The Enterprise Blog

Author Archive

*Is it really, truly over?  It seems so, yet the exit poll in the important swing state of Wisconsin revealed some problems for the all-but-inevitable nominee Mitt Romney.

*Santorum continued to do well with rural voters, those with lower incomes, and evangelicals.  Romney does better with suburban, somewhat conservative, higher income, and non-evangelical voters.  Romney’s “coalition” will be more numerous in the fall.

*Romney and Santorum each won 43 percent of voters who described themselves as very conservative, an improvement for front runner Romney.  He won somewhat conservative and moderate to liberal voters decisively.

*Eighty percent of Wisconsin voters said Romney was mostly likely to win the nomination.  But 44 percent of voters in another question said that Romney’s positions were “not conservative enough,” which may indicate a problem in the fall.  Two-thirds of voters there said they would be satisfied if Romney wins the nomination, but 32 percent said they would not.

*Wisconsin voters trusted Romney more than the other candidates on health care.

Karlyn Bowman

Perry’s Prospects

By Karlyn Bowman

October 11, 2011, 11:11 am

Can Rick Perry recapture his momentum in tonight’s debate? New polls show it will be an uphill climb. In the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll, 44 percent of Republicans and Independents who lean to the GOP say the more they hear about Perry, the less they like him. Only 30 percent said they liked him more. Among those in this group who watched the last debate, 63 percent said they liked him less. He’s also lost ground among seniors, strong supporters of the Tea Party, and among very conservative Republicans.

Looking at  general election match-ups in the latest ABC/Post poll, Romney led Obama among Independents, but Perry did not. In another question in the poll, 34 percent of Independents said they wouldn’t consider Romney. Forty-six percent gave that response about Perry.

In Pew interviewing September 22-25, 23 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning Independents backed Perry. His support fell eight points in the later interviews conducted October 1-3. In daily tracking that ended October 2, Gallup found that Perry’s “positive intensity score” had plummeted among Republicans.

“It’s time for us to get back to the Constitution,” said Rick Perry as he parried with Mitt Romney in Monday night’s CNN-Tea Party Express debate. We at AEI intend to do just that next week. On September 20, in celebration of Constitution Day, AEI will honor its great constitutional scholar Walter Berns. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia will give opening remarks and a distinguished panel, including Leon R. Kass and Christopher DeMuth from AEI and Jeremy Rabkin from the George Mason School of Law, will discuss Walter Berns’s lasting contribution to constitutional studies.

When they raise their right hands to take the oath of office, incoming presidents swear to “preserve, protect, and defend” the Constitution of the United States. From his early days teaching political philosophy at Louisiana State University in the early 1950s, Walter Berns has dedicated his career to deepening our understanding of the Constitution and defending its principles. A 2006 AEI Press book, Democracy and the Constitution, contains some of his most memorable essays on the document as well as personal reflections about the constitutional scholar Herbert Storing, whom he met as a graduate student at the University of Chicago. There he also met the late AEI scholar Robert Goldwin, who co-edited AEI’s ten-volume series “A Decade of Study on the Constitution.” Goldwin and Berns anchored AEI’s work on the Constitution and with this discussion, AEI will continue its long immersion in the study of the document’s enduring principles.

Karlyn Bowman

NY-26 Wake-Up Call

By Karlyn Bowman

May 25, 2011, 9:21 am

Our colleague Henry Olsen got it just right in his early assessment of Democrat Kathy Hochul’s victory in NY-26 when he said, “The verdict is clear. For whatever reason, the blue-collar Independents and Democrats who voted Republican in droves last year did not vote GOP tonight.” It should be a wake-up call for the GOP, as Olsen says, not to back away from entitlement reform, but to “address the real concerns of these pivotal voters.”

Karlyn Bowman

Mortgage Models

By Karlyn Bowman

May 17, 2011, 7:36 pm

Republicans  have been critical of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the independent body housed in the Federal Reserve. A large number have indicated that they will not support consideration of a CFPB director until the bureau is reformed in significant ways. Elizabeth Warren, the CFPB’s unofficial head, is well aware of the political minefield the agency has become, and that may be one reason why tomorrow she will unveil something that appears to be popular across the board. The bureau’s new prototypes of simpler and better mortgage disclosure forms are part of its “Know Before You Owe” project, and they owe much to the work of our colleague Alex Pollock, who proposed a simplified one-page form in 2007. He’s written and testified about it, and Warren has cited his work.

Karlyn Bowman

Oh Canada

By Karlyn Bowman

May 3, 2011, 4:38 pm

Lost in the wall-to-wall coverage of Osama bin Laden’s demise has been discussion of the truly extraordinary results of the May 2 Canadian election. Our colleague Jennifer Marsico blogged about it early today, as did Henry Olsen. Here’s Michael Barone’s take.

