« The Economic Thought of John McCain | Main | Don't Call It Permanent »

Nobody Cares About Tax Cuts

25 Jan 2008 11:23 am

priorities.png

As usual, the latest Pew survey has a lot of interesting data to chew over. The finding that the gap between what self-identified Republicans say they want and what self-identified Democrats say they want is interesting. But that, to me, makes points where you see a relatively large amount of consensus all the more interesting.

For example, every Republican from George Bush to John Boehner to Mitch McConnel to Mitt Romney to John McCain will tell you that the absolute first thing the country needs to do is to make the Bush tax cuts permanent. After all, doing so will put a ton of money in the hands of extremely rich people and making sure that the rich get richer is, according to Republicans, the very essence of good government.

But it seems that among rank-and-file voters, not even a majority of self-identified Republicans can bring themselves to believe that bringing a little extra-relief to America's long-suffering super-wealthy ought to be a top priority.

Share This

Comments (39)

The saddest thing is that the three of the four most important priorities to democrats are economic problems in which the government has very little ability to make any substantial change.

The government can make tax cuts permanent, but it can't improve the job situation. I don't think it can even do anything about the economy. If it could, we'd never have a recession or have had to watch high-paying factory jobs move overseas.

Numbers aren't people, but I can't help but get mad when I see stuff like this.

"Dealing with moral breakdown" is so annoying and useless, because only about half the people in either party get that its a euphemism for hating gay people and being pro-life.

So you get Dems that say "deal with moral breakdown" because they lump that in with ignoring global warming and helping the poor, and you get Republicans saying the same thing but who couldn't care less about leaving the planet a shit hole for their kids, or the plight of the poor. They just don't like Janet Jacksons boobs.

One final note about global warming: 12%!!!! That's even worse than I thought. The Dems (47%) are a little disappointing as well.

This doesn't surprise me. Republicans cannot possibly win elections without working and lower class white voters. Naturally, these people, that saw very little benefit from the Bush tax cuts, don't really care all that much if they are made permanent or not. Granted, I'm not aware of the sample that was surveyed by Pew, but one can only assume that its largest demographic was the middle class. This is why I think economic issues are key for Democrats to focus on. I'm an Obama supporter but I often find Edwards' rhetoric regarding working America quite persuasive. This is why I think it is crucial that he stay in the race. I fear that his absence would reduce the expediency of these issues among the other candidates. That being said, it's encouraging to see Obama attacking Hillary on her Wal-Mart connections.

I thought the "dealing with moral breakdown" was pretty odd, too, especially given that these are priorities people think the President and Congress should have. Weird. Moral breakdown is something politicians should worry about, while something like energy conservation is an issue of "personal virtue".

On first glance, I also thought, "Wow, Democrats feel more strongly about a bunch of things than Republicans do." But the issues there were read off a list. I wonder what kinds of things Republicans feel more strongly about than is included in the questionnaire? Prayer in schools, maybe? Activist judges? Guns?

Interesting. If I were the next president, I'd take this list, start at the middle, and work upwards, with *very* occasional dips into the lower half of the list to keep folks happy.

Not surprisingly, greater than 60% of democrats label more than half of these items as a "top priority", completely defeating the purpose of this excercize.

Snark aside, how are we supposed to interpret that? Why such a big gap between the left and right as to the number of items they classify as 'top priority'?

Huh - not even half of Democrats believe that dealing with global warming is a top priority.

Al "Nobel" Gore must be soooo disappointed.

I'm surprised and encouraged by the low Dem numbers on illegal immigration and the military. Maybe it's time to re-register as a Democrat.

Gee, Matt, I think you've outrun your blockers on this one. 2 out of 5 Republicans and 1 out of 3 Democrats think this is a "top priority." That's hardly nobody.

Doesn't that 37% number weird anyone else out? 37% of Democrats think "making tax cuts permanent" is a top priority? Making them not permanent, maybe...

Right. But if you asked the question: "Do you want your taxes raised?" I'm sure more people would object and since the effect of "not making the Bush tax cuts permanent" is an increase in taxes, that's more honest.

But it seems that among rank-and-file voters, not even a majority of self-identified Republicans can bring themselves to believe that bringing a little extra-relief to America's long-suffering super-wealthy ought to be a top priority.

Rank and file republicans are too busy getting pissed off at things like abortion, gay marriage and no school prayer to notice that.

Not surprisingly, greater than 60% of democrats label more than half of these items as a "top priority", completely defeating the purpose of this excercize.

