Report

The American Majority Project Polling

OurFuture.org Staff — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 11:30:36 -0500

Our review of a broad range of reputable polls on economic issues finds a big difference between the policy solutions that dominate the discussion among policymakers and media pundits and what the majority of average citizens would like to be brought to the forefront.

Social Security

Social Security

The Washington Post/ABC News poll. April 16, 2013.

“51 percent of Americans oppose chained CPI (to limit the cost-of-living adjustment to Social Security benefits) and only 37 percent support it.”

Kaiser Family Foundation. January 24, 2013.

58% of Americans think there should be no reductions in Social Security

Pew Research. December 13, 2012.

56% oppose raising the Social Security retirement age to reduce federal deficits

Omnibus/YouGov. December 5, 2012.

54% of Americans think it’s a bad idea to adjust cost of living calculations to lessen Social Security benefits in the future

National Academy of Social Insurance. January 31, 2012.

80% of Americans don’t mind paying for Social Security because they value it for themselves.
84% don’t mind paying for it because it provides disability and survivor’s insurance.
84% of Americans believe Social Security doesn’t provide enough for retirees.
75% of Americans believe we should consider raising Social Security benefits in the future.
82% favor preserving Social Security for the future even if that means raising Social Security taxes on working Americans.
87% of Americans not receiving benefits say it will be important to their financial stability.
72% of Americans receiving Social Security say they would not be able to afford some basic needs without it.

AFL-CIO. November 7, 2012.

By 64% to 17%, voters say we should maintain Social Security and Medicare benefits.

Gallup. November 9-12, 2012.

88% believe it is extremely/very important that “Obama take steps to ensure long term stability in Social Security.”

Democracy Corps. November 9, 2012.

60% said there should be no more major cuts to Social Security.
50% support the statement, “Given where our economy is, we should do everything we can to help the middle class, and that means protecting Medicare and Social Security.”

Pew Research Center. October 4-7, 2012.

56% of people oppose gradually raising the retirement age for Social Security.

AP-GfK Poll. August 16-20, 2012.

53% of people favor keeping the same benefits and raising taxes to keeping the same taxes and lowering benefits.

Medicare

Kaiser Family Foundation. January 24, 2013.

58% of Americans think there should be no reductions in Medicare.
60% of Americans think Medicare is working well.
75% of Americans believe deficit reduction can happen without cutting Medicare.
68% of people think drug should be required to give the government cheaper prices for low-income people to reduce Medicare costs.

Pew Research. December 13, 2012.

56% oppose raising the Medicare retirement age to reduce federal deficits.

Gallup. November 9-12, 2012.

95% say it is extremely/very important that Obama take steps to ensure long term stability in Medicare.

AFL-CIO. November 7, 2012.

88% of respondents favor allowing Medicare to negotiate drug policies.

Democracy Corps. November 9, 2012.

60% of people said there should be no more major cuts to Medicare.
50% of respondents support the statement, “Given where our economy is, we should do everything we can to help the middle class, and that means protecting Medicare and Social Security.”

Pew Research Center. August 19-20, 2012.

People oppose turning medicare into a voucher program by 49% to 34%

United Technologies/National Journal Congressional Connection Poll. October 12-14, 2012.

People oppose placing strict restrictions how much can be spent on Medicare 49% to 43%.
57% of people oppose placing raising the eligibility age for Medicare part of the solution for deficit spending.

Kaiser Family Foundation Health Tracking Poll. September 13-19, 2012.

61% of respondents think that Medicare works well for most seniors.
55% of people said that Medicare should guarantee the same amount of benefits in the future.
58% of people think that there is no need to cut spending for Medicare to reduce the federal deficit.

CBS News/New York Times Poll. September 8-12, 2012.

78% of people said for people under the age of 55 Medicare benefits should remain unchanged for the future.

Medicaid:

Kaiser Family Foundation. January 24, 2013.

52% of people support the Medicaid expansion under the new Affordable Care Act.

American Cancer Society, Cancer Action Network/Lake Research Partners. January 23, 2013.

63% of Florida voters said their state should accept the federal funds for Medicaid expansion.
58% of Texas voters said their state should accept the federal funds for Medicaid expansion.
57% of Iowa voters said their state should accept the federal funds for Medicaid expansion.
70% of New Jersey voters said their state should accept the federal funds for Medicaid expansion.

United Technologies/National Journal Congressional Connection Poll. October 12-14, 2012.

People oppose placing strict restrictions on how much can be spent on Medicaid by 49% to 43%

United Technologies/National Journal Congressional Connection Poll. September 7-9, 2012.

58% of people thought the putting the $716 billion of Medicare funds from the Affordable Care Act into Medicaid was a good use of money.

Kaiser Family Foundation Health Tracking Poll. July 17-23, 2012.

People favored President Obama’s handling of Medicaid over candidate Mitt Romney’s plans for Medicaid 44 to 34%

United Technologies/National Journal Congressional Connection Poll. November 29 - December 2, 2012

63% of people believe Medicare should not be cut at all to reduce the deficit.

Taxes

Gallup Poll. April 4-7, 2013.

Only 21 percent of people think upper income people pay their fair share of taxes; 61 percent of people think upper income people pay too little.
Only 21 percent of people think corporations pay their fair share of taxes; 66 percent of people think corporations pay too little.

Americans for Tax Fairness/Hart Research. February 7, 2013.

66% of Americans say the richest 2% should pay more in taxes.
64% of Americans think corporations should pay more in taxes.
66 percent of voters say revenue from closing loopholes should go toward public investments and deficit reduction. Only 23 percent say revenue from closing loopholes to go toward paying for lower tax rates.

Pew Research. December 13, 2012.

69% approve of raising taxes on those earning more that $250,000 to reduce federal deficits
52% approve of increasing taxes on investment incomes to reduce the federal deficit

CNN Exit Poll. November 6, 2012.

47% of people say income tax should be raised on people earning more than $250,000.
13% of respondents said increase everyone’s income taxes.

Gallup. April 13. 2012.

60% favor the ‘Buffet Rule.’

Democracy Corps. November 9, 2012.

51% support the statement, “The wealthiest have used tax breaks and loopholes to pay lower tax rates than middle class families. Any new plan to address the deficit should start by closing corporate loopholes and raising taxes for those at the top. A deficit plan should not include cuts in Social Security and Medicare”
44% of those surveyed strongly agreed that, “Any new plan to address the deficit should start by closing corporate loopholes and raising taxes for those at the top” Compared to 27% who strongly opposed raising taxes and instead slashing social services.

