In her article "Government has to make choices families, businesses don't" from TheState.com, Cindi Ross argues that making analogies between family budget choices and government budget choices is a mistake, and the choices the government must make are far more difficult than the average family choices. This article was directed specifically at the readers of TheState.com that continue to try to answer complex economic problems with simple analogies about family spending, but I believe it highlights a common problem among Americans and our understanding of how government spending works.
Most people don't know that the budget, at least at the Federal level and I'm making an assumption about the State level here, is about 80% fixed in place by law. That leaves 20% flexibility in the budget and ends up covering things such as state paid salaries and educational programs. While analogies can be drawn in some instances, Ross makes it very clear that these situations are limited when dealing with government spending. The state can't just "cut back" and decide to get rid of either cable TV or going to the movies on Friday nights. A better analogy between a family and the government in this current situation would be a family having to decide which child doesn't get to eat anymore because they can't afford food for all of them.
