[ THESE COMMENTS WERE PRESENTED AT THE HAMILTON PROJECT CONFERENCE ON MEETING THE CHALLENGE OF A GLOBAL ECONOMY AT THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION IN WASHINGTON, D.C. ON JULY 25, 2006. ]

Comments on “Growth, Opportunity, and Prosperity in a Globalizing Economy” by Peter Orszag and Michael Deich

By  Lawrence Mishel

First I would like to thank the leaders of the Hamilton Project for the chance to address this gathering today. This is a very important effort by important thinkers and by important people from the financial community to address the critical economic problems of our day. The nation certainly needs your wisdom as we can all agree that the economy is failing many Americans and that better economic policies are called for.

I am directing my remarks to the Orszag-Deich paper which asks us to embrace the benefits of globalization while investing in workers and market-friendly insurance, cushion the risks associated with globalization and make needed public investments that fuel growth.

What’s Really Great
Let me start with the many areas where I think Orszag and Deich get it exactly right.
1. We are enjoying fast productivity growth and we need public investments in infrastructure, education, basic scientific research and other areas to assure its continuation;
2. The increasing gap between growing productivity and improved wages and family incomes is the marker of a poorly performing economy and failed policies. It is remarkable, according to our estimates, that between 2000 and 2006, productivity will have grown by almost 20% but that real wages—measured for the median worker, a high school-educated worker or even a college graduate- will have risen about two percent, with all of that growth occurring as the result of the strong wage growth of the late 1990s spilling over into the early years of this decade.

Reconnecting productivity with equivalently rising middle-class wages and incomes and reduced poverty –broadly shared prosperity– is the challenge of our time and it is the metric with which we should not judge just the current administration’s policies but also those of future administrations and of policy agendas being offered to the nation, including those of the Hamilton Project and the agenda that EPI is developing.

3. The recognition that “you’re on your own” economics, what my colleague Jared Bernstein calls YOYO economics, can not adequately address today’s problems; and,

4. That economic insecurity, as illustrated by income volatility, is counterproductive to innovation and risk-taking and needs to be addressed.

What’s not so Great
The main point of the Orszag-Deich paper is to persuade us to embrace globalization. They argue that the benefits of trade are very large and that those favoring an open economy should promote policies that soften the blows from job losses.
This paper seems to be asking for a blank check for further trade liberalization in the form of continuing the status quo or of some yet-to-be named set of policies that will deepen or expand globalization with policies along the lines pursued by the Clinton and Bush administrations.

I have to say that I am not persuaded nor do I think most Democrats or progressives will be persuaded because this effort does not acknowledge the damage and risks the current system is generating. Remember that roughly 90% of House Democrats have voted against CAFTA and other recent trade agreements and a similar majority of the American people favor limiting the offshoring of jobs. Moreover, the current and potential offshoring of white-collar jobs has seriously undercut the old Clinton framework where greater education is the pathway through the ‘transition to a globalized economy’. I don’t the public buys this anymore nor should they.

The Policy Choice
The choice is set as between those who endorse market fundamentalism or pure laissez-faire and others who favor a ‘sand-in-the-wheels approach’, apparently favoring “turning inward and shutting out the forces of international competition, while trying to protect specific jobs.” I’ll let the laissez-faire crowd defend themselves. Frankly, this framing does not advance the kind of searching inquiry needed to establish a way to achieve broad prosperity in a global economy. For my tastes the gap between these two poles covers a lot of territory, including mine: I do not want to turn inward but believe that globalization,  as currently practiced  here and abroad, has inflicted substantial damage and wonder why more of the same, perhaps even accelerated, needs to be a policy priority.

It is easy to say that innovations and technological advances have been promoted by international trade and investment. But is any particular approach to trade – meaning actual policy proposals not some imagined fear of a walled off America- actually going to jeopardize this? We are a very open economy right now, certainly the most open among advanced countries. Does anyone really believe that our future innovation and technological advancement depends upon a trade treaty with Oman or Central America?

The Costs and Benefits
It was disappointing to read the analysis of the costs and benefits of trade. For benefits they rely on one fundamentally flawed study from IIE which makes unwarranted extrapolations from four other studies and made it seem as if there was some literature that could justify saying that the benefits of trade were something on the order of 8% of GDP. This is not credible in the least.

On the cost side there…well, there is no effort to quantify the costs of trade. There is still a fear of publicly acknowledging the substantial costs of globalization.  It is dealt with solely as a problem of workers who are dislocated from trade. In fact, the same economics that tells us there are benefits from trade tells us that all semi-skilled and unskilled workers will lose, not just those that are displaced. It is now obvious that highly educated workers are also being affected. It is not just the jobs lost but the wages that are now lower than what they would have been. The costs are very widespread and substantial, including extreme pressure that is a major factor in the unraveling of our employer-based health and pension systems.

Missing Sections
In an examination of globalization one would think there would be attention to the very large and unsustainable trade deficits we are running and the overvaluation of the dollar and related exchange rate problems we have.

What the implications of this situation are and how we are to address them goes unexamined. Some people think that the trade mess we are in is the consequence of the policy prescriptions of the very folks leading the Hamilton Project. It seems appropriate to engage the American people on how we dig ourselves out of this mess. It certainly seems inappropriate to ask for a blank check for ‘open trade’ without addressing current circumstances.

What about Shaping Globalization with Labor Standards/Environmental Standards, etc?
The current rules of trade heavily emphasize rules that protect investment, intellectual property and trade flows. There is weak, at best, attention to establishing a policy regime supportive of meaningful labor and environmental standards. How to achieve these standards and how well they’ve functioned (or not functioned) in existing trade agreements is unexamined here and not a topic of any other Hamilton Project work. Some advocates of
more open trade have feared that such standards are stalking horses for protectionism. I think not,  but if you believe that then I hope you’ll call the bluff on those who say they’ll support open trade as long as there are real protections built in for labor and the environment.