Pew Research. October 4-7, 2012.

49 to 44% support increasing the tax on investment income.
58% of people approve of limiting corporate tax deductions.

United Technologies/National Journal Congressional Connection Poll. Oct. 12-14, 2012.

55% think letting the Bush tax cuts expire should be part of the solution to deficit spending.

CNN Poll. September 16-18, 2012.

56% of people agreed with the statement, “Taxes on wealthy people should be kept high so the government can use their money for programs to help lower-income people.

Gallup. April 9-12, 2012.

Over the past twenty years the public consistently think taxes should be higher on upper income earners. In 1992 77% thought upper income earners paid too little, in 2003 63% thought so and this year 62% think that upper income earners pay too little in taxes.

Pew Research Center. August 27, 2012.

58% said the rich pay too little in taxes.

AFL-CIO. November 7, 2012.

With their vote in 62% were saying, “We should make sure the wealthy start paying their fair share of taxes.”

Economy

Morning Joe/Marist Poll. March 25-27, 2013.

64 percent of Americans believe creating jobs should be the president’s and Congress’s top priority and only 33 percent of Americans think the top priority should be deficit reduction.

Gallup March 20, 2013.

79% favor a law to give tax incentives to bring jobs home.
77% favor hiring people to do urgent infrastructure repairs. (Drops to 72% if the words “government spending” are used.)
75% favor a government job-creation program to hire one million people. (Also drops to 72% if the words “government spending” are used.)

Bloomberg/Selzer & Co. February 20, 2013.

49% of people prefer proposals to invest in infrastructure, education and alternative energy to create jobs. Compared to 44% who believe tax cuts will generate business.

Gallup January 2, 2013.

53% of Americans think that 2013 will bring full or increasing employment

CNN exit poll. November 6, 2012

59% of say the economy is the biggest issue.

Democracy Corps. November 9, 2012.

51% respondents said “Creating jobs and getting the economy going” is one if the three most important issues facing the country.

Gallup Poll. July 19-22, 2012.

92% of Americans say it is extremely/very important to create jobs.

Gallup. November 9-12, 2012.

95% of americans say Obama needs to take major steps to revitalize the economy and create jobs.

United Technologies/National Journal Congressional Connection Poll. September 7-9, 2012.

48% of people think the 2009 stimulus helped the economy a lot, compared to 14% who think it did nothing.

Pew Research Center. July 16, 2012.

44% of Americans think that raising taxes on people earning over $250,000 will help the economy, compared to 22% of people who think those tax hikes would hurt the economy.

NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll. November 4, 2012

52% think the economy is recovering.

Pew Research Center. October 29, 2012.

61% of people think the economy is recovering or will recover soon.

Quinnipiac University Poll. December 6, 2012

Only 47 percent said that going over the cliff will be bad for the economy.

Pentagon Spending

Kaiser Family Foundation. January 24, 2013.

52% of Americans want major reductions to the conflict in Afghanistan.

Rasmussen. January 17, 2013.

49% of Americans think that we should with withdraw troops from Western Europe, only 31% disagree

Rasmussen. January 09, 2013.

47% of Americans favor, while only 38% oppose, the nomination of Sen. Charles for Secretary of Defense when they are told he favors cuts to pentagon spending

Program for Public Consultation. May 20, 2012.

62% of Americans would support Congress reducing national defense spending to cut the national debt.
52% of Americans favor cancelling the development of a new long-range bomber
59% Americans favor not building a new aircraft carrier and allowing the number of carriers to decrease from 11 to 10

Reason-Rupe. January 30. 2013.

61% of Americans favor reducing military spending to Clinton era levels. During Clinton's term military spending fell as a portion of the GDP by 1.8 points.

Economist/YouGov. November 17-19, 2012

51% of people favor cutting defense spending to reduce the deficit

Polling Information

Kaiser Family Foundation. January 24, 2013.
Sample of 1,347 adults conducted January 3-9, 2013. Margin of error ± 3 percentage points

AFL-CIO. November 7, 2012.
A sample of 819 voters nationwide, 802 AFL-CIO union members nationwide and 827 Working America members in 11 key states. Margin of error: Union members, ±3.5 percentage points. General Public, ±3.4 percentage points. Working America members, ±4.3 percentage points.

Gallup. November 9-12, 2012.
A random sample of 1,009 adults,margin error is ± 4 percentage points.

Democracy Corps. November 9, 2012.
A sample of 800, 2012 presidential voters, margin of error= ± 3.46 percentage points.

Pew Research Center. October 4-7, 2012.
A sample of 1,511 adults nationwide. Margin of error of ± 2.9 percentage points.

AP-GfK Poll. August 16-20, 2012.
A sample of 1,006 adults nationwide. Margin of error of ± 3.9 percentage points..

Pew Research Center. August 19-20, 2012
A sample of 1,005 adults nationwide. Margin of error of ± 3.6 percentage points.

Kaiser Family Foundation Health Tracking Poll. September 13-19, 2012.
A sample of 1,534 adults nationwide. Margin of error of ± 3 percentage points.

CBS News/New York Times Poll. September 8-12, 2012.
A sample of 1,301 adults nationwide. Margin of error of ± 3 percentage points.

United Technologies/National Journal Congressional Connection Poll. September 7-9, 2012.
A sample of 1,012 adults nationwide. Margin of error of ± 3.7 percentage points.

Kaiser Family Foundation Health Tracking Poll. July 17-23, 2012.
A sample of 1,227 adults nationwide. Margin of error of ± 3 percentage points.

Gallup. April 13. 2012.
A sample of 1,016 adults nationwide. Margin of error of ± 4 percentage points.

CNN Poll. September 16-18, 2012.
A sample of 1,023 adults nationwide. Margin of error of ± 3 percentage points.

Pew Research Center. August 27, 2012.
A sample of 2,508 adults nationwide. Margin of error of ± 2.8 percentage points.

Gallup Poll. July 19-22, 2012.
A sample of 1,030 adults nationwide. Margin of error of ± 4 percentage points.

Pew Research Center. July 12-15, 2012.
A sample of 1,015 adults nationwide. Margin of error of ± 3.6 percentage points.

