $57 million of savings from the recommended repeal of a tax break for more than 100,000 low-income seniors and disabled residents who live in rental housing. Nixon proposed to redirect that money to mental health care, nursing homes and home-based health and living services that could benefit the disabled and seniors.

But last month, Nixon said he would veto the tax break repeal for low-income renters if it wasnt part of a #x201C;broad-based and balanced#x201D; overhaul of Missouris many tax credit programs that have put a financial strain on the budget.

The House gave final approval Thursday to a bill repealing the tax break for seniors and disabled renters, but separate legislation that would revamp Missouris other tax credit programs still faces hurdles before the legislative session ends May 17.

Because of the uncertainty, legislative budget writers made a last-moment switch this week that would use money from the repealed tax break to help fund early childhood special education, the First Steps program that serves developmentally disabled preschoolers, health care for the blind and medical clinics that serve low-income residents. The intent was to pressure Nixon into signing the tax-break repeal for seniors and the disabled, even if the broader tax-credit overhaul fails.

#x201C;Hes going to have to make a decision when we present the bills to him. Does he want to help the kids with special needs or not?#x201D; said House Budget Committee Chairman Rick Stream, R-Kirkwood. He added: #x201C;I do think weve got a lot of leverage.#x201D;

But not all lawmakers were pleased with that leverage.

Several senators stalled a final vote on the budget for a few hours Thursday. Among other things, they raised a technical point that neither the House nor Senate had made the childrens programs dependent upon the tax-break repeal when passing prior drafts of the budget, so a conference committee of House and Senate members should not have been able to make that switch when preparing a final version.

Opponents said the budget could jeopardize the First Steps program, which the state education department says serves more than 5,000 children.

#x201C;We are putting these kids on the line for something that everybody in the room knows is not likely to happen,#x201D; said Sen. Ryan Silvey, R-Kansas City, a former House budget chairman.

Silvey dropped his opposition when Senate leaders pledged to craft a solution next week that would ensure the childrens programs get funded. But Stream later told reporters that he was unaware of any deal for a post-passage budget patch.

Nixon called the contingent funding for childrens services #x201C;especially problematic and irresponsible#x201D; given that lawmakers also passed a construction and maintenance budget Thursday that includes $38 million for a new office building in Jefferson City.

#x201C;Building new offices for bureaucrats at the expense of children with developmental disabilities and low-income seniors reflects the wrong priorities,#x201D; Nixon said.

The governor also has criticized another budget maneuver, which attempts to provide just eight months of funding for the vehicle licensing division of the Department of Revenue. Republican budget leaders have said they will provide the rest of the money next January if the agency stops making electronic copies of license applicants personal documents such as birth certificates. Nixon has said he would treat the budget literally, as a one-third reduction in the agencys annual allotment, and would lay off employees and cut services accordingly.

Associated Press writer Chris Blank contributed to this report.

More than 70 Long Island school districts are proposing hikes in either spending or taxes of at least 3 percent for next year — a significant rise — and many are also expanding student services.

In contrast, fewer than 30 districts boosted budgets that much this year.

Islandwide spending is projected to rise 3.22 percent for the 2013-14 school year, according to annual tax report…