Some Questions
Let me close with some questions that hopefully will deepen our discussion:
1. Orszag and Deich argue that open trade is more compatible with a wage insurance system and less economic insecurity (perhaps even with a good health care system?). Ok, then should we have these systems in place before there is any further efforts to expand our openness. After all, economists argue that trade benefits exceed the costs assuming the losers are compensated. Of course there never is any compensation. So, when does the rubber hit the road?
2. If human capital and other public investments are critical for future growth, as we both agree, then how does this fit into a fiscally responsible budget policy. Does this agenda wait until there’s a fix for all the entitlements? For deficits of 1% of GDP? For balance? Or, at what surplus?
3. What about those trade deficits and exchange rates?
4. Most important, what in the HP agenda will really reconnect wages and productivity? This has to go beyond the policies that address low-income Americans and speaks to how policy can affect the compensation of typical middle-income workers? There’s no discussion of achieving lower unemployment than we now have. There’s no discussion of rebuilding collective bargaining. So, given the limitations of tax and transfer policies, what are the ways we can assure growth is spread more equitably?

Lawrence Mishel is president of the Economic Policy Institute in Washington, D.C.

[POSTED TO VIEWPOINTS ON AUGUST 1, 2006. ]

THIS PIECE FIRST APPEARED IN THE JUNE 2002 ISSUE OF THE AMERICAN PROSPECT.

Who Gets to Retire?

A Republican pension plan could mean seniors will spend their golden years working under the Golden Arches

by Jeff Faux

Go to The American Prospect home page to read Who Gets to Retire.

[ POSTED TO VIEWPOINTS ON JUNE 5, 2002 ] 

Jeff Faux is president of the Economic Policy Institute in Washington, D.C.

What do people think about the environmental movement?
Data collected just prior to Earth Day 2000 suggest that Americans believe that considerable progress has been made. A Newsweek poll conducted in April 2000 reported that 70% of the respondents felt that since the first Earth Day 30 years ago, major or minor progress has been made toward solving environmental problems, while 23% felt that no progress has been made or that things have gotten worse. A Gallup poll also conducted in April 2000 found that 26% felt that we have made a great deal of progress since 1970 in dealing with environmental problems; 64% said only some progress, and 9% said hardly any progress at all. According to the Gallup poll, 75% of the respondents felt that the environmental movement in this nation has, definitely or probably, done more good that harm.

Many Americans are supportive of the goals of the environmental movement. The Gallup poll conducted in April 2000 found that 47% of the respondents said they considered themselves an environmentalist and 52% did not. Furthermore, 16% considered themselves active environmentalists; 55% considered themselves sympathetic but not active in the movement; 23% were neutral; and only 5% claimed to be unsympathetic. In this same poll, 83% of the respondents said they strongly or somewhat agree with the goals of the environmental movement. (The percentage of Americans identifying themselves as an environmentalist seems to have decreased over the last decade — click here for details).

Are Americans concerned about the environment?
Americans seem to be concerned and not very optimistic about the future. In an October 1999 poll sponsored by the Washington Post, 51% of the respondents reported worrying a great deal about pollution and other environmental problems getting worse, and only 13% said they were not worried at all. A Gallup poll conducted in April 2000 found that 55% of the respondents considered environmental problems to be an extremely serious or very serious problem facing our country, while 39% felt it was somewhat serious, and only 5% felt it was not serious. The Gallup poll conducted in April 2000 found that only 18% expressed a great deal of optimism that we will have our environmental problems well under control in 20 years, while 60% expressed only some optimism, and 21% said they had hardly any optimism. A Harris poll conducted in November 1998 found that 55% felt that by the year 2020 the country’s environment would be worse and 42% felt it would get better. A Gallup/USA Today poll conducted in September 1998 found that 54% expected the quality of the environment not to be better in 2025, but 40% expected the quality to be better. When given the option of saying the environment would be the same in the future, as in a poll conducted by Peter D. Hart Research in November 1998 for the Shell Oil Company, 44% thought the environment would be worse in 30 years; 36% thought it would be better; and 19% thought about the same. However, the April 2000 Gallup poll found that people did seem to feel that citizens can have an effect on solving these problems: 34% said that they can have a great deal of an effect, 33% said a fair amount, and 32% claimed citizens’ efforts could not have very much impact.

Similar to the ways in which Americans feel more positive about their own local schools and health care services as opposed to the nation’s, respondents feel that the national environment is in trouble even though many feel positive about their own. For instance, a Harris poll conducted in May 2000 found that 69% of the respondents felt good about the quality of the air, water, and environment near where they live or work, but 29% did not. Furthermore, when asked by Harris and Associates in October 1998 about what level of improvements their community needs to make in terms of cleaning air and water, 23% said major improvements, 27% said minor improvements, and a sizable 50% said conditions are generally okay.

What do Americans want done about the environment?
Many Americans want more regulation and more spending on the environment. Strikingly, 58% of the respondents in an April 2000 Gallup poll think that the U.S. government is doing too little in terms of protecting the environment, with 30% saying amount is about right, and only 10% saying too much is being done. A Wirthlin Worldwide poll conducted in October 1999 found that 42% said that there is too little government regulation and involvement in the area of environmental protection, 28% say about the right amount, and 29% said there was too much. Similarly, Wirthlin found in September 1998 that 41% said too little was being done, 29% said about right, and 29% said too much. A Pew Research Center poll conducted in October 1999 found that 83% of the respondents completely (41%) or mostly (42%) agreed with the statement, “There need to be stricter laws and regulations to protect the environment.” A Kaiser Family Foundation/Harvard University poll conducted in August 1998 found that 60% of the respondents thought that a lot of government regulation is needed to protect consumers’ interests in the area of environmental hazards (26% said some regulation was needed, and only 8% said very little).
(Click here to view the full report in PDF format).

A May 1997 poll conducted for Pew Research Center found that 46% would increase federal spending for environmental protection, 38% would keep it the same, and only 14% said decrease it. The General Social Surveys conducted throughout the 1990s found that majorities of respondents feel that we are spending too little on improving and protecting the environment, with 60% saying this in the most recent 1998 survey. In a CNN/USA Today poll conducted in April 1999, 35% said that laws and regulations for protecting endangered species of plants and animals have not gone far enough, 45% said they had struck the right balance, and 18% said they had gone too far.