News/Wall Street Journal Poll.NBC November 1-3, 2012
A sample 1,475 likely voters nationwide. Margin of error of ± 2.6 percentage points.

Pew Research Center. October 24-28, 2012.
A sample of 2,008 adults nationwide. Margin of error of ± 2.5 percentage points.

Quinnipiac University Poll. December 6, 2012
A sample of 1,949 registered voters nationwide. Margin of error of ± 2.2 percentage points.

Rasmussen January, 9 2013.
Sample of1,000 Likely Voters conducted January 7-8, 2013. Margin of error +/- 3 percentage points.

Pew Research. December 13, 2012
Sample of 1,503 adults, conducted December 5-9, 2012. Margin of Error 3.7%

American Cancer Society, Cancer Action Network/Lake Research Partners. January 23, 2013.
Sample of 5,968 registered voters December 13-22, 2012. Margin of error, +/-3.5 percentage points.

Omnibus Poll/YouGov. December, 2012.
Sample of 1000 Adult Interviews conducted December 4-5, 2012. Margin of error 4.6 percentage points.

Reason-Rupe. January 30, 2013.
Sample of 1000 adults January 17 to 21, 2013. Margin of Error +/- 3.8 percentage points.

Bloomberg/Selzer & Co. February 20, 2013.
Sample of 1003. Margin of error +/- 3.1 percentage points.

The Economist/YouGov November 17-19, 2012
Sample of 1000 adults conducted November 17-19, 2012. Margin of error +/- 5.4 percentage points

Americans for Tax Fairness/Hart Research. February 7, 2013.
Sample of 1,006 voters conducted January 18 to 22, 2013. Margin of error ±3.1 percentage points.

National Academy of Social Insurance. January 31, 2012.
Sample of 2,000 Americans ages 21+ conducted from September 17-24, 2012.

Rasmussen. January 17, 2013.
Sample of 1,000 Likely Voters conducted January 13-14, 2013. Margin of error +/- 3 percentage points.

Gallup March 20, 2013.
Sample of approximately 1000 adults conducted March 2-5, 2013. Margin of error +/- 4 percentage points.

Gallup Poll. April 4-7, 2013.
A sample of 1,005 adults nationwide. Margin of error +/- 4 percentage points.

Kaiser Family Foundation. January 24, 2013.
A sample of 1,204 adults nationwide conducted from March 5-10 2013. Margin of error +/- 3 percentage points.

The Washington Post/ABC News poll. April 16, 2013.
A sample of 1,003 adults nationwide conducted from 11-14, April 2013.

Morning Joe/Marist Poll.March 25-27, 2013.
A sample of 1,061 registered voters nationwide. Margin of error +/- 3 percentage points.

For older polls click here.

What You Need To Know About Peter G. Peterson

Isaiah J. Poole — Tue, 20 Nov 2012 17:26:12 -0500

Resources You Can Use

Peter G. Peterson is an American businessman who was CEO of several prominent companies such as Bell & Howell and Lehman Brothers before founding the private equity firm Blackstone Group. He is currently most well-known for being the founder and principal financier of his Peter G. Peterson Foundation, that claims their mission is to "increase public awareness of the nature and urgency of key fiscal challenges threatening America's future and to accelerate action on them." He also served as Secretary of Commerce under President Richard Nixon.

He has been called the most influential billionaire in politics due to his spreading of his wealth throughout the political spectrum to reduce the debt.

Our Take on Peter G. Peterson

These "Fix the Debt" CEOs are the same CEOs that crashed our economy, took their bonuses, and ran, leaving the rest of America to clean up their mess. Although their calls for bipartisan cooperation hit all the right notes to the American public, we believe that the push to get a lower corporate tax rate from a bipartisan solution is the ulterior motive of these CEOs. Peterson himself has contributed almost half a billion dollars to his foundation that pushes for the reform of programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

Peterson has not limited his donations to one party, but rather built a coalition of Democrats and Republicans. His efforts are complimented by his online news service, The Fiscal Times, which supports the Peterson-funded groups in his vision.

The transparency of his motives is further obscured by the head of his organizations, David Walker. Walker takes no money as the head of the Peter G. Peterson foundation, but is on the payroll of Peterson Management, LLC, effectively allowing him to overstep the lobbying restriction on nonprofit foundations.

Articles on Peterson and the "Fix the Debt" Campaign

Unmasking the most influential billionaire in U.S. politics is the intent of this Michael Hilzik article about the Peterson effort in the Los Angeles Times: "The most influential billionaire in America is Peter G. Peterson, whose misleading campaign to 'reform' traditional social welfare programs has subtly set the terms of the Washington debate."
Felix Salmon in Marketplace explains the big picture ulterior motives of the Fix the Debt CEOs: they are hoping a bipartisan approach to reducing the deficit could ultimately result in lower corporate taxes.
"Fix the Debt, Destroy the Recovery" by Robert Kuttner of The American Prospect explains some of the politics here, noting that David Walker as head of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation has been deeply involved in the effort to levitate the late Bowles-Simpson Commission as a template for deficit-reduction, and has been working closely with the corporate-funded "Fix the Debt" campaign of more than 100 CEOs lobbying for an austerity grand bargain.
Many of the CEOs and companies that signed a Fix the Debt petition helped create the deficit problem by milking tens of billions of dollars out of the federal tax system, according to an analysis by Americans for Tax Fairness. Another six companies that signed the letter are leading proponents of a tax amnesty for corporate profits shifted out of the United States, especially profits shifted to offshore tax havens. Their chart drawn from an analysis of IRS data by Citizens for Tax Justice shows that 57 of the sponsoring CEOs save at least $1 million a year courtesy of the Bush tax breaks.
The Huffington Post reports that the Fix the Debt CEOs "have received trillions in federal war contracts, subsidies and bailouts, as well as specialized tax breaks and loopholes that virtually eliminate the companies' tax bills. ... As part of their push, they are advocating a "territorial tax system" that would exempt their companies' foreign profits from taxation, netting them about $134 billion in tax savings ... money that could help pay off the federal budget deficit."
A report released by Sen. Bernie Sanders also details how many of the companies headed by the same CEOs in the Fix the Debt coalition have avoided taxes, sent American jobs overseas and took taxpayer bailouts.
"The People's Pension: The Struggle to Defend Social Security Since Reagan" by Eric Laursen explains how the conservative movement has created an environment in which groups that defend the safety net as regarded as "extremists" – even within the Democratic Party as well as in the media – and defines people such as Peterson and groups like Third Way as "centrists" even though the overwhelming majority of Americans support protecting the safety net.