Yes, this kind of study isn't terribly meaningful. If most people knew their taxes will go up in the next three years if the tax cuts are allowed to expire, I bet "make tax cuts permanent" would shoot to the top of the priority list.

BTW - I also thought it interesting that Democrats found so many of the issues to be "top priorities". But I think the issue, as noted above, is that this list mostly deals with Democrat-type issues. Moral issues are swept into one anodyne question - nothing about gay marriage, or abortion, for example.

One other thing of interest - I see that "reducing health care costs" is a LOT more important - to both parties - than "insuring the uninsured". And yet the main way the issue has been framed has been insuring the uninsured. The proposals for reducing health care costs are pretty lame stuff. I would think there's an opportunity here for both parties.

looking quickly at the questionnaire shows that the top priority question was a free-form answer -- the interviewer was to take any or all answers, so some may have had multiple "top" priorities. Also, some of the categories shown are overlapping (cut taxes on middle class, make tax cuts permanent being one).

You cannot conclude from this survey what would matter in an election. Every issue has a substantial number represented (even global warming... if it is the top priority for 12% of republicans, for how many is it in the top 5?). All of these could lead to the margin of victory or defeat for any candidate.

on global warming, note the change in the year over year statistics, from january 2007 to january 2008. cold snap across US this month, unseasonably warm last year this time. I know I'm not supposed to confuse weather with climate but how many others know this?

Not surprisingly, greater than 60% of democrats label more than half of these items as a "top priority", completely defeating the purpose of this excercize.

Snark aside, how are we supposed to interpret that? Why such a big gap between the left and right as to the number of items they classify as 'top priority'?

-- That seems fairly obvious. Democrats want more governmental involvement. Republicans hear something like "reducing health care costs" and think, "that's the market's responsibility!", or "dealing with the problems of the poor" and think, "bootstraps!", or "dealing with global warming" and think, "the planet got itself into this mess, let the planet get itself out!"

is MY seriously suggesting that the bush tax cuts only benefited the superwealthy? please. you live in DC, folks there covered by the bush tax cuts don't believe themselves to be superwealthy. it's deliberate mischaracterizations like that that could get the dems in trouble on issues like this. as others have pointed out, the US voter can generally be counted on to oppose increased taxes. with iraq receding as an issue, and the bush tax cuts coming up for expiration, this could be a real issue come fall. enough people already think it's a big issue, just wait til october, when it could be the issue if the economy continues to tank, people are feeling pressed, and the repub candidate yammers on and on about the X trillion tax increase the dem candidate is going to foist on innocent (superwealthy) US voters.

Look at that terrorism entry - fully 74% of Democrats think that protecting the US against terrorists is a top priority. I thought everyone who wasn't a Bush Republican is a weak-willed appeaser who wants to surrender this country to the new caliphate?

Also, Republicans think "strengthening the military" is a top priority, much more than Democrats, but what does that mean? What do R's think is a good way to do that? Because there is plenty of evidence out there that Iraq has weakened the military and strained it almost to the breaking point. In fact, the best thing we can do to "strengthen the military" is to GTFO. Speaking of Iraq, where the hell is it there?

Moral issues are swept into one anodyne question - nothing about gay marriage, or abortion, for example.

That's because those are wedge issues designed to stir up support in election years. Might as well throw a flag burning amendment on that list. It's pointless.

From the survey:

I’d like to ask you some questions about priorities for President Bush and Congress this year. As I read from a list [ed: my emphasis], tell me if you think the item that I read should be a top priority, important but lower priority, not too important or should it not be done? (First,) should (INSERT ITEM; RANDOMIZE; OBSERVE FORM DIFFERENCES) be a top priority, important but lower priority, not too important, or should it not be done? (What about (INSERT ITEM)?)

Is anyone else surprised that 62% of Democrats believe reducing crime should be a top priority?
The Republicans come in at only 49%.

I haven't heard any "law and order" talk from any of the top Dems, so what is driving this?

what is driving this

Democrats, clearly, are accurately including the current administration in its mental roundup of criminals.

The large degree of consensus on economic issues is one way in which this election is not like 1980. The Dem platform is a mainstream, centrist platform in the context of the actual preferences of the electorate. Unlike Reagan, the Dems don't have to jerk the country over to their side. They just need to get Washington aligned with the rest of the country. This is why the Obama unity message is not the airy fairy bullshit his critics make it out to be. The Obama approach is to develop bottom up political pressure to force the gov to do what a majority of people already want it to do.