What about the costs?
In the April 2000 Gallup poll, when asked which statement came closer to their views, 67% said that protection of the environment should be given priority even at the risk of curbing economic growth, while 28% said that economic growth should be given priority even if the environment suffers to some extent. A January 2000 CNN/USA Today poll reported similar results of 70% and 23%, respectively. However, many Americans do not think there has to be a trade-off. In an October 1999 survey conducted by Wirthlin Worldwide, 68% said that there does not necessarily have to be a choice between economic growth and environmental quality, while 24% said that economic growth should be sacrificed for environmental quality, and only 4% said that environmental quality should be sacrificed for economic growth. This same survey found that 64% somewhat or strongly agreed that protecting the environment is so important that requirements and standards cannot be too high, and cont
inuing environmental improvements must be made regardless of cost (35% disagreed strongly or somewhat). The same items included in a Wirthlin poll conducted in September 1998 produced equivalent results. In July 1999, Pew Research Center found that when asked to compare two statements, 65% agreed that stricter environmental laws and regulations are worth the costs (50% strongly and 15% not strongly) while, 28% agreed that stricter environmental laws and regulations cost too many jobs and hurt the economy (19% strongly and 9% not strongly). A Washington Post poll conducted in August 1998 found that when asked to choose between two values, 52% said that protecting the environment was more important to them personally, while 37% said that increasing jobs and economic growth was more important to them (10% volunteered that both were equally important).

What price are Americans willing to pay?
A October 1999 Pew Research Center poll 56% completely or mostly agreed that people should be willing to pay higher prices in order to protect the environment, while 42% completely or mostly disagreed. In July 1999 the Pew Research Center found that when asked which statement comes closer to their views, 67% agreed strongly that this country should do whatever it takes to protect the environment, and only 5% agreed strongly that this country has gone too far in its efforts to protect the environment. A Newsweek poll conducted in November 1997, found that 82% reported being willing to buy a more energy efficient model when replacing a kitchen appliance, even if it costs $50 more; 16% said they would not be willing. In the same poll, 74% said they would be willing to buy a vehicle with higher fuel economy when buying a new car, even if it means paying an extra $200 or not being able to buy today’s largest sports utility vehicle, but 21% said they would not make that trade-off. When asked about their own shopping and living habits over the last five years, 31% said they had made major changes to help protect the environment, 58% said minor changes, and only 11% said they made no changes.

Conclusions
Largely, Americans are sympathetic toward the environmental movement. While many Americans feel that progress was made over the last 30 years, they are not optimistic about our future environmental health. Many Americans support regulations and spending to protect the environment. Far from feeling that businesses are over-regulated, a large majority of Americans feel that we either have the right amount or need more regulation. While a majority supports environmental protections at any cost, many do not think that protecting the environment demands a trade-off. The available data suggest that many Americans are willing to make personal sacrifices for the health of the environment; however, the recent increase in ownership of large sport utility vehicles, for instance, may soon put these sentiments to the test.

Last updated October 5, 2000

There’s a lot of polling information out there these days, and it’s hard to wade through it all, even if you’re interested in just one issue. Moreover, the task of making sense of the public mind on a given issue is made more daunting by the constant din of the conventional wisdom, which continually insists that this or that is off the public’s agenda and just not worth thinking about. The assumption seems to be that, if some issue isn’t moving politically, that must mean the public doesn’t care, is opposed to change, or is happy with what it’s got.

In this section we will provide a series of in-depth considerations of public opinion on issues like Social Security, education, and health care that put this conventional wisdom to the test. Click on the issue you’re interested in below and you may be surprised at how much is off the political agenda but is definitely on the public agenda.

In the midst of the current budget negotiations, there is one neglected question worth asking: what does the public really want? Tax cuts? Paying down the national debt? More spending? If so, more spending on what? The available polling data, analyzed in this report, helps answer these questions.

Does the public want to cut taxes?
All else equal, of course the public wants tax cuts. But in the real world, all else is generally not equal — cutting taxes involves giving up something else that might be done with the government’s resources. When the tradeoffs are made explicit, cutting taxes does not fare so well.

Take, for example, a choice between tax cuts and spending the surplus on strengthening Medicare or Social Security. According to a March 1999 Fox News poll, 65% of the public prefers funding Medicare while only 25% would choose tax cuts. The sentiment on Social Security vs. tax cuts is even more lopsided: a July 1999 CNN/Time poll found 74% wanting to use the budget surplus to stabilize Social Security, compared to just 21% who preferred a tax cut.

Even if Social Security and Medicare are taken off the table, the public still finds other uses of the surplus more compelling than tax cuts. In a July 1999 NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, 55% of the public preferred using that part of the surplus not dedicated to Social Security and Medicare for “unmet needs,” like “education, health care, and national defense.” Just 34% said they would award themselves a tax cut. Even more impressive, though, was that 69% of the public thought that, once Social Security was taken care of, additional monies should be spent on “education, the environment, health care, crime-fighting, and military defense,” compared to only 22% who thought that a tax cut was the proper use of the money (July 1999 Pew Center survey).

Does the public want to pay down the debt?
While the public believes paying down the national debt is a worthy goal, when it is stacked against other uses of the surplus, the public doesn’t give it a high priority.

For example, a January 1999 Pew Center poll asked people to choose among four uses of the surplus: paying down the debt, tax cuts, spending on domestic programs such as health and education, and making Social Security and Medicare financially sound.The result: a hefty 50% of the respondents chose helping Social Security and Medicare, 21% chose domestic programs, 14% chose tax cuts, and only 12% chose paying down the debt.

Similarly, a February 1999 CBS/New York Times poll asked the public whether they preferred cutting income taxes, paying down the debt, or preserving Social Security and Medicare as uses of the surplus. A resounding 64% selected Social Security and Medicare, and only 14% expressed interest in paying down the debt. And cutting taxes – consistent with the discussion above – brought up the rear with a meager 12%.

Does the public want more spending?
In a word, yes. Indeed, the only context in which they don’t want more spending is when government programs are put forward in a vague and unspecified way as a use for the surplus.

This is nicely illustrated by a July 1999 Pew Center poll that asked the public what they wanted to see done with the portion of the surplus not used to shore up the Social Security system. Did they want to see it devoted to a tax cut or to funding new (unspecified) government programs? By a wide 60% to 25% margin, the public declared themselves in favor of a tax cut.

