Polls and the Federal Budget Debate: Two Roads Diverging Wildly
My column from today's Roll Call explains why what Republicans are saying "The American People" want on the federal budget is almost completely the opposite of what actual research -- shows is really wanted.
Polls Undercut Budget Demagogues’ Message
By Stan Collender
Roll Call Contributing Writer
As anyone who spends any time trying to figure it out will tell you, the federal budget is exceedingly complex and difficult. Combine that with the increasingly emotional debate that surrounds federal deficits, the national debt, taxes and spending, and it’s not hard to understand how and why budget discussions almost always seem to involve misstatements, hyperbole and a word I use with increasing frequency these days when characterizing the budget debate — demagoguery.
I raise this because current polls continue to show that there’s a substantial disconnect between what’s being said about what people want on the budget and actual public opinion. Indeed, the latest polling on budget-related issues shows that the purported lessons of the 2010 midterm elections are much closer to wishful thinking than an accurate assessment of existing public sentiment.
For example, House Republicans have insisted that voters gave them a mandate in November to cut Medicare spending, but a poll released last week by Bloomberg showed that 76 percent of respondents opposed such reductions. Education also appears to be on the chopping block in the House, but 77 percent of respondents said education cuts were not justified. As usual, reductions to foreign aid received the most support — 72 percent — but that part of the budget has drawn little attention.
In addition, the mantra we’re hearing that revenue increases are unacceptable is completely contradicted by the 59 percent of respondents who supported repealing a cornerstone of the tax deal put in place in December — an extension of tax cuts for households earning more than $250,000 per year.
A Harris poll released last week showed indisputably similar results: An overwhelming percentage of Americans don’t support spending cuts in the major parts of the federal budget. Medicare, Social Security, national parks, crime fighting and defense were all supported by more than 80 percent of those who responded. More than 70 percent were against cuts to federal aid to public schools, unemployment benefits, environmental protection, Medicaid, and the CIA and other intelligence services. Again, foreign aid was the only area of federal spending that a majority supported cutting.
What’s most impressive about the Harris results is that not much has changed since that organization began to measure public attitudes about these programs five or so years ago: Support for some is just a little lower, for others it’s a little higher. Two areas of the budget that seem to have the biggest bull’s-eyes on their backs today, Medicare and education, are both a very significant 10 points more popular now than they were in 2005.
The most instructive of the recent budget-related polls may well be from South Dakota. The firm RBI Strategies and Research surveyed 400 people in the state for the Dakota Poll, which was released about a month ago. The poll showed more or less the same results as the Bloomberg and Harris polls mentioned above: overwhelming opposition to cutting Medicare, Social Security, education and military spending. What makes this poll so important, however, is that it surveyed registered voters who identified themselves as tea party supporters. As the analysis provided by the Dakota Poll stated, the results show that this group appears to be “far more pragmatic and less anti-government or anti-tax” than we are being told and its leaders are claiming.
These three polls and many others show consistently high levels of support for what the federal government does and should make it clear that any “unambiguous message” on spending cuts derived from the 2010 election results is an overstatement or misstatement. Even if that were the real message four months ago on Election Day — and that’s hard to fathom based on the consistent public opinion research — the most recent polls show that federal activities and services are currently incredibly popular. And while some lawmakers insist that revenue increases would only be approved over a politically dead body or two, the polls show such increases may well be far more acceptable to the public than we’re being told.
It’s possible, of course, that those who vote on Election Day are different, and perhaps dramatically different, than the cross section of voters who have been surveyed in national polls. The Dakota Poll results seem to indicate that’s not the case, however. As a result, reliance on what some insist was THE message of Election Day 2010 is either an inadvertent or intentional misreading of voter sentiment. The first would be merely bad judgment; the second would require me to use that word — demagoguery — that has become an increasingly indispensable way to characterize the budget debate.


Many Americans who bothered
Many Americans who bothered to vote last November did, in fact, vote for these GOP candidates advocating deep cuts. They should get what they voted for. Maybe then the apathetic majority will realize they can't sit out midterm elections. Or maybe we'll get all these tax cuts and spending cuts and no one will really care. Either way, letting the GOP have its way will tell us a lot about America. I, for one, am eager to see what happens. Bring on the cuts.
I hate to say it, but I've
I hate to say it, but I've come to agree. Elections matter. The "people" voted for this and they should get exactly what they have coming to them.
Of course, I can say that because nothing being proposed is going to effect me in the slightest. I lack sympathy for the good people of Wisconsin. They voted and they should accept the result. If they didn't want this, they should have voted appropriately.
They didn't vote for Walker's jihad against unions
True, the majority of Wisconsin voters voted for Walker, but he didn't campaign on a platform of gutting labor unions. This was a stunt he sprung on them only after he took office -- which is why polls show that if the election was held now he would lose badly.
Also, the people of Wisconsin weren't told before the election that Walker intended to sell off state-run utilities to political cronies in no-bid contracts negotiated with no public oversight or appeal (a provision he snuck into his union-stripping bill).
If Walker had been honest with the voters and told them what he actually intended to do to them once he got into office, and if they still voted him in, then they would deserve what's being done to them. But Walker (like a lot of Tea Party candidates) was a bait and switch. They don't deserve to have their middle-class hollowed out and their state's assets stolen out from under them. They never voted for that.
One wonders what the 'baggers in Dakota did want cut
I'd love to see them ask the South Dakota survey sample what they *would* cut, given the Tea Party's historical opposition to tax increases of any sort. I suspect the list would resemble:
- "aid to furriners"
- funding to ACORN and Planned Parenthood
- funding for Obamacare death panels
- "welfare" for illegal aliens
- government waste
Of course, adding up all of the above (the ones that EXIST, anyways) wouldn't even make a *ripple* in the actual problem, but recall that several surveys have found that Americans believe totally bizarro things about the foreign aid budget (that it's 20% of federal outlays, for instance) so it's not all that surprising.
There's a profound difference
There's a profound difference between opinion polls and effectively communicating a serious political intention. People with serious political intentions vote and contribute to campaigns - time, money or both - and monitor their elected representatives and give very quick and unambiguous feedback as to how they are performing. If you went by the kinds of polls cited here you would probably think that Nancy Pelosi is Speaker of the House.
Koch
There is a profound difference between most voters and the Koch brothers. Our votes are highly skewed by the unlimited spending by corporations and billionaires. My small donations and volunteering on literature drops is insignificant compared to the blanket TV buys by corporations.
The Constitution doesn't say
The Constitution doesn't say anything about "people with serious political intentions" and so there is no reason that people who think of themselves in that way should have a special position in our political discourse, or in influence beyond what they can manage on their own. That last line sort of lets the cat out of the bag, dunnit? What you are really saying is that you are a big important person and that people who disagree with you are stupid. Funny how, when you use the political system to get what you want, you make it sound all heroic, but when others do, you sneer at them.
difference
As informed above, only those with "serious political intention...."
Unsaid is: "Mistaken Speaker of the House people" who wish to keep valuable public services intact at the expense of foreign aid and those folks well off (after a financial meltdown). Are, UNserious, that would be, silly, foolish unconcious, vacuous, one beer away from... etc. You know, not "really part of " political democracy.
Perhaps voters should be able to identify certain (temporary) political actors, before they excercise their right to participate
Negative Advertising
This is easily explained in a way that doesn't insult tea-partiers. Negative advertising is all it takes. If corporate/wealthy interests make the Democrat in the race look like a free-spending, unpatriotic liberal, then these people may think that the tea-party/republican candidate looks moderate in comparison. That doesn't mean the voters supported a slash-and-burn program, even though they voted for someone who turns out to be a Norquist "drown-it-in-the-bathtub" type. It just means they were misled by a politician and advertising. Happens all the time...
Here I have to take exception....
