Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Poll: Best Way to Fight Deficits: Raise Taxes on the Rich
WASHINGTON — Alarmed by rising national debt and increasingly downbeat about their country's course, Americans are clear about how they want to attack the government's runway budget deficits: raise taxes on the wealthy and keep hands off of Medicare and Medicaid.
On tackling the deficit, voters by a margin of 2-to-1 support raising taxes on incomes above $250,000, with 64 percent in favor and 33 percent opposed. (Photograph: Issei Kato/Reuters) At the same time, they say that the government should not raise the legal debt ceiling, which the government must do soon to borrow more money, despite warnings that failing to do so would force the government into default, credit markets into turmoil and the economy into a tailspin.
Those are among the findings of a national McClatchy-Marist poll taking the country's pulse just as President Barack Obama and Congress launch what could be a multi-year debate on the role of government and how to finance it.
Obama heads to northern Virginia on Tuesday and California on Wednesday to pitch his long-term budget proposals, as lawmakers from Congress are taking a spring recess, with most in their home districts.
On tackling the deficit, voters by a margin of 2-to-1 support raising taxes on incomes above $250,000, with 64 percent in favor and 33 percent opposed.
Independents supported higher taxes on the wealthy by 63-34 percent; Democrats by 83-15 percent; and Republicans opposed by 43-54 percent.
Support for higher taxes rose by 5 percentage points after Obama called for that as one element of his deficit-reduction strategy last week. Opposition dropped by 6 points. The poll was conducted before and after the speech.
Americans clearly don't want the government to cut Medicare, the government health program for the elderly, or Medicaid, the program for the poor. Republicans in the House of Representatives voted last week to drastically restructure and reduce those programs, while Obama calls for trimming their costs but leaving them essentially intact.
Voters oppose cuts to those programs by 80-18 percent. Even among conservatives, only 29 percent supported cuts, and 68 percent opposed them.
Public views are more mixed on cutting defense spending, with 44 percent supporting cuts and 54 percent opposed.
One dividing line is education: College graduates want to cut defense spending by 63-36 percent. Non-college graduates oppose cutting the Pentagon by 61-36 percent.
No matter how the government tackles its deficits and debt, Americans don't want it to borrow any more. By 69-24 percent, voters oppose raising the legal ceiling for debt. That includes Democrats, who oppose it by 53-36 percent, independents, who oppose it by 74-22 percent, and Republicans, who oppose it by 79-16 percent.
Other findings:
- Only 44 percent of voters approve of Obama's job performance, while 49 percent disapprove. That was down from 48 percent approval in January, and marked the 17th straight month that his approval has been below 50 percent;
- Only 34 percent of voters approve, and 61 percent disapprove, of the way he's handling the budget deficit, projected to total about $1.6 trillion this year;
- Only 30 percent approve of the way Republicans in Congress are doing their job, while 63 percent disapprove.
Underlying it all, Americans are in a pessimistic mood. Fewer than one in three — 32 percent of registered voters — think the country's headed in the right direction, while 63 percent think it's headed in the wrong direction.
Among all adults, including non-voters, the tally is 31-64 percent, the poorest since November 2007 at the onset of the Great Recession.
"We're going through a period of partisan bickering in Washington, lots of posturing and an economy that has not taken hold the way people want," said Lee Miringoff, director of the Marist Institute for Public Opinion at Marist College in New York, which conducted the poll.
Like every president, Obama is a lightning rod for public sentiments.
"I think he's doing the best he can with very little help," said Lynn King, a retired public school teacher in the town of Pelzer, S. C. "He needs a chance to develop his programs."
"He's got our country in the biggest debt that we can ever get in," countered Jack Millwood, a retired insurance agent in Gaffney, S.C. "I just think he's overspent on too much."
The survey suggested a disconnect between the country and the mood in Washington, where Obama and House Republicans congratulated themselves for their recent hard-fought agreement to cut spending. That fight took the government to the brink of a shutdown and produced spending cuts of $38.5 billion, or about 1 percent of the annual federal budget.