However, the same poll asked respondents whether they preferred a tax cut or spending on programs for, specifically, education, the environment, health care, crime-fighting, and military defense. The result: by an overwhelming 69% the public preferred spending; only 29% preferred tax cuts.

Similarly, a July 1999 Gallup/CNN/USA Today poll found that the public favored cutting taxes by 64% to the 28% who supported increasing spending on unspecified government programs. But, in the same poll, when tax cuts were put up against increased spending on specific needs — education, defense, Medicare, and other specifically identified programs — the result was reversed: 61% favored increased spending and just 33% wanted a tax cut.

So what does the public want more spending on?
As these results suggest, the public is hardly interested in giving the government a blank check. But they are interested in seeing spending increased on causes they deem worthy.

These worthy causes start with strengthening Social Security and Medicare. In the January 1999 Pew Center poll cited above, and numerous others besides, spending on these two programs tends to be the public’s top recommendation for use of the surplus. But, as just illustrated, the public also wishes to see more spending on various other domestic programs in lieu of a tax cut, and not all of these other programs are equal in the public’s eyes. Indeed, polling data strongly suggest that health care and, especially, education, are really driving the public’s interest in increased spending outside of Social Security and Medicare.

For example, a February 1999 Associated Press poll asked the public which domestic spending programs they preferred to spend the surplus on. The overwhelming majority selected education (45%) or health care (32%) [http://www.pollingreport.com/budget.htm]. An additional 9% chose the environment, and just 7% indicated a preference for defense spending.

The strength of education and health care as spending priorities is also suggested by a September 1999 ABC/Washington Post poll. That poll found that 37% preferred using the surplus for increased spending on education and health care over the alternatives of strengthening the Social Security system (29%), reducing the debt (19%), and cutting taxes (just 14%).

The public’s support of making education spending a particularly high priority is underscored by the fact that education frequently scores higher as a priority than even the Social Security or Medicare programs when they are considered individually. For example, in July 1999, the Pew Center asked the public to prioritize national issues. The most popular issue was improving the educational system (74% said it was a top priority), ranking higher than making either the Social Security system or the Medicare system financially sound (73% and 71%, respectively).

Conclusions
The data presented here suggest that the public’s budget priorities are clear. The public, first and foremost, wants more spending on Social Security, Medicare, and other domestic programs, chiefly education and health care. Fair polling questions consistently indicate that the public prefers these spending priorities — by up to a 70% majority — over paying down the national debt and cutting taxes. In the end, Washington’s politicians and policymakers would be well served by remembering that these are the public’s budgetary priorities.

Last update October 20, 1999

To peruse data — find the latest information on various subjects, generally check for what’s interesting or useful — without necessarily limiting your inquiry to any one topic, then listed are the best sites on the web to get free public opinion data.

SITES WITH FULL NATIONAL SURVEY RESULTS

SITES THAT COMPILE PUBLIC OPINION DATA

NONCOMMERCIAL POLLING SITES WITH PARTIAL SURVEY RESULTS

COMMERCIAL POLLING SITES

STATE POLLING SITES

SITES WITH ACADEMIC DATA

SITES WITH FULL NATIONAL SURVEY RESULTS

Pew Research Center for the People and the Press
This is one of the best sites for foraging. The data are generally very good, the site is frequently updated, and entire survey contents, including question trends, are usually included in the various reports on the site. A great place to start.

Washington Post Poll Vault
At Poll Vault, another very good site, entire survey contents, including trend results, are promptly uploaded after the Post takes a poll. In addition, the site has several lovely features that you might want to take advantage of.

First, the last year’s worth of results are searchable, so that, for example, if you want to see all the results from Post polls from the last year on Social Security, you can call them up with the click of a mouse. You can also perform more fine-grained searches, like viewing all questions on investing Social Security funds in the stock market.

A second nice feature–for the most recent data–is the ability to display results of individual questions by common cross-tabular categories like race, sex, education, and income. You can access this feature either from the Poll Vault home page or from a page yielding results of particular searches. Hats off to the Post pollsters for adding this valuable feature.

Los Angeles Times
The Los Angeles Times includes complete poll results in reports called “Stat Sheets,” which it defines as containing “the exact question wording and sequence, the numerical results for each question (usually including some selected demographic cross-tabulations), any trend data that exist for particular questions, and a description of the survey methodology.” And that is indeed what these stat sheets contain, going from the very latest LA Times polls to as far back as 10 years ago. A great resource.

Note: You must have Adobe Acrobat Reader on your computer to view the Stat Sheets. However, Acrobat, as it is usually called, can be downloaded easily from the LA Times Stat Sheet home page or countless other sites on the Web. Downloading Acrobat is highly recommended, since it is of use not only for the survey data on this site but for survey data on a number of other sites as well.

SITES THAT COMPILE PUBLIC OPINION DATA

Leaving the felicitous realm of complete survey results, several sites do a good job of culling public opinion data from various sources and presenting results of interest.

The Polling Report
This is the site of a Washington-based public opinion newsletter. See particularly the Issues section of the contents page for access to selected recent data on key public policy issues.

Public Agenda Online
Public Agenda is a nonpartisan organization that seeks, among other things, to align elites more closely with public opinion. Along these lines it provides some elaborately produced public opinion data on particular issues (all results are presented graphically).

The public opinion data for each issue are divided into five sections: “people’s chief concerns,” “major proposals,” “who should decide?,” “a nation divided?,” and “red flags,” each of which has numerous subsections. Under this somewhat unwieldy format, one has to click into each section and then click again on a particular subsection to finally see one or two graphical results. Still, there’s a lot of useful information here, so it’s worth it to slog through the site if it covers an area you’re interested in. And the “red flags” section can be particularly useful in identifying problematic questions and ambiguities in public opinion.

Note: The site is currently free, but there is no guarantee it will stay that way. The site is, in many ways, oriented toward journalists and has charged fees in the past to its subscribers. But we will continue to list it here until its current policy changes.