Blogs

The Real Mandate: CAF/Democracy Corps Election Poll 2012

Isaiah J. Poole — Thu, 08 Nov 2012 11:14:06 -0500

ELECTION 2012 REPORT

Download the report (PDF)

Warren Buffett has famously said that of course there’s a class war, "and my class has been winning."

But in this election, Mitt Romney – the candidate of, by and for the 1 percent – lost. And he lost significantly because the middle class responded to a class war debate, according to this election day poll by Democracy Corps and the Campaign for America's Future.

Voters are worried about both jobs and deficits. They see the two as the two leading priorities for the president and the Congress.

But these are not parallel worries.

The Voters' Priorities

Their first priority is to create jobs and get the economy going. Many mistakenly believe that large deficits cost jobs. But when we asked them to chose between work to “grow the economy” and a plan to “reduce the deficit,” they chose growing the economy by more than two to one, 62-30, a margin of 31 percentage points. Fifty-five percent said they felt strongly on the first.

Second, voters disagree strongly with the priorities of the elite consensus congealing around the president’s deficit commission co-chairs, Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles, and his own discussions of a grand bargain with House Speaker John Boehner. Those discussions suggest a deal that trades cuts in Medicare and Social Security for tax reform that lowers rates for individuals and corporations while gaining revenue by closing loopholes – a sort of Romney-lite tax reform.

When it comes to a deficit reduction plan, Americans have clear ideas.

They want tax rates to be raised on the wealthy. 68 percent find a plan that did not raises taxes on the rich “unacceptable.” 70 percent support a plan that raises taxes on the top 2 percent while keeping the taxes of others at the same level. 63 percent would find a plan that continued to tax investors’ income at lower rates than worker’s wages unacceptable. 75 percent would support a plan to create a higher tax bracket for millionaires. 67 percent finds a plan that lowers tax rates on corporations or the rich unacceptable.

They do not want Social Security benefits cut over time. By 62 to 31, they would find a plan that did that unacceptable.

They do not want Medicare payments cut or capped: 79 percent, nearly four out of five, find capping Medicare payments forcing seniors to pay more unacceptable.

By 50 percent to 41 percent, they favor a deficit reduction plan that starts with closing loopholes and raising tax rates at the top, and excludes cuts to Medicare and Social Security over one that closes loopholes but “gets entitlement spending under control, including reducing the growth of Medicare and Social Security.”

The public is very skeptical of the $1.5 trillion in across-the-board cuts in discretionary spending over the next 10 years that Congress has already passed Most Americans do not share the scorn of Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan for poverty programs providing a “hammock” for the lazy.

Seventy-five percent – three-fourths of the country – find a plan unacceptable if it requires deep cuts in domestic programs without protecting programs for infants, poor children, schools and college aid.

Moreover they embrace the president’s argument that we should reduce the deficit and invest in areas vital to the economy at the same time. By 70 percent-27 percent, they support a plan to cut “wasteful spending and abolish special interest tax breaks and subsidies so that we can invest in infrastructure and technology and make sure we support education, Medicare and Social Security which are key to the middle class, over a statement that we have to cut spending seriously and that will require across the board reductions in the size of government…including education, Medicare and Social Security.

Four Pillars of American Majority Opinion

Despite a bad economy, despite the desire for change, Americans rejected the change offered by the tribune of the 1 percent. They want action on jobs and deficits, but put a priority on jobs first.

But they want programs for the middle class – and the poor – protected. Want the rich and corporations to pay their fair share, and expect Congress to focus on wasteful subsidies to entrenched interests – not the programs for the vulnerable when they turn to deficit reduction.

The Washington Post today contains a full-page ad supported by organizations representing the constituencies that helped build the winning coalition. They make it clear that they stand with the American majority. They won’t accept an agreement that sabotages growth or cuts programs vital to basic family security.

Their four pillars:

No deficit reduction until the economy recovers. Good Jobs first.
Roll back tax cuts for the rich – and don’t cut their taxes more.
No cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits.
Don’t make poverty worse by cutting programs for the most vulnerable.

Those principles speak to the values and opinions of most Americans. Just as in the last election, the CEOs will have more money to raise their voices. But they will be speaking past Americans who have a clear view of how we should proceed – and will want to know which side you are on.

Prosecuting Lawless Bankers

Terrance Heath — Tue, 28 Aug 2012 13:40:17 -0400

Read the full report »

Summary

Recent history offers a number of cases in which the government responded adequately and appropriately when there was evidence of major, systemic financial fraud, including the Savings and Loan scandal of the 1980s and the Enron scandal of more recent years.

In responding to the fraud leading up to the Great Recession, however, the federal government has not followed the precedent set by these and other cases. Investigations are hampered by a lack of adequate resources, weak oversight and poor coordination of interagency efforts, creating the appearance of an unwillingness to follow the chain of evidence wherever it may lead.

The Federal government's efforts also appear to lack a sense of urgency, despite the fact that the statute of limitations is expiring in many instances where there was apparent fraud. The implications for failing to respond adequately to this crisis are enormous, both in ensuring that justice is done and in preventing future crimes and future crises of this kind.

Recommendations

This report offers the following urgent recommendations:

Additional resources must immediately be provided to the RMBS Task Force.
Agencies such as FDIC and the Federal Reserve Bank of NY must be asked to provide additional resources to the investigative effort.
Legislation should expand the scope and penalties of FIRREA and other relevant statutes.

Labor Market In Full Retreat

Isaiah J. Poole — Fri, 08 Jul 2011 10:22:07 -0400

Democracy Corp/CAF Survey on the House Republican Budget

Terrance Heath — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 14:45:01 -0400

Download the memo (PDF)

Download poll details (PDF)

Paul Ryan To Seniors: "Drop Dead"

View more presentations from ourfuture.

A new Democracy Corps/Campaign for America's Future survey on House Republican budget proposal shows Americans are skeptical of Republicans in Congress and the Tea Party movement, and cautious about the deficit reduction plan.

Our data shows that proposals to dismantle Medicare in the 2012 House Republican budget could sink the political futures of those who for it. When the budget is described, using the language of its chief author, support collapses to 36 percent. The proposed cuts to Medicare raise concerns for nearly two-thirds of respondents.