I haven't heard any "law and order" talk from any of the top Dems, so what is driving this?

People are idiots?

Look at that terrorism entry - fully 74% of Democrats think that protecting the US against terrorists is a top priority. I thought everyone who wasn't a Bush Republican is a weak-willed appeaser who wants to surrender this country to the new caliphate?

But the Democratic punditocracy keeps telling us that terrorism is basically a distraction, the risk of dying in a terrorist attack is minuscule, and Bush's anti-terrorism policies are a gross overreaction to a very small threat.

Apparently, most of your fellow Democrats don't agree with you.

No, Mixner, actually we keep pointing out that the Bush administration's foreign policy, torture policy, and domestic surveillance policies are un-American, antithetical to what we stand for, and often counterproductive as they foment more hatred than they dispel.

I realize there's a lot of big words there and some nuance as well, so do try to keep up.

The Supreme Court has recognized the rather nasty slippery slope that Bush-style fears and their accompanying actions lead to, for quite some time, and they are rather more eloquent than I am.

"It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of one of those liberties ... which makes the defense of the Nation worthwhile."
Supreme Court of the United States in
United States v. Robel (1967), cited in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2002).

Well, Jen, if you agree with the 74% of your comrades who think that defending the U.S. against terrorism is a top priority, why aren't you talking about it more, and proposing defensive policies of your own, instead of dismissing it as fear-mongering and exaggeration?

Apparently, most of your fellow Democrats don't agree with you.

Apparently, Mixner, as a sad glibertarian shut-in, is incapable of distinguishing between the frequency and amplitude. Dealing with the threat that exists is a priority; magnifying that threat for an executive power-grab , not so much.

Interesting that more Republicans than Democrats consider "reducing the influence of lobbyists" a top priority.

70% of *Democrats* want to "Secure Social Security"?!!! What's the deal with that?

I realize there's a lot of big words there and some nuance as well, so do try to keep up.

Yep, I lost him.

proposing defensive policies of your own

Let's try smaller words instead of the larger ones I tried to use before.

No torture. No pre-emptive war. More thoughtful and diplomatic foreign relations. Living up to the principles we espouse, whoops, I mean "talk about" rather than just paying lip service to them, so we can be a country other countries look up = less hatred = less terrorism + greater international cooperation.

I don't know if I can go any simpler than that.

Who are the 24% of voters in each party that don't want to strengthen the conomy?

More thoughtful and diplomatic foreign relations. Living up to the principles we espouse, whoops, I mean "talk about" rather than just paying lip service to them, so we can be a country other countries look up = less hatred = less terrorism + greater international cooperation.

Ah, right. And if that doesn't get the job done, let's all join hands and sing Kumbaya.

I would assert with some confidence that Republicans get sick at exactly the same rate as Democrats, and that pretty much the same percentage of them lack health insurance and are bankrupted by medical bills. But providing such health insurance
is uninteresting to them. Republicans are astonishingly stupid people, uninterested even in their own well-being.

And if that doesn't get the job done, let's all join hands and sing Kumbaya.

That's all you got? C'mon, pick either argument and troll, but you can't fail miserably at both.

People are idiots?

So that would be 62% of Democrats who are idiots, vs. only 49% of Republicans.

So Matt actually thinks that those polled had a clear understanding of what tax cuts were being referred to when the pollster asked them about "making tax cuts permanent"?

I agree with all the veteran pollsters who lament that the profusion of polls has turned them into props for people to justify just about any cause they believe in.

Ah, right. And if that doesn't get the job done, let's all join hands and sing Kumbaya.

Yes, because imposing our will on foreigners and blowing up civilians is working so well. I know I would be happy if China deposed our government, installed a brutal dictator, killed my family, then claimed they did it to protect me.

Yes, because imposing our will on foreigners and blowing up civilians is working so well.

Seems to be. We haven't had a big attack since 9/11.

Our previous policy, under the Clinton adminsitration, of imposing our will on foreigners and starving civilians (commonly referred to as "sanctions") didn't seem to work so well.

It seems "Strengthening the military" tops the R-D list- as though a strict majority of the world's military spending were insufficient. At some point we need to stop trying to deal with the world by expanding the size and the role of the army, lest we fall into Clauzewitz's trap of thinking of war as merely politics by another means.


Comments closed February 08, 2008.

Copyright © 2007 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.