Karlyn Bowman

The Military as No. 1

By Karlyn Bowman

May 2, 2011, 1:05 pm

As more and more details come out about the raid on Osama bin Laden’s hiding place, is it any surprise that the military is the most highly respected institution in American life? In Gallup’s July 2011 poll, 76 percent of those surveyed had a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in the military. It ranked first among the 16 institutions Gallup examined. The military’s mission is clearly and narrowly defined, and it carries it out extremely well, as we saw yesterday. In contrast, 11 percent had high confidence in Congress, making it the lowest-ranked institution in the poll.

Karlyn Bowman

The Monarchy by the Numbers

By Karlyn Bowman

April 28, 2011, 4:52 pm

(Buckingham Palace Press Office)

The marriage of Prince William and Kate Middleton has produced excitement about the monarchy not seen in years. It has also produced a slew of new polls of Brits on the institution of the monarchy, which seems to have revived since the war of the Waleses.

• In a new Ipsos/MORI-Reuters poll, 75 percent of Britons favor the monarchy compared to 18 percent who would like to see their country become a republic. These responses have changed little since MORI started asking the question in 1993. In the new poll, Labour voters and London residents are more likely than other groups to prefer a republic.

• Also in the Ipsos/MORI poll, 84 percent say Britain will still have a monarchy in 10 years’ time. Fifty-six percent say that will be the case in 50 years’ time. For both questions, public belief that the monarchy will remain in place has increased in recent years.

• More than seven in ten in a ComRes poll believe the monarchy is good for Britain’s image worldwide.

• The polls provide conflicting evidence about whether Prince Charles or Prince William should become Britain’s next King. Forty-six percent in the new Ipsos/MORI poll say Charles should give up the throne; 47 percent say he should not.

• A third say in a ComRes poll say that the monarchy is a burden on taxpayers. Fifty percent disagree and the rest are unsure.

• As the big days come closer, more people are saying they will watch the ceremony. Around a third in several polls say they couldn’t care less.

• Women are almost twice as likely as men to say that they will watch the royal wedding live. In another poll, seven in ten British women said they wouldn’t want to be Miss Middleton. The top reason: she won’t be able to live a normal life.

• Two in ten women believe Miss Middleton should agree to “love, honor, and obey” in her vows; 36 percent of men do. The bride will not use the word “obey” in her vows.

• Sixty-four percent in the ComRes poll say the wedding will be good for the British economy.

Karlyn Bowman

David Broder, RIP

By Karlyn Bowman

March 9, 2011, 2:22 pm

David Broder, the dean of the Washington political correspondents, died today at age 81. He first appeared at AEI in 1979 as part of a panel on “Choosing the Presidential Candidates: How Good is the New Way.” His fellow panelists were the great psephologist and AEI adjunct scholar Richard Scammon and the head of AEI’s politics group for many years, the distinguished political scientist Austin Ranney. For those of us here at AEI who worked or knew Broder, Scammon, or Ranney, it seems like the end of an era. In this new age of rapid-fire responses and partisan posturing, the deeply learned and always cordial and respectful approach these men brought to their craft will be missed.

Karlyn Bowman

The Whole Truth about Women?

By Karlyn Bowman

March 2, 2011, 12:06 pm

Yesterday, the White House released “Women in America: Indicators of Social and Economic Well-Being,” a report prepared  for the White House Office on Women and Girls. Beautifully illustrated, it is reminiscent of the AEI publication Women’s Figures: An Illustrated Guide to the Economic Progress of Women in America, soon to be rereleased in updated form by the AEI Press. The White House report follows on the 2009 Shriver Commission/Center for American Progress report, ‘”A Women’s Nation Changes Everything.” Both the White House and the Shriver Commission channeled the 1963 federal report of the Commission on the Status of Women, established by President Kennedy and chaired by Eleanor Roosevelt.

The White House Report draws on the work of some of the best government statistical agencies and, as such, there is much to recommend it. It documents, for example, women’s extraordinary progress in educational attainment. The report notes that education pays for both women and men, but notes that a pay gap still exists. While true, this is incomplete, and here AEI has been trying to set the record straight for two decades. In 1990, economist and former Congressional Budget Office head June O’Neill wrote an article for The American Enterprise magazine titled “Women and Wages,” in which she documented the narrowing of the wage gap at that time and explained that a proper understanding of wage disparities needed to take into account women’s levels of education (the White House report does this) and also and importantly, experience and interests. In Women’s Figures, Diana Furchgott Roth and Christine Stolba revisited the subject of O’Neill’s article, explaining that when levels of education and family status and work experience are taken into account, the gap almost disappears.