Here are the key findings from the survey:

Just 38 percent of voters say they approve of House Republicans. After the tumultuous debate over the 2011 budget and the threatened government shutdown, a shocking 55 percent disapprove.
Less than half of the public supports the House Republican budget — described simply as a “budget for the next 10 years that they say will cut 6.2 trillion dollars from the federal budget.”
When the budget is described using Ryan's own language, support drops to 36 percent. A large majority of 56 percent oppose it, 42 percent strongly. Among seniors, support drops to just 32 percent, with 57 percent opposed. Independent support drops to 43 percent.
Cuts to Medicare raise concerns for nearly two-thirds of respondents; raising serious doubts for 66 percent, and very serious doubts for 40 percent.

Democracy Corps Poll On Economy And Federal Spending

Isaiah J. Poole — Thu, 10 Feb 2011 23:29:11 -0500

Democracy Corps surveyed 1,000 likely 2012 voters from Feb. 7-9, testing voters’ responses to the Republican proposal to cut $32 billion from the federal budget.

The poll tested messages on both sides of the debate and recorded responses to itemized cuts. The American people know that this is a debate about principles and priorities. The results are clear: these are the wrong priorities at the wrong time. The poll shows that there is little appetite for these cuts, but it is imperative that Democrats’ get the message right—right now. The poll reveals how progressives can win this debate, but they must start now and come out swinging.

Democracy Corps/CAF Poll On Jobs And The Economy

Isaiah J. Poole — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 10:32:33 -0500

Download the memo (PDF)

Download poll details (PDF)

Download presentation slides (PPT)

News release

Blogs and commentary

View this presentation on the OurFuture.org Slideshare page.

The voters have a clear and dramatic message for the new Republicans in the Congress and the president on the eve of his State of the Union Address: focus on jobs and the economy and show how America is going to be economically successful again.

This is not a nuanced poll. If Democrats did not get the message in 2010, voters are ready to send a message again, according to the first Democracy Corps-Campaign for America’s Future survey of 2011. The media pundits and Washington conventional wisdom says deficit reduction and cutting government spending are the top priorities for the nation, and the Republican Congress is starting with voting to repeal health care and putting Social Security cuts on the table for the first time. They could not have it more wrong.

This survey was conducted after the January 8 Tucson shooting but mostly before the president’s memorial address January 12.

Here are key findings from the poll:

When asked to select what they believed were the two most important economic problems facing the country right now, 41 percent said “high unemployment” and 33 percent said “outsourcing of jobs,” the latter capturing the deep worry that America and American corporations are not able or willing to create American jobs. Another 18 percent focused on wages not keeping up with the cost of living. Just 25 percent chose “the budget deficit is big and growing” as one of the top two problems.
Just 17 percent think the priority of the new Congress should be repealing health care. What respondents did say the Congress should prioritize over the next two years is economic recovery and new jobs (46 percent), protecting Social Security and Medicare (34 percent) and "making sure that our children receive an education for these times (27 percent).
While deficit reduction is very important, voters want to see a growth strategy. When respondents were offered a choice between brave deficit reduction and a jobs plan to reduce the deficit and achieve growth, they rallied to the later, 58 to 35 percent, with 42 percent strongly embracing growth over austerity. On a scale of zero (cool) to 100 (warm), respondents registered support for a plan to invest in new industries and rebuild the country over the next five years (57 warm and 16 cool). They also supported, but not as strongly, a plan to dramatically reduce the deficit over the next five years (52 warm and 20 cool).
Elected officials have no mandate to cut Social Security—and the voters have no appetite for it: 56 percent of respondents oppose the recommendation of the White House bipartisan deficit commission to raise the retirement age to 69 by 2075.
On the surface, 56 percent of respondents support a deficit commission goal of $4 trillion in deficit reduction by 2020. But a nearly identical bloc (54 percent) hate the plan itself. When they hear the details of the plan, without any rhetoric, they turn dramatically against it.
A sizeable majority, 52 to 43 percent, oppose the planned $100 billion dollars in budget cuts House Republicans have proposed for this year that would reduce spending on education, student loans, energy and the environment. Also, by a two-to-one margin, voters disapprove of Republican positions that add to the deficit (such as the repeal of health care reform and making permanent tax cuts for the wealthy).

The Politics Ahead

After the Republicans landslide win in 2010, the country has quickly moved to a position of party parity in vote preference, image and identification. About equal numbers identify with the Democrats and Republicans; the two national and congressional parties are equally unpopular. In addition, President Obama's standing is stronger since the election. His approval rating is up to 47 percent, but more important, strong disapproval has plummeted. This is a major change in mood and climate for the period ahead.

However, the president has further to go to have a clear lead and congressional Democrats have further to go if they are to rebuild their majorities. The Democratic majorities of 2006 and 2008 were produced by a new broad progressive base and by gains among key swing groups. To regain these majorities for 2012 Democrats will have to make significant additional gains with young voters and unmarried women. Democrats also need to do better with union households.

The difficulty that Democrats are having with white non-college and blue-collar voters is no doubt closely linked to the economy and the job climate. If Democrats are to reach these voters, they have to understand the scale of the problems people are facing and how hungry they are for Democrats to show how they are going to get the country back to growth and creating American jobs.

Economists agree that the unemployment rate will exceed 9 percent for the next several months and will most likely still exceed 8 percent during the 2012 election. There is no more important fact. In this survey, 17 percent report being unemployed in the past year; 41 percent when counting themselves or someone in their immediate family—one half of white non-college men.

President Obama and the Democratic Party have to start over in communicating their vision of the economy. The country embraces long-term plans for investment to create jobs and favors growth as the best route to deficit reduction, strongly favoring investment over austerity.

Report And Recommendations Of The Citizens’ Commission On Jobs, Deficits And America’s Economic Future

Isaiah J. Poole — Tue, 23 Nov 2010 12:43:50 -0500

Download PDF of the report

Citizens' commission members

Audio of media briefing

Four-minute podcast

News release

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The United States continues to suffer the aftereffects of the worst economic recession since the Great Depression, triggered by a financial crisis whose causes were ignored or made worse by elite policymakers for decades. Today, more than 25 million Americans who are ready and willing can’t find full-time work. Personal wealth has declined sharply, creating an especially uncertain future for people approaching retirement age. Confidence is down for both consumers and businesses, which prevents sustained economic growth.

