For several years, voters have looked at Washington and said, “Why can’t they do anything?” The easy answer is that partisan politics gets in the way. That’s the portrayal by the media. It’s certainly the picture painted by the President, notwithstanding the point that “We can’t wait” is a much weaker reelection mantra than “Morning in America.”
But what would success look like in the eyes of voters? Does it mean raising taxes? In our November survey, we phrased the liberal argument on taxes as:
Congressman A says that Congress needs to take a balanced approach to our debt problem by raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations. They should pay their fair share by giving up tax breaks and special deductions.
Against this language, we tested two conservative responses:
Congressman B says this is the wrong time to raise taxes on anyone. Higher taxes mean more money going to the government, and less money in the economy that businesses can use to hire workers and create new jobs.
Congressman B says this is the wrong time to raise taxes on anyone. The top ten percent of earners already pay over two-thirds of all federal income taxes, while nearly half of Americans pay no federal income tax, and U.S. companies pay a thirty-five percent tax rate, more than most European countries.
The overall results are similar, with voters preferring the liberal argument by a 54 to 42 percent margin over the conservative argument focused on the economy, and by a 53 to 43 percent margin over the conservative argument focused on current shares of the tax burden. Looking at Independents, the tax share argument works better, managing a virtual split at 48 to 46 percent liberal/conservative compared to a 53 to 44 percent margin for the economy argument.
This difference is a reminder that our September survey showed voters actually think that “fair share” should be smaller than what it is now and the higher rate the President supports moving forward. So while voters may have an appetite for a different tax structure, it is not an appetite for higher tax rates.
Does success mean letting the defense cuts go into effect? We asked voters which statement they preferred on cuts in defense spending:
Congressman A says cutting the defense budget along with domestic spending is necessary given our debt crisis. There is wasteful spending in the military, and it is time to cut back our military presence overseas.
Congressman B says cutting the defense budget is a mistake. Providing a strong national defense is the most important function of the federal government, and we need to be sure our military has all the resources it needs in a dangerous world.
Voters prefer the latter statement by a 52 to 42 percent margin overall, including a 54 to 40 percent margin among Independents. Similarly, voters who are undecided on the generic congressional ballot oppose defense cuts by a 52 to 39 percent margin. Voters in swing states (defined here as AZ, CO, NM, IA, WI, MI, OH, PA, NC, VA, FL, and NH) oppose defense cuts by the same 52 to 39 percent margin while voters in solid Democratic states (any states won both by President Obama and John Kerry that are not included above) split with 49 percent agreeing that we need defense cuts and 48 percent agreeing that these cuts would be a mistake.
Voters have been clear that it is a higher priority for the government to “spend less to reduce the budget deficit” rather than “spend more to help the economy recover,” with voters currently preferring spending less by a 54 to 40 percent margin. Independents say spending less is a higher priority by a 58 to 35 percent margin, agreeing with Republicans (78 to 20 percent) and disagreeing with Democrats (who say spending more is a higher priority by a 63 to 30 percent margin).
Our September survey also showed that voters are far more concerned that the supercommittee would “make too few spending cuts and Washington will continue to spend money it doesn’t have” than “make too many spending cuts that will harm economic recovery and hurt the country” (by a 51 to 36 percent margin). Independents are even stronger in that sentiment, being more concerned about cutting too little by a 55 to 31 percent margin. The road ahead is challenging, but appealing to Independents means keeping a focus on reduced spending.
To see the original post on Resurgent Republic’s website, click here.