"Just because they came together in the 11th hour, that doesn't impress people right now," said Miringoff.
(James Rosen of the Washington Bureau contributed.)
METHODOLOGY
This survey of 1,274 adults was conducted on April 10-14. Adults 18 years of age and older residing in the continental United States were interviewed by telephone. Telephone numbers were selected based upon a list of telephone exchanges from throughout the nation. The exchanges were selected to ensure that each region was represented in proportion to its population. To increase coverage, this land-line sample was supplemented by respondents reached through random dialing of cell phone numbers. The two samples were then combined.
Results are statistically significant within �3.0 percentage points. There are 1,084 registered voters. The results for this subset are statistically significant within �3.0 percentage points. There are 551 registered voters who completed the survey before President Obama's April 13th speech and 470 registered voters who completed the survey after his speech. The results for these subsets are statistically significant within �4.5 percentage points. The error margin increases for cross-tabulations.
For more McClatchy politics coverage visit Planet Washington

19 Comments so far
Show AllOne MAJOR problem: the White House and Congress are filled with "The Rich".
They will not raise taxes on themselves and their even wealthier patrons and corporate masters no matter how many of us write, petition, email, call, visit, gather in the streets, or vote.
They have learned, along with their corporate media, to ignore us.
Only financial pressure by us on their funders, the corporations - in the forms of boycotts and strikes - may have an effect.
But most USans are a long way from taking such actions, if ever.
Best Way to Fight Deficits: Raise Taxes on the Rich and Banish Republicans.
My favorite saying from Howard Cosell was "that which is popular is not always right, and that which is right is not always popular" WHY is nobody talking about a flat, across the board income tax, no deductions, no exceptions? Not only would it increase revenues, it would also cut the size of the IRS to about a tenth of what then have now, (IMHO). Want to donate 2 mil to your old school(?), good for you, but the taxes do NOT get reduced. Want to have ten kids(?), great, but you still owe the same percentage tax on income. Income is JUST from interest of stock dividents(?), its STILL income. This would, by definition, reduce taxes on the rich, except without having loopholes, they'd wind up actually paying their fair share, ergo, pay MORE than they do at present. just an opinion.
OH YEAH, "POLLS" are not news, not facts, just opinions and we'd better start understanding that as a society.
Polls, properly and scientifically done, represent the wishes of the majority. Last I checked, that is what democratic governance is supposed to be about.
Yes, I know, you are now going to feed me that complete non-sequitir about the US being a "republic" not a "democracy", whatever that is supposed to mean.
no, polls do NOT represent the wishes of the majority. They represent the OPINIONS of those people questioned, based upon information at hand, that may or may not be based upon fact. Once you put in "properly and scientificly" you're living in la-la land, 'cause it ain't never happened. Polls can be 'scientific' but that does not mean that the repsondants know a tinkers damn about what they're responding. Polls should never be taken as truth or as 'news'. As I recall, "poll" showed LePage running either third or forth in the Maine republican primary this past cycle.
Polls are like flipping a coin. fifty straight "heads", so what are the chances that it will land on "tails" for the next flip? Fifty per cent. Likewise, the people doing the questioning may question one in ten at a location. That does nothing to represent the nine who walked by. Can a corporation risk it's investors money on such information, of course, but the government should not set policy by such means.
And YES, we are SUPPOSE to be a Republic, but have not been since the first president, but direct 'majority rule' is the most dangerous thing that could ever happen. Do you really believe that the people living in the ten largest cities of the US should rule as to what the farming/schooling/transportation policies of states such as Maine or Montana should be? THAT is what direct democracy represents in this country. Again, just an opinion.
"WHY is nobody talking about a flat, across the board income tax, no deductions, no exceptions?"
Because such a tax is maiifestly unjust. It places a disporportionate burden on the poor, who must spend everything they earn on necessities, and little on the rich, who have lots of money left over after necessities.