At the same time, largely due to the severity of the recent recession, a federal government that enjoyed record surpluses just 10 years ago now faces record deficits that are spreading alarm and confusion across the land. Moreover, this severe downturn comes after a decade that featured the worst job creation in the post-war period, declining wages for most Americans, weaker unions confronted by employer attacks on rights to organize, continued decay of basic infrastructure, an ongoing crisis in public education, record trade deficits and job loss abroad, and extreme inequality.

Despite the ongoing pain that unemployment is still inflicting on individuals and families, despite the slow growth in demand that is hurting small business, despite the wrenching budget crisis hitting most state governments, and despite the longer term decline that can no longer be ignored, the debate in Washington is now dominated by conservative cries for immediate reduction of the federal deficit. Several elite “commissions”—two privately financed, and one created by the president and Congress—have effectively shifted the attention of the media to deficits as the primary focus for public action.

One voice has been conspicuously absent from most discussion of deficits—that of the American people. Polls have shown that the public's opinion and that of many leading economists are surprisingly well aligned. The public agrees with economists who warn that deficit reduction must be performed judiciously, without restricting government's ability to create jobs and without damaging needed social programs. Both agree that that we must make investments vital to reviving America’s long-term prospects.

The Citizen's Commission on Jobs, Deficits and America’s Economic Future was created to offer proposals that can return our economy to healthy, sustainable growth, while taking action to reduce deficits and debt in a way that enhances the future well-being of the American people. And since the conventional wisdom is so dominated by a relatively narrow range of opinions, it is our intention that this document will elicit media coverage of an alternative point of view—and that its recommendations will be widely discussed by civic and business and labor leaders in communities all across the nation.

This commission has two major priorities. The first is to assure that the U.S. economy recovers fully and returns to a fast track of growth. This is the right way to reduce the current high deficit. The second is long-term public investment in sustainable growth, ensuring a healthy economy that can generate adequate revenue for needed public services. We have outlined three key principles that any plan for growth and deficit reduction must follow:

1. Grow the economy. Don’t kill growth and jobs in the name of deficit reduction.

2. Target what truly drives deficits. Don’t fix what isn’t broken.

3. Invest in future sustainable growth while balancing our national accounts.

These are not just moral imperatives. They are economic prerequisites for successful deficit reduction.

Causes of Current and Future Deficits

Much, if not most, of the current public discourse is misleading and poorly informed.

The federal deficit tripled between 2008 and 2009, reaching $1.5 trillion and 10 percent of GDP in 2009. This was the culmination of a process that began with the passage of the first Bush tax cuts, accelerated with the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, and peaked with the economic collapse of 2008. It therefore follows that any reasonable short-term plan should focus the causes of our current deficit. Yet most of the measures currently being debated fail to do so. Despite the role that tax cuts played in creating today's deficits, many such plans would lower taxes for the wealthiest Americans while increasing them for the middle class. They would also restrict government efforts to bring us out of our current economic crisis, weakening the economy and reducing future government revenues.

Future deficits will be driven almost exclusively by the explosive growth in health care costs. Those who advocate for increased austerity are failing to address true the causes of government spending. Furthermore, there is no evidence that implementing policies to reduce government deficit would increase private spending. As we note (see Appendix I), there is ample evidence that such spending cuts would create more unemployment, making a second recession possible and even likely.

The Lesson of 1937

The nation has been at a similar juncture before. Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal reduced unemployment from 25 percent to 10 percent in three years, but he was then pressured to reduce spending before the economy was fully stabilized. The result was another sharp increase in unemployment and a weakened economy that only improved when the nation entered World War II.

Then, as now, government spending was one of many legitimate policy concerns. Then, as now, previous government efforts had shown signs of success. President Obama's stimulus program created an estimated 3.5 million jobs and would have created more had it been larger. As in 1937, the nation's economy remains fragile and the recovery is not yet complete. More investment is needed. Premature austerity would be as unwise and counterproductive now as it was then. Plus a nascent and struggling “recovery” is not sufficient given the decline of the last decade. Premature austerity would terminate any possibility of building a new foundation for growth and shared prosperity.

Though weak growth returned by 1934, unemployment was still stuck above 12 percent on the eve of World War II. It was the massive wartime deficits, (peaking at 28 percent of GDP compared to less than 9 percent today) that finally produced strong recovery.

Postwar leaders, unlike today’s deficit hawks, were wise enough not to panic about the large war debt (twice today’s size relative to the economy) but continued such public investments as the G.I. bill, low-interest home loans, and the interstate highway system. Rather than suffering an austerity scheme that would have made debt loom larger, the postwar boom enabled the economy to grow its way out of debt.

Government Investment Still Works

Today's deficit debate often fails to recognize a critical fact: The Obama stimulus of 2009 helped stop the recession—and reduced the level of future deficits. The lesson learned in 1937 is still true today: Government intervention works. And it should not be ended prematurely.

The $800 billion Obama stimulus package of early 2009—the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act—serves as perhaps the strongest recent proof of this statement. The package consisted of a wide array of spending programs, from expanding unemployment insurance to aid to the states to investments in traditional infrastructure projects and the green economy. Roughly one third of the package was devoted to tax cuts. A handful of economists still insist the stimulus was ineffective or even harmful because it raised deficits. The facts are unambiguously otherwise. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office modeled the consequences in May 2010 and found that the stimulus will raise the level of gross domestic product significantly into 2012. The CBO produced high and low estimates. In fiscal year 2011, for example, it estimated that the stimulus will increase GDP between 0.7 percent and 2.2 percent. It will reduce unemployment by between 0.5 percent and 1.4 percent. It also concluded that because the economy is running so far below potential, there will be little if any increase in interest rates—that is, little or no crowding out. A Wall Street Journal survey found that 75 percent of economists agreed the stimulus resulted in more growth and less unemployment.

In addition, no respectable economic model shows that the Obama stimulus, composed both of tax cuts and spending programs, will add more than marginally to the long-term budget deficit. To the contrary, one widely cited model showed that it will reduce the deficit in coming years. Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Blinder and Moody’s Analytics economist Mark Zandi (an adviser to the presidential campaign of John McCain) found that the Obama fiscal stimulus package raised the federal budget deficit in fiscal year 2010, but will lower it substantially in both fiscal years 2011 and 2012.