National Journal Poll Track
If you work at an institution that subscribes to the National Journal, you should be able to get free access to this terrific resource, an ongoing compilation of polling data from a wide variety of sources. Poll Track excerpts poll results from just-released surveys on a daily basis and then archives these results by category, including a wide variety of public policy issues (from abortion to the Year 2000 problem). By all means, check this out if you possibly can. It requires a subscriber number and a password to access; contact the National Journal for details.

NONCOMMERCIAL POLLING SITES WITH PARTIAL SURVEY RESULTS

Gallup

Harris

USAToday

New York Times

CNN

Some organizations that do their own polling present the complete results of all their surveys on their websites–the Pew Center, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times. God bless them. More common, however, is the presentation of incomplete results from surveys, typically focusing on a topic or two that the organization wishes to highlight.

The best of this lot is the Gallup organization’s site, which includes the last 2-3 years of releases of various topics. Note, however, that these releases are mostly text, with very little separate display of full question results.

The Harris Poll also archives releases on its website. However, their selection of question results is even more limited and they only archive the current year.

USA Today has partial survey results going back about six months. Selection of survey results, however, is very sparse.

Unaccountably, the New York T
imes and CNN make results accessible only from their very latest polls (though the New York Times sometimes gives the complete results of its latest survey). By assiduous searching, one can usually locate a few other polls–some incredibly out of date–lurking somewhere in the site, but it is hardly worth the effort. These sites could benefit from an archive.

The television network and national newsmagazine sites (Time, Newsweek, etc.) yield only a few tidbits.

COMMERCIAL POLLING SITES

Greenberg Research

Tarrance Group

Zogby International

Wirthlin Worldwide

While most sites for commercial polling organizations contain little more than plugs for their services, several of the more politically oriented ones have sites with useful data. Of these, perhaps the best is the Greenberg Research site, which has quite a few survey reports available, neatly archived, with generous amounts of survey results presented in tabular form. Not quite the gold standard of full survey results, but useful nonetheless.

Other useful commercial polling sites are maintained by the Tarrance Group, Zogby International, and Wirthlin Worldwide. You must sift and winnow, but there is still much useful data to be found on these sites about current public policy issues.

STATE POLLING SITES

Quinnipiac College Polling Institute

Marist College Institute for Public Opinion

Public Policy Institute of California

By no means are all useful data collected by national organizations. Some very good polling is collected by state-level organizations, especially survey research institutes based in universities. These data typically cover the individual states, but there is a fair amount of national polling as well. The standard problem with these sites is a lack of actual survey results: there’s usually an enormous amount of description of the institute’s services, lists of current projects, technical research reports–everything but the data. Here we feature some of the best, where actual data can be found in a reasonably organized and accessible format.

One of the best sites in maintained by Quinnipiac College’s Polling Institute. Recent polls covering Connecticut, New Jersey, New York State, and New York City are neatly categorized and displayed with close-to-full survey results. Another excellent site is maintained by Marist College. Releases with partial survey results, covering New York City, New York State, and the nation as a whole, are archived back as far as 1995.

The Public Policy Institute of California is an excellent site for California data. Full survey results from the ongoing Changing Political Landscape of California series, with considerable data about public policy issues, are posted on the site. Note: you need Acrobat to read the survey report and data files.

Other good sites include those of :

• the University of Cincinnati’s Institute for Policy Research, featuring the Ohio poll
• Rutgers University’s Center for Public Interest Polling, featuring the Starr-Ledger/Eagleton Poll
• Florida International University’s Institute for Public Opinion Research, featuring the Florida Poll
• Millersville (Pa.) University’s Center for Opinion Research, featuring the Keystone Poll
• Arizona State University’s Cronkite School, featuring the KAET poll and Northern Arizona University’s Social Research Laboratory, featuring the Arizona Poll
• The Minneapolis Star-Tribune, featuring the Minnesota Poll

SITES WITH ACADEMIC DATA

National Election Study

General Social Survey

Some survey data are gathered for primarily academic purposes– that is, mostly for use by scholars. The two most prominent such surveys are the National Election Study (NES) and the General Social Survey (GSS), each conducted once every two years in even-numbered years. Data from both surveys are available on the web.

By far the superior site is that for the NES. This site features a terrific Guide to Public Opinion and Electoral Behavior that display a variety of useful information in time series, tabular form. Data are complete through 1996. See particularly the Public Opinion on Public Policy Issues section. While some of the tables can be a bit difficult to read–for example, those based on seven-point scales–this is still a fine resource to get a sense of how public opinion has moved over long periods of time.

The GSS site is not for the faint of heart. You must select a topic from the subject index, go to that topic, pick out a variable you are interested in, and then click on that to get a distribution of raw frequency counts for that variable. The frequency counts then have to be transformed–by you–into percentages to make sense of the data. And the data are only updated through 1994! Not recommended except for the truly motivated (it has a question you just have to look at).

Last updated June 14, 1999

Given the media obsession with politics as a horse race rather than a battle of ideas, assumptions about public attitudes now play a critical role in defining the limits of political debate. Indeed, setting these assumptions is now part of political strategy. If a certain view is successfully branded as contrary to the public’s core values and beliefs, that view drops from the debate. For example, conservatives have convinced the press that Americans rejected the concept of national health insurance in mid-1994, and, therefore, such proposals are now off limits. In fact, the overwhelming majority of Americans continue to favor a government-guaranteed minimum level of health insurance coverage for all. It is Washington politics that has changed, not the public’s views.

Money, of course, contributes to the distortion of the public’s views. An aggressive media campaign can create an illusion of the public’s “true” view on an issue.

In response, we are debuting this “consumer’s guide” to public opinion data on a range of economic and related issues, such as education, trade, and Social Security. The guide has three components:

Alternative, credible analyses of polling on a single issue, such as Social Security, health care, trade, etc.

An annotated collection of links to sites with data on specific issues. Includes assessments of the relative accuracy and/or bias of the data.

Links to other sites, such as newspapers and survey groups, with generally useful polling data.

What do Americans think about the issues being discussed by the presidential candidates? With Election Day approaching, this edition of The Pulse looks at several issues being discussed this election season and summarizes current opinion on each topic.

Tax Cuts
Americans favor federal tax cuts but are generally more supportive of targeted cuts. A Gallup poll conducted in September 2000 found that 74% of the respondents were in favor of a cut in federal income taxes, while 23% said they were not. When asked to choose among two types of cuts, 44% chose targeted tax cuts to alleviate specific problems, while 41% chose broad, across-the-board tax cuts, and 10% preferred no tax cuts at all. Furthermore, when given the choice between broad, across-the-board tax cuts and targeted tax cuts benefiting mostly those making less than $70,000 a year, 51% supported targeted cuts, 33% supported broad cuts, and 14% prefered no tax cuts at all (see the full Gallup poll release). A September 2000 poll conducted by the Pew Research Center found that, when given two choices and asked which they favored more, 58% chose tax cuts targeted to lower- and middle-income families and 40% chose cutting taxes for people in all income brackets (see the full text of the Pew poll). Similarly, in a Washington Post/ABC News poll of registered voters conducted in September 2000, 53% favored a smaller tax-cut plan that provides targeted tax cuts mainly for lower- and middle-income people and 45% supported a large tax-cut plan that provides an across-the-board tax cut for everyone.

Budget Priorities
Tax cuts do not fair well when compared to other uses of governemnt revenue ( also see the Pulse on taxes). A poll of registered voters conducted for Newsweek by Princeton Survey Research Associates in August 2000 found that, when given two choices and asked what they preferred to see the federal surplus mainly used for, 66% said they wanted it used to pay down the debt and make Social Security/Medicare more solvent, and 27% of the respondents wanted it used to cut people’s taxes. The September 2000 poll conducted by the Pew Research Center found that when asked which of the following should be done with the available surplus money, 38% said it should be spent on Social Security and Medicare, 25% chose domestic programs, 21% reducing the national debt, and 14% wanted a tax cut. Similarly, a Washington Post/ABC News poll of registered voters conducted in September 2000 found that, when asked “which of these do you think should be the top priority for any surplus money in the federal budget” – 36% said strengthen the Social Security system, 29% said increase spending on other domestic programs such as education or health care, 19% said put it toward reducing the national debt, and 14% said cut federal income taxes. A survey conducted for the American Association of Retired People (AARP) by Roper Starch Worldwide in July 2000 asked the respondents to prioritize (high, medium, or low) uses for the federal surplus: 73% rated education as a high priority; 69% rated making Social Security more financially sound as a high priority; 65% rated to making Medicare more financially sound as a high priority; 44% rated cutting federal taxes as a high priority; 39% rate paying off part of the federal debt as a high priority; and 33% rated defense as a high priority (see full AARP survey here). There is little evidence that Americans view paying down the debt as a top priority in and of itself; however, Americans do seem to see it as more prudent than cutting taxes. For instance, when asked in a May 2000 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, “Which government policy do you think would do more to help create good long-term economic conditions?” 51% said paying down the national debt, 34% said cutting income taxes, 11% said some of both, and 4% were not sure.

Health Care
Many Americans offer support for the incremental approaches to providing health insurance to the uninsured currently being discussed. In a poll of registered voters conducted by the Washington Post, the Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University in July 2000, 69% of the respondents expressed “strong” or “somewhat strong” support for offering uninsured Americans income tax deductions, tax credits, or other financial assistance to help them purchase private health insurance on their own, but 28% were “strongly” or “somewhat opposed” to this. Also, in this poll, 77% of the respondents were “strongly” or “somewhat supportive” of expanding state government programs for low-income people, such as Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Programs, to provide coverage for people without health insurance, but 22% were “strongly” or “somewhat opposed” (click here to view the full Kaiser Family Foundation report).

Even if the major candidates are not discussing universal health care, many Americans see a role for the federal government in addressing the uninsured. A September 2000 Gallup poll asked respondents whether they think it is the responsibility of the federal government to make sure all Americans have health care coverage — 64% said yes, and only 31% said it is not the responsibility of the federal government (5% had no opinion). In this Gallup poll, when asked whether it would make health care in this country better or worse if the government tried to reform the system, 54% felt it would be better, 35% felt it would be worse, and 9% had no opinion. And when asked in a Harris poll conducted in September 2000, “Do you think that as a country we could afford to provide everyone with all the health and medical services which they need, or would that cost more than we can afford?” 64% said we could afford it and 30% said we could not. The poll of registered voters conducted by the Washington Post, the Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University in July 2000 found that 72% agreed that the federal government should work to increase the number of Americans covered by health insurance, while 24% felt that this was not something that the federal government should be doing. Of those who felt the government should be working to increase coverage, 52% agreed with the statement that “the federal government should make a major effort to provide health insurance for nearly all uninsured Americans, which would require a tax increase,” while 43% agreed with the statement that “the federal government should make a limited effort to provide health insurance for some of the uninsured, which would not require a tax increase.” This represents sizable support for increasing coverage, especially given the explicit reference to a tax increase. But when asked, in the Washington Post/Kaiser Family Foundation/Harvard University poll, about “a national health plan, financed by the taxpayers, in which all Americans would get their insurance from a single government plan,” 58% of the respondents were “strongly” or “somewhat opposed,” and 38% were “strongly” or “somewhat supportive.” It should be noted that the question wording of this item implies a government role beyond providing funding for and guaranteeing access to health care
. Americans generally offer support for a federal government guarantee of health coverage and universal care (also see the Pulse on health care).

While the insured are generally satisfied with their own health care, the costs of health care represent a major concern and many Americans support government regulations. For instance, in the September 2000 Gallup poll, when asked how they feel about the health care of themselves and their family, 82% were satisfied with the quality of the health care they receive, and 70% were satisfied with their health insurance coverage. But among the six areas the Gallup poll inquired about, people expressed the lowest level of satisfaction with the cost of their health care, with only 59% expressing satisfaction. In the Gallup September 2000 poll, when asked whether the federal government should do more to regulate health care costs in this country, 76% said “yes” and only 21% said “no.” Similarly, a January 2000 CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll found 77% of the respondents thought that the federal government should do more to regulate health care costs in this country, and only 20% disagreed. The poll of registered voters conducted by the Washington Post, the Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University in July 2000 asked whether they thought there was too much, not enough, or about the right amount government regulations for several areas: 56% of the respondents said there was not enough regulation of the cost of prescription medicines; 48% said their was not enough regulation of HMOs and managed care; and 45% said there was not enough regulation of health care (in general).

Regulating managed health care plans enjoys particularly high support among Americans. In a Pew Research Center poll conducted in September 2000 respondents were asked “whether the federal government should create national standards to protect the rights of patients in HMOs and managed health care plans or would this get the government too involved in health care?” Fifty-eight percent expressed support for national standards, and 36% said this would get the government too involved. The July 2000 Kaiser Family Foundation poll asked respondents to consider a law that would require HMOs to provide people with more information about their health plan, make it easier for people to see medical specialists, allow appeals to independent reviewers when someone is denied coverage for a particular medical treatment, and give people the right to sue their health plan; 81% of the respondents favored such a law, and only 17% opposed it. Among those who favored it, 61% said they would still favor this “if it meant that some companies might stop offering health care plans to their workers because the companies are afraid they might be sued along with the health plan,” while 33% said they would not still favor it (7% of the respondents not sure).

Social Security
Many Americans support the general idea of establishing individual private accounts for Social Security, but this support is tempered by concerns about risk. An ABC News/Washington Post poll of registered voters conducted in September 2000 found that 59% support a plan in which people who chose to could invest some of their Social Security contributions in the stock market, but 37% oppose such a plan (4% had no opinion). Similarly, a Newsweek poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates in June 2000 of registered voters found that, when asked whether they favored or opposed a proposal to change Social Security to allow workers to invest some of their Social Security payroll taxes in the stock market, 51% expressed support, 36% opposed it, and 13% were not sure. However, when those who supported it were asked if they would still favor the proposal if they heard it might require reducing the Social Security benefits that seniors receive, only 17% said they would still favor it, while 85% said they would oppose it (18% weren’t sure). When asked, in a Washington Post/ABC News poll conducted in May 2000, about “a plan in which people who chose to do so could invest some of their Social Security contributions in the stock market,” 61% expressed support, 34% opposed it, and 5% were not sure. There was somewhat more opposition among respondents in the other half of the sample who were asked about “a plan in which people could invest some of their Social Security contributions in the stock market. When they retire, their benefits could either be higher or lower, depending on the stock market’s performance” — 61% supported the plan, 34% opposed it, and 5% were not sure (view complete question wording for all these items).

A poll conducted for AARP by Roper Starch Worldwide in July 2000 also found that people generally supported plans to allow individuals to invest a portion of their Social Security payroll taxes in the stock market and asked those who expressed support to consider several concerns: 55% said they would oppose the approach “if it meant you would receive a lower guaranteed Social Security benefit when you retire;” 40% said they would oppose it “if the ups and downs of the stock market meant you might receive less money throughout your retirement than if you had kept all your money in Social Security;” 46% would oppose it “if it meant each worker would have to pay the management fees associated with these accounts;” and 58% said they would oppose it “if it meant creating a new government agency to administer the program” (see full AARP survey here).Opinion is more evenly split when the question mentions the risks. For instance, in a CBS News/New York Times poll conducted in May 2000, 51% felt it was a good idea to allow “individuals to invest portions of their Social Security taxes on their own, which might allow them to make more money for their retirement, but would involve greater risk,” while 45% felt this was a bad idea.

Americans also express support for other options besides diverting funds into individual investment accounts. When asked to choose between two approaches for dealing with Social Security — using some of the budget surplus to pay down the national debt now, and using general tax revenue later to help maintain the current Social Security system of guaranteed monthly benefits or changing the current system by allowing people to invest some of their Social Security taxes in private accounts in the stock market — an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll of registered voters conducted in June 2000 found that 51% favored maintaining the current system compared to 38% who favored changing the current system by allowing people to invest some of their Social Security taxes (11% either weren’t sure or said neither/depends). Furthermore, the June 2000 Newsweek poll asked respondents about a proposal to create a supplemental savings program that would allow workers to put up to $2,000 a year of tax-deductible savings in retirement accounts outside the Social Security system with the government offering matching funds based on income level; 67% favored this proposal, 20% opposed it, and 13% didn’t know. Similarly, the poll conducted for AARP by Roper Starch Worldwide in July 2000 found that 70% of the respondents favored this approach, 20% opposed it, and 10% were not sure.

Beyond a general support supporting the idea of allowing workers to invest in the stock market, it is not entirely clear how Americans feel about the benefits and risks of such a plan. An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll of registered voters conducted in June 2000 found respondents split on what concerned them the most about dealing with Social Security when asked to compare two approaches: 45% were more concerned about “making some adjustments but leaving the Social Security system basically as is and running the risk that the system will fall short of money as more people retire and demand benefits” and 45% were more concerned with
“changing the Social Security system by allowing people to invest some of their Social Security taxes in private accounts and running the risk that some people will lose their private accounts due to drops in the stock market” (10% were not sure). The respondents in the AARP survey were split on the benefits of allowing workers to invest some Social Security payroll taxes in the stock market — 40% felt it would strengthen the Social Security system, and 43% felt it would weaken the system, with a sizable 15% not sure. Respondents were more optimistic about the proposal to create a supplemental savings program that would allow workers to put matched money in retirement accounts outside the Social Security system: 54% of the respondents thought it would strengthen the system, and 28% said it would weaken the system, but many respondents were not sure about the benefits (18%).

Prescription Drug Benefits
Covering prescription drugs expenses for senior citizens enjoys strong support. In an ABC News poll conducted in May 2000, 89% of the respondents support having the Medicare insurance program cover prescription drug expenses for senior citizens, and only 7% oppose this. Among those who supported it, 81% still support it if it meant they would have to pay more into the Medicare system, and 15% of them would oppose it. Similarly, a September 2000 Pew Research Center poll found that 91% favor (57% strongly favor) making prescription drug benefits part of the Medicare system while only 7% (2% strongly) oppose it. The poll of registered voters conducted by the Washington Post, the Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University in July 2000 found that 68% of the respondents felt that it was the responsibility of the federal government to make sure people age 65 and over are able to buy the prescription medicines they need, and 29% felt that it was not. When asked to compare two proposals to help people age 65 and over to pay for prescription medicines, 57% preferred expanding Medicare to pay directly for part of prescription medicine costs, 36% preferred having the federal government help people buy private health insurance plans that would pay part of their medicine costs, and 7% opposed both approaches.