The White House report noted that “women earn the majority of conferred degrees overall but earn fewer degrees than men in science and technology.” True, but as our own Christina Hoff Sommers reported recently, this doesn’t seem to be holding women back who choose science as a career. Sommers’ article describes the conclusions of a new academic paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that reviewed 20 years of data on gender bias in the sciences. The authors report that women in the sciences are treated as well as men and sometimes better in terms of job interviews, hiring, funding, and publishing.

Feminist groups are powerful allies of this White House and neglecting the full story of women’s progress serves a political imperative. But it gives almost no attention an issue that is far more serious and needs to be addressed now. Today it is boys and men in our society who are at risk. Sommers has been sounding the alarm bells and is updating her book The War Against Boys to describe the dimensions of the problem. She plans to have several conferences on the subject in the year ahead.

Image by Argonne National Laboratory.

One of the themes in President Obama’s State of the Union speech was the need to update U.S. infrastructure to fulfill the promise of the American Dream. “We need the fastest, most reliable ways to move people, goods, and information—from high-speed rail to high-speed Internet.” A new Rockefeller Foundation survey from the bipartisan polling team of Public Opinion Strategies and Hart Research suggests the public places a higher priority on other transportation needs than on a high-speed rail system.

•    When asked about improving transportation infrastructure where they lived, 38 percent said they would improve the roads, followed by 20 percent who said they would provide more or better public transportation. “More or better rail systems” ranked last. Six percent said they would embrace it.

•     Eighty-five percent favored a “fix it first” policy before building new systems.

•     When asked about specific points from President Obama’s State of the Union speech, 68 percent strongly agreed with the idea of “providing funding for transportation projects based on what is best for the economy, not based on politics.” Forty-four percent strongly agreed with the notion that “building a high-speed rail system in the United States will be a benefit to travelers and to the U.S. economy.” In terms of strong support, high-speed rail was the least popular of five items tested.

•    Taxes and fees were unpopular across the board. Fifty-one percent said it was unacceptable to provide additional funding for national transportation projects by placing a new tax on foreign oil. Fifty-eight percent in another question objected to replacing the federal gas tax with a fee based on miles driven, 64 percent said it was unacceptable to add new tolls or increase tolls on bridges and highways, and 71 percent opposed increasing the 18-cent federal gas tax, which the pollsters told people “has not been increased since 1983.”

•     Sixty-five percent of employed people in the survey reported having a commute of less than half an hour. In a separate question, 56 percent said their commute was about the same as it was five years ago, while 22 percent said it was longer, and 18 percent shorter. Sixty-one percent speculated that if transportation in their area were improved, it would save them less than 30 minutes each week.

Image by Matthew Black.

Karlyn Bowman

Gauging Tea Party Support

By Karlyn Bowman

February 25, 2011, 1:00 am

Today the Tea Party Patriots will hold their first annual national policy conference in Phoenix. The group claims to have 3,000 local affiliates and 15 million followers nationwide. Former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty will address the group, as will Texas congressman Ron Paul.

The latest issue of AEI’s Political Report looks at various pollsters’ measures of Tea Party support. When a pollster asks people straight out whether they are supporters or not, as AP-GfK-Roper does, around 30 percent say they are supporters, while two-thirds say they are not. When ABC News and the Washington Post ask people whether they have a favorable or unfavorable opinion, about 35 percent answer favorable and half unfavorable. Several pollsters give people the option of saying they don’t have an opinion one way or the other, and many people choose that response. In Pew’s February poll, for example, equal numbers (22 percent) said they agreed or disagreed with the Tea Party, and 53 percent said they didn’t have an opinion either way. For more on the Tea Party, see AEI’s Political Report.

AEI mourns the passing of our colleague and friend Jack Calfee. Jack joined AEI in 1995 after a distinguished academic and government career. Although his recent writings have focused on pharmaceutical markets and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulation, he was also widely known for his work on patent law, tort liability, advertising, and consumer information. A recent article on advances in treating coronary heart disease sounded a familiar Calfee theme when he criticized unnecessary FDA requirements that retard innovation and access to medical devices. His biography and published work are posted here.

Image by AEI.

Karlyn Bowman

Love and Economics

By Karlyn Bowman

February 14, 2011, 10:30 am

Roses are red
Violets are blue
Love is in the air
And economics, too?

Can the dismal science help to resolve marital differences? That’s the thesis two seasoned reporters decided to explore in their new book, Spousonomics: Using Marriage to Master Love, Marriage, and Dirty Dishes. Paula Szuchman is a Wall Street Journal editor and her coauthor Jenny Anderson is a long-time financial reporter. Both women are newlyweds who had decided the “touchy feely” style of marriage how-tos aren’t for them. Instead they explore harder economic concepts such as the optimal allocation of resources, too big to fail, high information-processing costs, overweighting fairness, and game theory and apply them to their marriages.

