deliberate decisions about the 2012 federal budget
DESCRIPTION
Deliberate Decisions About the 2012 Federal Budget. How the American Public Would Reduce Spending and Increase Taxes to Shrink the Budget Deficit. Curtiss Cobb, Norman Nie and Saar Gold 67 th Annual Conference of the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
1
Deliberate Decisions About the 2012 Federal Budget
How the American Public Would Reduce Spending and Increase Taxes to Shrink the Budget Deficit
Curtiss Cobb, Norman Nie and Saar Gold
67th Annual Conference of the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR)May 2012, Orlando, FL.
2
1. The Budget Dilemma
2. The Budget Exercise
3. The Overall Solution
4. The Details
5. Conclusion
Outline
2
3
1. The Dilemma
The American public is more concerned over the state of the economy and issues related to government spending than any other issues.
3
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Crime/Violence
Other
Environment
State/Local Finances
National Security
Iraq/Afghanistan Wars
Price of Fuel
Education
Healthcare
Federal Deficit
Unemployment
Economy
Most Important 2nd Most Important
4
1. The DilemmaThe 2012 Federal Budget projects:
$2,628 billion in revenue -$3,729 billion in spending$1,101 billion deficit
4
Leaders in Washington DC are unable to reach a compromise to deal with the budget deficit.
Can the American public do what Congress and the President cannot?
5 5
Probability-based ABS recruitmentRecruitment takes place throughout the yearRepresentative of U.S. adultsIncludes:
Adults with no Internet access (24% of adults)• KP provides laptop and free ISP
Cell phone only (30% of adults)Spanish-languageExtensive profile data maintained on each member
• demographics, attitudes, behaviors, health, media usage, etc.
Samples from the panel are assigned to projects• e-mail invitations and a link to the online survey questionnaire
55,000+ members 55,000+ members
66
2. The Budget Exercise
• 1,778 interviews with U.S. general population adults
• Fielded from July 28 through August 9, 2011
• Interactive Budget Exercise- 28 area of federal spending presented in random order
- All 6 personal income tax brackets and the average corporate tax rate
- Randomized whether respondents received spending or taxes first
- Immediate feedback to respondents
- Allowed respondents to change responses as much as they wanted until they reached their preferred solution
7
1. The Budget Exercise
Spending
7
8
2. The Budget Exercise
Revenue
8
99
3. The Overall Solution
The “average” American wants…
Results in a $27 billion surplus for 2012.
*Spending and Revenue do not match total federal spending or revenue due to only asking respondents about a subset of programs and taxes.
1010
3. The Overall Solution
Distribution of Spending Solutions0
50
100
150
200
250
Fre
que
ncy
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Spend Less than Projected Spend More than Projected
19% wants less than $1 trillion in spending.
3% want to increase spending.
1111
3. The Overall Solution
Without the slash and burn crowd, the “average” American wants to cut spending by 13% and increase revenue through taxes by 10%.
That amounts to $3 in spending reductions for every $1 in new tax revenue.
1212
3. The Overall Solution
There are clear differences across the political spectrum, but every group’s total solution is within $100 billion of each other.
Overall SpendingReduction
OverallRevenueIncrease
RemainingDeficit
DemocratsRepublicansIndependents
$427 B$540 B$469 B
$182 B$ 80 B$163 B
$492 B$481 B$469 B
LiberalsConservativesModerates
$432 B$535 B$420 B
$239 B$ 95 B$129 B
$430 B$471 B$552 B
1313
3. The Overall Solution
Average Desired Tax Rate for High Earners and Corporations
$174,400 to $379,149
(Currently 33%)
$379,150 or More(Currently 35%)
Average Corporate Rate (Currently 35%)
All Americans 33.5% 37.6% 38.3%
DemocratsRepublicansIndependents
34.0%32.6%34.0%
38.9%35.7%38.0%
40.0%35.9%38.6%
LiberalsConservativesModerates
35.4%32.8%33.2%
40.4%36.4%36.9%
41.2%36.5%38.2%
1414
3. The Overall Solution
There is almost no taste for making major cuts to entitlement programs.
