United Nations
UN Dues as a Portion of the Federal Budget
The majority feels the US spends too much on UN dues as a portion of the budget. However, this feeling appears to be largely based on misperceptions. When asked to specify an appropriate portion of the budget to go to the UN, most Americans set a level much higher than the actual amount,and when informed of the actual amount, a strong majority favors either maintaining or increasing it.
The belief that the US spends too much on the UN may also be derived from the feeling that the US allocates a disproportionate share of the federal budget to the UN. However, a variety of poll questions reveal that the attitude that the US spends too much on the UN seems to rest on extreme overestimations of how much is being spent. When asked how much the US should spend, the majority favors spending an amount that is substantially more than the actual amount. When told the actual amount, the majority reports that it is both less than what they expected and less than what they think it should be.
Respondents gave this pattern of responses when asked about spending on UN peacekeeping as compared to spending on the defense budget, in terms of how much the respondent was personally willing to pay in taxes, and in response to information about the total amount spent in terms of dollars and relative to a number of budget items.
In Terms of Defense Spending:
In PIPA's April 1995 poll, when respondents were asked to estimate the amount the US spends on UN peacekeeping as compared to the US defense budget, the median estimate was that the equivalent of 22% of the defense budget goes to UN peacekeeping.[1] The actual amount is 1%. When asked what percentage would be appropriate, the median answer was 15%. Eighty percent of respondents proposed as appropriate an amount higher than 1% of the defense budget -- the approximate current level.[2] (In the February 1994 PIPA poll, the median respondent proposed that the equivalent of 10% of the defense budget should be devoted to UN peacekeeping.[3])
When another sample was told that the US spends the equivalent of about 1% of the defense budget on UN peacekeeping, only 18% said that this was "higher than it should be" -- down from the 58% who initially said the US was spending too much. A majority of 52% said that this amount was "lower than it should be," up from the 12% who had initially said the US spends too little on peacekeeping.[4]
A modest majority said they would also be willing to shift funds from some part of the defense budget to UN peacekeeping. In PIPA's April 1995 poll, a bare majority of 51% said they would be willing to "shift" defense funds toward UN peacekeeping, while 43% were not willing.[5] In February 1994, 62% said they would be willing to "cut" defense spending so as to increase spending on UN peacekeeping (not willing: 31%).[6]
In Terms of Taxes Paid:
When given the chance to say how much they themselves would be willing to pay in taxes for UN peacekeeping, the average American settles on an amount well above the real amount. This question was approached in two different ways in PIPA's April 1995 poll. When one half-sample was asked, "How many tax dollars would you feel comfortable paying personally each year toward UN peacekeeping?", the median response was $20.[7] When the other half sample was first told that the average taxpayer spends about $5, 73% saw this amount as "lower than they expected." When asked to determine how much they would feel comfortable paying personally, the median amount was $10--twice what they had been told the average taxpayer pays. Only 22% set an amount less than $5.[8]
Similar results were found in the February 1994 PIPA poll. Asked: "How many tax dollars would you feel comfortable paying personally each year toward UN peacekeeping?" the median response was $10.[9] Informed that the average taxpayer pays about $4 each year for UN peacekeeping (the correct amount at that time), 72% said this amount was lower than they expected and 62% said it was lower than it should be.[10]
In the same poll respondents were then asked, "How much, if any, would you be willing to pay in increased taxes in support of UN peacekeeping?" Forty percent said "nothing," and 46% said amounts ranging from $1 to $500. The median amount among those willing to increase their taxes was $10. Adding in those who oppose increasing their taxes, the median amount was $1--a 25% increase over present levels.[11]
Respondents were also asked how much money, if any, they would be willing to pay in increased taxes to make it possible to send peacekeeping forces to try to settle the civil war in Burundi. Similarly, 39% said "nothing," while 42% were willing to pay some amount. The median amount among those willing to pay was $7--almost twice then-current spending levels for all UN peacekeeping operations combined. Adding in those unwilling to pay, the median amount was $1.[12]
In Terms of Budgetary Items:
In the February 1994 PIPA poll, respondents were also told the total amount the US spent on UN peacekeeping during fiscal year 1994 (about three-quarters of a billion dollars). To illustrate the significance of the number, respondents were also told how much goes to five other public spending items. Respondents were then asked whether the three-quarters of a billion was more or less than they expected. Fifty-five percent said it was less, with 31% saying it was more.[13] Respondents were then asked whether this amount was "higher or lower than it should be." Thirty-nine percent said it was higher than it should be, down from the 59% who had initially said the US was spending too much. A plurality of 42% now said that the amount being spent was lower than it should be, up from the 15% who had initially said the US was spending too little.[14]
|