In conclusion, the government stimulus programs ended the freefall of the economy. Without these policies—fiscal, monetary as well as government bailouts and guarantees—Blinder and Zandi estimated that the recession would have deepened into 2011 and the unemployment rate would have peaked at 16.5 percent rather than roughly 10 percent. The federal budget deficit would have equaled $2 trillion in fiscal year 2011, some 15 percent of GDP, rather than the 7 or 8 percent now likely. But the recovery programs were not sufficient to raise the nation out of a prolonged period of stagnation, with persistent high unemployment. And it was countered directly by the cuts in state and local spending required by their balanced-budget requirements.

It has become clear in retrospect—and some argued it from the outset—that the Obama stimulus was not nearly enough. Another weakness was that the portion devoted to tax cuts had little stimulative impact. Given the political circumstances, it would have been difficult at the time to produce a more focused package. On the other hand, when a strong recovery did not materialize, the Obama administration could have started developing and championing another growth package. It did not.

Overview of Recommendations

This report of the CITIZENS' COMMISSION ON JOBS, DEFICIT REDUCTION AND AMERICA’S ECONOMIC FUTURE puts forward a set of proposals that would protect and accelerate the economic recovery while achieving a stable but sustainable level of debt by 2015. It reduces debt to a manageable level while at the same time providing a strong program of government investment that will create jobs and ensure ongoing growth. Our plan achieves that goal without cutting Social Security or capping or “voucherizing” Medicare (as many conservative proposals do). It provides immediate efforts to support economic growth, substantial investments vital to the strength of our economy, cuts to federal wasteful spending and a variety of measures to increase revenues.

An important note: Any plan to substantially reduce the federal deficit should be deferred until unemployment has dropped to an acceptable level, which we have defined as 5.5 percent. Our plan is no exception. Our recommended changes to the 2015 budget should only be implemented if unemployment has reached that level. We believe it will if our short-term investment recommendations are adopted.

Our recommendations are based on the following principles:

Address the current economic crisis first. Before engaging in widespread deficit reduction efforts, we must institute a program of short-term targeted spending to restart the economy and sustained investment to begin to support longer-term growth. Key among the former is aid to the states, whose constitutionally mandated budget austerity is not only inflicting painful cuts in social services but also creating a huge and destructive drag on the national economy. We also must pursue innovative monetary and credit market policies to move roughly $2 trillion in idle cash hoards now held by banks and non-financial corporations into productive job-creating private investments.

Tax justice and empowered workers generate prosperity, fairness, growth—and revenues.Tax cuts were a major cause of our current deficit. Any plan that continues or increases tax breaks for the wealthy will add to the deficit. In an era of excessive inequality, we should end Bush era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, tax capital gains and dividends as normal income, tax activities damaging to our economy like excessive financial speculation, and eliminate or reduce tax expenditures that mainly benefit the wealthy.

To ensure ongoing prosperity, we must also provide ongoing tax relief for lower- and middle-income households. These households will spend, not save, the additional income. We must also take steps to reduce the war on unions and worker rights (involving corporate action and misguided public policy) that has been a major factor in preventing working from getting their share of productivity growth over the past three decades. Lower taxes and higher wages for working families will generate consumer activity that leads to more growth, more jobs, and more tax revenue.

Reduce wasteful government spending without compromising public objectives. Spending cuts are needed, but we increase, not decrease investments in areas vital to our future, and insure that any adjustment not worsen already extreme inequality. We must eliminate spending that is unneeded or wasteful, reduce obsolete and unneeded military spending, and make prudent cuts in government expenditures that are not vital to its core mission.

Protect and strengthen Social Security. Social Security retirement benefits are the main source of income for most retirees, and most of this income is spent rather than saved. This leads to growth and jobs without adding to the deficit, since Social Security is funded separately. We must remove Social Security from "deficit cutting" exercises, increase its revenues, provide modest benefit increases, and assure the public that its $2.6 trillion in trust fund assets will not be used for other purposes.

Establish realistic and sustainable long-term deficit goals. Any long-term deficit plan deficit must be politically sustainable, fiscally sound, and not impose unacceptable levels of hardship. We recommend a short-term period of imperative recovery expenditures. We seek a gradual reduction in the deficit-to-GDP ratio over the coming decade. We recommend an annual deficit target of 3 percent of GDP as a medium term goal once recovery comes. This could be achieved as early as 2015—if the economy recovers, and if we don’t choke off that recovery with premature deficit reduction. We are skeptical of targeting a date certain independent of the condition of the economy. The test of when to aim for that 3 percent deficit target is whether unemployment has come down to 5.5 percent. Such a target, over the long term, will enable us to stabilize the level of debt as a proportion of GDP at sustainable levels, because with high employment GDP will be growing faster than the debt

Restore the financial sector's role as an effective engine of growth. The banking industry used government-provided economic advantages to engage in reckless speculation, leading to the current crisis. Banks continue to receive "discount money" and other government support without adequately performing their traditional economic role as lenders. The financial industry has recaptured a high and economically unhealthy percentage of the nation's profits. We recommend a financial transactions tax and programs to encourage increased bank lending in a responsible manner both to ensure our current recovery and to promote long-term stability. The recently enacted Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act does include several important features that could succeed in encouraging long-term financial stability. These include the so-called “Volcker rule” prohibiting proprietary trading by large banks, the requirement that all derivatives trading be conducted on regulated exchanges, careful oversight of public credit rating agencies, and the creation of a Consumer Financial Protection bureau. However, details on the implementation of Dodd-Frank have been left to the discretion of various regulatory agencies, such as the Federal Reserve and the Securities and Exchange Commission. This creates enormous opportunities for the banking industry to weaken the effectiveness of the new regulatory system. To rebuild a healthy economy, focused on channeling our enormous financial resources into productive investments and job creation, it is imperative that all the main provisions of Dodd-Frank be strongly enforced immediately and over time.

Address the health care cost crisis. Alarming long-term projections of growing debt come almost completely from uncontrolled growth in health care costs. We do not have an entitlement crisis; we have an unaffordable health care system. Rather than capping, cutting or “voucherizing” Medicare or Medicaid, we need continued health care reforms that control costs through changes to the structure of the medical economy—such as the immediate establishment of a robust public option plan available to all Americans, direct government negotiation of drug prices, and thorough additional cost-cutting and quality improvement measures.