Stan -
#1 whatever the American people think they "want," our rising deficit and, increasingly, foreign creditors, will have a lot to say about what we in fact get.
#2 Working in health care, I can go chapter and verse on how we could reduce Medicare spending by at least 10% probably more like 15%+ and get comparable or even better outcomes than we are now [note Europeans spend a lot less, have better outcomes than we do].
#3 .... and this one I'm trying to better understand, but we'd better figure out better solutions in Medicaid because (a) states are already paying more for Medicaid than they are for education [I think that's k-12] (b)a key component of "health care reform" is expanding Medicaid which is already a broken system
#4 "defence" isn't really something we Americans understand very well - Gordon Adamns who knows a lot more than I do thinks we can cut defence, and - let's face it - with our botched war in Iraq, we created a lot more anti-American feelings and potential terrorists as well as wasted a whole lot of lives and money
I truly believe that if the places where Americans actually are - Oprah for example, maybe People magazine or Good Housekeeping, I don't know, there was an intelligent discussion of this, particularly the deficit issue and what we need to do re spending [we can be way more effecient] and taxes [why not cap the mortgage deduction around $500K, plus $250 income tax, ++++], Americans could in fact understand and we could have a more intelligent discussion about how to get out of this mess before we pull a.... Greece... Ireland... et al. I don't think many of our "commentators" or even our so-called elected "leaders" are doing us, or America, too many favors
"demagoguery" Why not use the
"demagoguery"
Why not use the simpler, more accurate, word: "lying"?
Dakota Poll
Here is a link to the Dakota Poll results: http://dakotapoll.com/category/february-2011-poll/questions-february-201...
I twice lived in that Dakota to the north, where a legislator once told me: "Everybody wants progress; nobody wants change." To me, this illustrates the almost schizophrenic nature of many American voters.
What I also found interesting is the very high favorability ratings for Sen. John Thune, Rep. Kristi Noem and Gov. Dennis Daugaard, all Republicans, and the low favorability rating for Sen. Tim Johnson, the Democrat in the delegation. To me, this just further illustrates that there is almost a de-linking between the candidates many voters vote for and what they actually want.
"Many Americans who bothered
"Many Americans who bothered to vote last November did, in fact, vote for these GOP candidates advocating deep cuts."
This is a myth that does not hold up. People voted for economic recovery and for reduced unemployment... which is what they were told those 'deep cuts' would bring.
True, the people voted stupidly... but I think you have to accept that the US is an increasing uninformed and stupid country, like it or not. Perhaps it has always been so, but at one time we had leaders who did not pander so much to stupidity.
They have been bribed
The explanation is simple. Politicians have been bribed. Campaign contributions at high levels are just a polite way of saying, "Here's your money now take care of me".
BTW campaign contributions have nothing to do with free speech. If you want Medicare cuts, you are free to buy all the ads you want saying just that. Instead politicians are bribed to get elected anyway they can and then do what they are paid to do. No one campaigned on a promise to cut Medicare if elected.
I think (hope) we're
I think (hope) we're sophisticated enough to understand that many public opinion polls have a position to support. [Do you favor gun control or maniacs running through the streets with guns?] Even well-meaning polls often get skewed results because they don't ask comprehensive questions. [Do you want to raise taxes? No. Do you want to cut this program that provides essential services? No. Do you want to reduce the deficit? Yes.] Each question makes sense. I was quite impressed by a recent poll conducted by the Program for Public Consultation (www.public-consultation.org). They approached the problem more comprehensively and got logically consistent answers. A majority of the respondents favored cutting spending deeper than the Republicans and raising taxes more than the Democrats. I doubt we'll see too many people citing this poll in total.
Known Unknown
The fight over the budget and the debt ceiling bills is one of the largest known unknowns for the financial markets going forward.
The voters don't have a clue.
The voters don't have a clue. That's the main conclusion from polls like this. In spite of these asserted preferences, the latest Rasumussen report has the GOP 8% ahead of the Demos on the generic congressional ballot. It makes no sense, but there you go.