Cut by more than 15%
Cut by10-15%Cut by 1-10%
Individual want to raise taxes on those that earn more than they do themselves and on corporations.
1515
3. The Overall Solution
The solution looks simple at this level, however….
The Devil is always in the details.
1616
4. The Details
With few exceptions, agreement on spending is highest among categories the public wants to cut least (on average)…
01
02
03
04
05
06
0
Perc
en
t
0 .5 1 1.5 2
Social Security
01
02
03
04
05
06
0
Perc
en
t
0 .5 1 1.5 2
Veterans' Benefits
01
02
03
04
05
06
0
Perc
en
t
0 .5 1 1.5 2
Medicare
01
02
03
04
05
06
0
Perc
en
t
0 .5 1 1.5 2
Justice
01
02
03
04
05
06
0
Perc
en
t
0 .5 1 1.5 2
Healthcare
01
02
03
04
05
06
0
Perc
en
t
0 .5 1 1.5 2
Regular Military
7% Cut 5% Cut 11% Cut
13% Cut 13% Cut 20% Cut
Highest Agreement
1717
4. The Details
And lowest among categories the public most wants to cut.
Lowest Agreement
01
02
03
04
05
06
0
Perc
en
t
0 .5 1 1.5 2
Oil/Gas Subsidies
01
02
03
04
05
06
0
Perc
en
t
0 .5 1 1.5 2
Childcare Assistance
01
02
03
04
05
06
0
Perc
en
t
0 .5 1 1.5 2
Military Aid
01
02
03
04
05
06
0
Perc
en
t
0 .5 1 1.5 2
Science/Medical Research
01
02
03
04
05
06
0
Perc
en
t
0 .5 1 1.5 2
Ag Subsidies0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Perc
en
t0 .5 1 1.5 2
Higher Education
56% Cut 5% Increase 30% Cut
13% Cut 23% Cut 1% Cut
1818
4. The Details
SOCIAL WELFARE (W)Medicare
Social SecurityHealthcare Services
Federal Employee RetirementUnemployment CompensationFood & Nutrition Assistance
Income Assistance
SPECIAL INTEREST (I)State Department
Agricultural SubsidiesChildcare Assistance
Corporate Tax SavingsOil & Gas Subsidies
SECURITY (S)Federal Administration of Justice
Homeland SecurityRegular Military Operations
Iraq/Afghanistan Wars
THE FUTURE (F)TransportationElectrical Grid
Scientific & Medical ResearchEnvironment & Natural Resources
Elementary & Secondary EdHigher Ed
Moreover, there are 4 competing spending priorities, which makes reaching a compromise a multi-dimensional problem with no median vote
1919
4. The Details
Ranked spending priorities show differences along partisan lines
Partisanship
Rank Priority
Lib Dem
Mod/Con Dem
Mod/Lib Ind
ConInd
Mod/LibRep
ConRep
1st F I W S I S
2nd W W F W W I
3rd I S S F S W
4th S F I I F F
W=Social Welfare; S=Security; F=The Future; I=Special Interest
2020
4. The Details
Ranked spending priorities show differences along age and race/ethnic lines.
W=Social Welfare; S=Security; F=The Future; I=Special Interest
Age Groups Race/Ethnicity
Rank Priority
18-34 yrs.
35-44 yrs.
45-54 yrs.
55+ yrs.
White Black Hispanic
1st I F S W S I I
2nd F I W S W W F
3rd S S I I F F S
4th W W F F I S W
21
1. The average solution is $3 in less spending for every $1 in new revenue.
2. Differences in political views seem relatively modest.
3. There is almost no taste for making major cuts to existing domestic entitlement programs.
4. Moreover, there are 4 competing spending priorities, which makes reaching a compromise a multi-dimensional problem with no median vote.
5. Conclusions
21
22
Thank you!
Curtiss L. Cobb III is Director of Survey Methodology at GfK.Norman H. Nie is Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the University of Chicago and Stanford University, and co-founder of Knowledge Networks, now a GfK company.Saar Golde is Data Solutions Architect at Revolution Analytics.