Who We Are

The Citizen's Commission is comprised of economic policy experts, such as former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, Jeff Madrick and economists Dean Baker, Robert Pollin and Heidi Hartman, and former members of the House and Senate. But perhaps most importantly, many of its members are leaders of national organizations with enormous reach into American communities, from labor leaders such as Larry Cohen and Mary Kay Henry to coordinators of national organizing networks such as Deepak Bhargava, Angela Glover Blackwell, as well as other leaders whose work engages the grassroots public in debates about the economic direction of our country. The commission was organized by the Campaign for America’s Future, which has led nationwide public organizing campaigns around the future of Social Security, health care, green jobs and the future of manufacturing.

Note: Our Citizens’ Commission was inspired to action in part to challenge the one-sided media coverage lavished on the Simpson-Bowles National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, the Pew-Peterson Commission on Budget Reform and the Bipartisan Policy Center Debt Reduction Task Force.

Our deliberations were also informed by recent work by the Economic Policy Institute, especially their report, "America’s Economy: A Budget Blueprint for Economic Recovery and Fiscal Responsibility," published by Demos, EPI and The Century Foundation on November 29, 2010. As does our commission, this report outlines policy changes to achieve job growth, long-term public investment and outlines a deficit reduction plan that achieves primary fiscal balance by 2018.

We were also both educated and inspired by the recent set of proposals put forward by a member of the president’s fiscal responsibility commission, Representative Jan Schakowsky. In the best tradition of the great democratic debates, Rep. Schakowsky’s plan presents a proposal to reduce the federal deficit without making middle-class Americans foot the bill. It is an alternative to the Bowles-Simpson plan and would reduce the deficit by $441 billion in 2015, surpassing President Obama’s $250 billion target. Critically, the Schakowsky plan accomplishes deficit reduction without making cuts to essential federal expenditures that benefit the middle class or are crucial to future growth.

Deficits And Economic Recovery

Isaiah J. Poole — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 18:45:41 -0400

Deficits and Economic Recovery

View more presentations from OurFuture.org.

Politicians will face major voter backlash if they advocate cuts in Social Security benefits or choose deficit reduction over job creation, according to a poll by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner commissioned by the Campaign for America’s Future and Democracy Corps, with support from MoveOn.org; the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, and the Service Employees International Union.

Memo: "The Big Decisions Ahead on Economic Renewal and Reduced Debt"

Commentary by Robert Borosage: "Rebuild America, Don't Sack It"

Full poll results

Complete Powerpoint presentation

Audio of news conference

At this difficult moment for the struggling economy and country, voters show an uncommon common sense about the choices ahead. For sure, they are concerned about deficits and what impact that will have on future job creation and key obligations, like Social Security. But they are as intent on learning politicians’ plans for investing in new industries and rebuilding the country as they are on learning their plans to reduce the deficit over the next five years. They think they know how we got into this mess – foreign wars and bailouts – and are determined that the highest income earners and big banks finance deficit reduction, not the middle class through Social Security and Medicare cuts or a national a sales tax.

Voters take the long view, seeing the need for both a commitment to a 21st century economy and long-term strategies to reduce the deficit. These are complimentary, not exclusive goals. Progressives need to show they are serious about the deficits, but once they do, voters turn to them, not conservatives, for the right spending priorities and answers.

Voters are united on this key point: Social Security and Medicare are off-limits as a way to reduce the deficit. It is the threat to Social Security that leads many voters to prioritize deficit reductions. Voters instead want to see higher taxes on top income earners and big corporations.

As Social Security celebrates its 75th anniversary this week in the midst of this troubled economy, voters across the political divide want these programs defended.

Read the full memo »

Key findings of the poll:

68 percent said they would oppose making major spending cuts in Social Security and Medicare to reduce the deficit, while 28 percent said they would favor cutting those programs. That included 61 percent of Republicans and 56 percent of independents.
Strong majorities support progressive solutions for addressing the federal deficit: 63 percent back lifting the Social Security cap on incomes higher than $107,000 a year; 64 percent would favor eliminating tax breaks for corporations that outsource jobs; 62 percent would support a tax on excessive Wall Street bank profits.
Strong majorities also oppose common conservative proposals for addressing the budget deficit: 65 percent oppose raising the Social Security retirement age to 70; 65 percent oppose replacing Medicare with a private sector voucher; 62 percent oppose a 3 percent federal sales tax; 60 percent oppose raising the Medicare age from 65 to 67.

More people support a message that embraces the need for both investments in our future and reduce the deficit over time (52 percent) than a message that only stresses cuts in spending (42 percent). Also, almost equal percentages of respondents were favorable toward “a plan to invest in new industries and rebuild the country over the next five years” (60 percent) and “a plan to dramatically reduce the deficit over five years” (61 percent).
62 percent of respondents support more federal to states once they understand that the aid comes in the context of states laying off teachers, first responders and other essential workers due to the recession. That includes 55 percent of independents and 48 percent of Republicans.
60 percent of those surveyed responded positively to an economic message that said that “we have a budget deficit, but … we also have a massive public investment deficit” that requires us to “rebuild the infrastructure that is vital to our economy” and to the economic growth that will “generate revenues to help pay down the budget deficit.” This message tests better than any other progressive message on investment as well as more conservative messages focused on spending cuts.

The survey of 1,000 2008 voters was conducted July 26-29, 2010. The margin of error is 3.1 percentage points.

Report

The American Majority Project Polling

Social Security

Medicare

Medicaid:

Taxes

Economy

Pentagon Spending

Polling Information

What You Need To Know About Peter G. Peterson

Resources You Can Use

Our Take on Peter G. Peterson

Articles on Peterson and the "Fix the Debt" Campaign

Blogs

The Real Mandate: CAF/Democracy Corps Election Poll 2012

ELECTION 2012 REPORT

The Voters' Priorities

Four Pillars of American Majority Opinion

Prosecuting Lawless Bankers

Summary

Recommendations

Labor Market In Full Retreat

Democracy Corp/CAF Survey on the House Republican Budget

Democracy Corps Poll On Economy And Federal Spending

Democracy Corps/CAF Poll On Jobs And The Economy

The Politics Ahead

Report And Recommendations Of The Citizens’ Commission On Jobs, Deficits And America’s Economic Future

RELATED CONTENT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Causes of Current and Future Deficits

The Lesson of 1937

Government Investment Still Works

Overview of Recommendations

Who We Are

Deficits And Economic Recovery

Key findings of the poll: