WASHINGTON (AP) — In the heated talk about deep spending cuts that will dominate Congress in the coming weeks, one thing is likely to be in short supply: details.
The reason is simple. Americans embrace the general, abstract idea of reducing federal spending. Their support quickly fades, however, when specific programs are targeted.
That's why Republicans wrap their calls for deep spending cuts in broad generalities, even as they call on President Barack Obama to propose more detailed cuts of his own. "Where are the president's spending cuts?" House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said last month in the "fiscal cliff" debate, which did little to reduce federal outlays.
There's a problem with the GOP strategy. It's Republicans, not Obama, who advocate bigger spending cuts.
The White House seems in no hurry to help Republicans out of their awkward position. Obama notes that he already has offered more details for reduced spending than Republicans have, partly because he is obligated to propose a budget every year.
Meanwhile, the clock is ticking toward the March 1 start of major, across-the-board spending cuts that both parties call unwise. These are the postponed cuts — or "sequester," in Congress-speak — lingering from the partial resolution of the "fiscal cliff" on Jan. 1.
These cuts would hit military and domestic programs hard. But they would spare "entitlements," the popular but costly programs that include Medicare and Social Security. Leaders in both parties say lawmakers soon must confront entitlements if they are to stem the nation's long-term deficit-spending problem.
Republicans — and to a lesser degree, Obama — say it's time to start slowing the growth of these programs' benefits. But their proposals would delay the biggest impacts for years. Republicans have called for shifting major health care costs to states, where outcomes are hard to predict.
This makes it almost impossible for Americans to calculate exactly how and when the proposals would affect them. The more they learn, however, the more they might object.
"Talking about cutting entitlements in the abstract is popular," said Bob Bixby of the Concord Coalition, which advocates balanced budgets. But when it becomes clear that people's future Social Security and Medicare benefits might be trimmed, he said, "They say, 'Whoa, wait!'"
Congressional Republicans have endorsed sweeping changes in government health benefits for future beneficiaries. They would change Medicare into a voucher-like program that would limit government contributions to older people's health care. The benefits might not grow as quickly as medical inflation, forcing seniors to pay a larger share of the costs.
Medicaid, the federal health program for low-income and disabled people, would be turned over entirely to the states. The federal contribution would be indexed for rises in overall inflation and population, but is unlikely to keep up with the growth in medical costs.
Republicans say their support for these plans — which died in the Democratic-controlled Senate — prove they will stand up for bold cost-cutting changes.
But Republicans muddied their message, and infuriated opponents, when they attacked Democrats in the 2010 congressional elections for trimming Medicare spending as part of the "Obamacare" law. Last year's Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, further muddied the message by making similar Medicare accusations, and by advocating hikes, not cuts, in the military's budget.