I am all for tax simplification, and removal of many kinds of perverse deductions. The gambling (and many types of investment) loss deduction always amazed me, but the charity deduction is one of the few ways we can indirectly divert our tax dollars on peaceful uses rather than war. However, the fairest taxes are all based on progressive graduated tax rates. The societies that have broadly shared prosperity have a progressive graduated tax. Countries with flat taxes, (mostly eastern Europe and Russia) are hardly worker's paradises.
http://www.ctj.org
SaboCat,
ABSOLUTELY!
There is nothing "unjust" about paying a percentage of what one earns. People would only pay when they are earning, unlike the sales or property tax which requires each individual to pay the same tax irrespective of what one's means is. I believe that if the rate was unified across the board, there "might" be less incentive for the filthy rich to cheat the system. I disagree with your assessment of what is the "fairest taxes". I certainly recall a time in my life when I received a 'raise' only to find that my takehome was twenty dollars less than my previous check. This promoted a dis-incentive to advance within certain plateaus of pay. It also creates a system which is complex and requires accountants and lawyers to satisfy IRS demands.
Under the 'flat tax', the ability to figure one's taxes is reduced to one step; the multiplication of ones pay by one figure. No tables, no adjustments, no multiple forms to fill out.
As William Buckley once said, a person should not have to apologize for being rich. Just because an individual has money left over does not mean that the money should be forfited. Charity donations should be that, charity, not "in lieu of taxes". In my personal life I give one hours pay per week to charity through pay roll deduction. IF my taxes were reduced to say 10, 11 or 12 percent, I'd give more, since I'd have more free money in my pocket. Many of those multi-million dollare "charity" donations you seem fond of defending go to "charities" run by that individual or that individuals family.
Not all, but enough. What about those donations to ALEC.org, or the CATO institute? Deductable donations which perhaps go to researching how to end social programs funded by the government, or the best way to incite a revolution in OPEC nations.
I'd suspect that those "polls", people defend would show that a "majority" {AS IF}, would support a simple, flat tax. just an opinion.
Because a flat tax is regressive. Better zero taxes up to 25K, highly progressive above $250K, and flat % in the middle.
Jack Lohman
http://moneyedpoliticians.net
A sales tax is regressive (because the poor spend a larger proportion of their incomes on goods and services that are taxed than do the wealthy). A flat tax, by definition, is neither regressive nor progressive. The trick is how to define "income" for purposes of the tax.
The public has been clear. Don't raise the debt ceiling, don't touch popular programs, and make the rich pay their fair share. Not that anyone in charge is listening.
I find it interesting that a majority of Americans still think we need to spend more than the rest of the entire world on our military budget.
I won't respond to nobodyknown. Anyone who thinks that a flat tax is fair for people who have purchased the political class to enable them to grab almost all of our national wealth is beyond reason. How many trillions of dollars did the banksters get from the taxpayers and the Fed? Last I heard, above 13 and counting. But hey, as Obama said, they worked hard for their money.
"they work hard to steal OUR money"
fixed it for you.
Isn't it fairly obvious that if we let the people decide these things by fair referendums instead of letting politicians decide by campaign bribes, these problems could be easily solved as they come up?
After all, that idea has worked so well in California... LOL
I meant FAIR referendums like the Swiss and Venezuelans have
I know, just teasing you a bit... grin
So girl, don't say goodbye give me a try
Let me love you over & over(baby tease me tonight)
Tease me , tease me baby(I wanna love you all over)over & over
(Baby tease me tonight)(Oh don't stop)It's feeling real good girl
(Make me feel alright)come on girl make sweet love to me (I wanna love you all over)
Tease me tease me tease me baby baby baby
(Baby tease me tonight I wanna love you all over)
(Baby tease me tonight I wanna love you all over girl)
GUY
Friend of mine mentioned that Obummer and his minion SAY they know and are using Keynesian economics, yet they do absolutely nothing that shows it.
What a pack'a morons.
OH, PS, Michigan The gov't is imploding...Michigan already used an EFM tactic to mangle the city of Benton Harbor's ELECTED officials...who is next? And is that really legal? Sorry, I thought I was still living in a democracy there for aminute.