Education
Americans have great doubts about public schools, particularly schools as a whole as opposed to their local schools. But Americans have decidedly not given up on the public education. A Gallup poll conducted in August 2000 found a sizable 61% of the respondents were “completely” or “somewhat dissatisfied” with the quality of education students receive in grades kindergarten through grade 12 in the U.S. today, and 36% reported being “completely” or “somewhat satisfied” (see the full report on the Gallup 2000 education poll). But a poll of registered voters conducted by the Washington Post, the Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University in May 2000 found that, when asked which statement came closest to their view of the public school system, only 6% agreed that “we need to completely replace it;” 63% agreed “there are good things, but it requires major changes; and 29% agreed that “its basically okay, but does require some minor changes” (see the full Kaiser Family Foundation report). When asked in a 2000 Gallup poll conducted for Phi Delta Kappa (PDK) to choose between two plans, 75% preferred improving and strengthening the existing public schools compared to 22% who preferred providing vouchers for parents to use in selecting and paying for private and/or church-related schools (see the entire 2000 Gallup/PDK survey).

The public’s support for alternatives to public education is mixed, and many Americans lack knowledge on the subject. The 2000 Gallup/PDK survey found that 56% of the respondents opposed allowing students and parents to choose a private school to attend at public expense, while 39% supported such a plan, and 5% weren’t sure. In this same survey, when asked about a proposal that would allow parents to send their school-age children to any public, private, or church-related school they choose with the government paying all or part of the tuition, 52% opposed such a proposal, 45% favored it, and 3% weren’t sure. A January 2000 CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll of registered voters found that 60% of the respondents felt that government money only be spent on children who attend public schools, while 36% of the respondents felt that the government should spend money to assist low-income families who want to send their children to private or religious schools. But a September 2000 Pew Research Center poll found that 53% favor (24% strongly) federal funding for vouchers to help low- and middle-income parents send their children to private and parochial schools, while 44% (17% strongly) oppose it. However, the Kaiser Family Foundation May 2000 poll found that when respondents were asked if they knew what the term “school voucher” meant, a sizable 25% said “no,” and 19% said they weren’t sure. For the term “charter school,” 30% said they didn’t know, and 21% said they weren’t sure.

While Americans are dissatisfied with the performance of our nation’s schools, they are wary of punishing “failing schools.” In the May 2000 poll of registered voters conducted by the Washington Post, the Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University, the respondents were split on how to handle students who attend “failing schools”: 48% favored “a federal program to provide parents of a child in a failing public school with about $1,500 in federal education funds that they could use to send their child to a private school or another public school,” and 49% opposed it. When supporters were asked if they would still favor the plan “if the money came directly from the budget of the failing school, meaning there might be less money and the school could get even worse,” only 36% still favored it, and 59% said they now would oppose it. Furthermore, 63% of the respondents strongly or somewhat opposed reducing federal education funding to states where the academic performance of public school students is low and has not improved in five years as a way for the federal government to improve education and public schools; only 33% somewhat or strongly favored it. Similarly, in an April 2000 ABC News/Washington Post poll, 61% said they would oppose a plan to reduce federal education funding to school districts whose students don’t improve on standardized tests, but 36% said they would support such efforts.

Americans recognize the role of resources and funding in improving public education and apparently would like to hear what the candidates have to say about inequities in funding. A September 2000 poll commissioned by The Nation and the Institute for Policy Studies found that 88% of the respondents consider it very (56%) or somewhat (32%) important to hear what positions presidential candidates take on “how to reduce the gap between rich and poor school districts in a fair way” (see the full Nation/IPS survey [PDF format]). The 2000 Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup poll provided respondents an opportunity to identify the biggest problems facing their local public schools. In this open-ended item, lack of financial support/funding/money was the most mentioned problem this year, with 18% of those surveyed saying it’s the biggest problem. Lack of discipline, mentioned by 15% of respondents, was second, with overcrowded schools third at 12%. However, concern about standards/quality was mentioned by only 5% of respondents. And when asked in an open-ended item in the August 2000 Gallup poll “What action by the federal government do you think would be most effective in helping to improve public schools in the United States today?” 30% mentioned funding/more money for education (the highest response category). A Gallup poll conducted in April 2000 found that 62% of the respondents said that teacher salaries in the Unite
d States are too low, 26% said about right, and 5% said too high. An April 2000 ABC News/Washington Post poll found that 65% of the respondents think that federal spending on education should be increased (with 42% of them saying increased a great deal), 26% said kept the same, and 8% said decreased. This represents sizable support for increased federal spending given the public’s overestimation of how much education money comes from the federal government. For instance, the poll of registered voters conducted by the Washington Post, the Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University in May 2000 found that, when asked to estimate how much money the federal government contributes to the nation’s public schools, 30% said about one-half or more, 30% said one-quarter, and 29% said less than one-quarter.

Many Americans support funding for educational improvements and would be willing to pay more taxes. In the May 2000 Kaiser poll of registered voters, 64% of the respondents strongly or somewhat favor increasing federal funding to states so that all four-year-olds may attend preschool; only 34% are somewhat or strongly opposed to that. Furthermore, 76% of the respondents strongly or somewhat favor increasing federal spending on new school construction and modernization, and only 21% are strongly or somewhat opposed to that. Further, in the Gallup poll conducted in August 2000, 67% of the respondents said they would be willing to pay higher taxes in order to improve the quality of education in their local school district, and only 31% said they would not.

Conclusions
This election season Americans feel strongly that the federal budget surplus should be used for Social Security, paying down the debt, and spending on health care and education. While they support tax cuts, they prefer targeted cuts. They feel that the lack of health care coverage needs to be addressed by the federal government, and they appear willing to see the costs of health care addressed through regulations. Americans are generally supportive of individual retirement accounts but express significant reservations about changing the Social Security system. Most Americans support providing prescription drug benefits for senior citizens. Americans also support public education and tend to see more federal money rather than less as the answer to failing schools. The issues of concern to Americans this election season involve costly yet valued public goods. The conflict between the values underlying support for public goods and the allure of private market solutions will continue to challenge us beyond this presidential election.

Last updated October 20,2000.