In an article in the Sunday New York Times, Anderson, whose husband always seems to be late, is ready to read him the riot act when he comes home two hours late, a few weeks after their first child’s birth. He is an editor at the Wall Street Journal. His excuse, “Lehman Brothers collapsed,” doesn’t do it for her. Later, thinking about loss aversion theory, she decides that there’s not much point in continuing to argue when you know you are wrong. Will “thinking like an economist” help to resolve these differences? It seems to be working at the margins for these newlyweds, and it may just sell books, too.

Karlyn Bowman

Reagan at AEI: True Grit

By Karlyn Bowman

February 4, 2011, 10:26 am

As the nation remembers Ronald Reagan on the centennial of his birth, we at AEI recall his first appearance here. In 1975,  former Governor Ronald Reagan spoke at a two-day conference on regulatory reform. He participated in an AEI Roundtable discussion at the end of the conference with Senator Hubert Humphrey, Ralph Nader, and others. The themes that Reagan would use in his 1976 and 1980 presidential campaigns were on full display in the exchanges. His thoughts were clear as he sparred forcefully with Nader and Humphrey.

Responding to a distinction Nader made between health and safety regulation and economic regulation, Reagan said, “We get onto dangerous ground when we allow government to decide what is good for us. In the field of health and in the economic field, government has grown to such an extent that I am afraid it is showing a lack of respect for the average citizen. With government fostering the idea that the citizen cannot even buy a box of Post Toasties for himself without being cheated, one wonders how voters are supposed to be able to pick the government people who are wise enough to make all these decisions for them? When government starts showing a lack of respect for the people, the people soon start showing a lack of respect for government.”

In that exchange, Reagan used an anecdote that is reminiscent of President Obama’s discussion of salmon regulation in his recent State of the Union address. “Just recently the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare [now Health and Human Services] came into a hospital in Ohio and said the plastic liners had to be taken out of the waste baskets because if one of them caught fire the noxious fumes would be injurious to the patients. But the plastic liners had been used only because the Occupational Safety and Health Administration had said they were necessary” to protect workers from contamination.

Nader pushed back, citing examples of drug companies that didn’t warn people about the adverse effects of certain medications. But Reagan was unmoved.

“For every case of a drug that slipped by the Food and Drug Administration and has been harmful to some people, there are dozens of cases of the Food and Drug administration going too far.” He then went on to make an argument about the “drug lag,” noting that the FDA had failed to approve drugs that had been proven effective in other countries, saying that thousands had suffered or died here because they have been denied these drugs.

In responding to the growth of regulation, Reagan discussed the staggering paperwork required by government and its deleterious effects on small business. He also noted that “regulation has led to an interlocking bureaucracy” with a bureaucracy in government “now being matched by a bureaucracy employed by business to do business with the bureaucracy of government. The two bureaucracies are feeding on each other and neither one of them want the other to go away because in a sense they employ the other.” He and Nader agreed on that point, but Reagan pushed on, saying that “We are the most regulated society this nation has ever seen, and we are paying for it not only in the coin of the realm, but also in a greater loss of freedom than any of us realize. We have moved a great distance from the system that originated in this country, a system that was based on the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with an orderly society.”

Reagan responded forcefully to Senator Humphrey’s point that revenue sharing would enable states and localities to address their needs better. “The federal government,” Reagan said, “has usurped the revenue that ought to remain where it was raised, at the state and local level. Revenue sharing would not be necessary if we left the revenue at the local level and restricted the federal government to those tasks which properly belong to it.”

While voicing some criticism of the Civil Aeronautics Board, Senator Humphrey made a point that the government had to keep the agency because “if we left the matter to the marketplace,” small towns in his state would not continue to get air service. To this, Reagan responded, “If the CAB were done away with and smaller towns lost some of their mainline service, the marketplace would find that there was business for a certain type of airline to go into those communities and would provide it.” And with the CAB’s demise, so it has.

Karlyn Bowman

Congressional Date Night

By Karlyn Bowman

January 24, 2011, 10:20 am

date-nightAlthough we don’t know at this point how many Democrats and Republicans will sit together at the State of the Union tomorrow night, some high-profile members like liberal Democrat Chuck Schumer and conservative Republican Tom Coburn have agreed to date. Americans seem to like the idea. Seventy-two percent in a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll said Republicans and Democrats should sit next to each other on both sides, while 22 percent wanted the parties to sit on opposite sides. Republicans are less enthusiastic about Tuesday’s date night. Thirty-eight percent of them want members to sit on opposite sides, compared to 15 percent of Democrats and Independents. A new Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll released yesterday showed that 56 percent thought it was a good idea to break tradition and have lawmakers sit with each other to show they are serious about toning down the debate, but 39 percent said it was a silly idea that would mainly be just for show and not really mean anything in the long run.

As for civility, 39 percent in a mid-January Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll said the tone of political debate in the country had reached a new low and was unnecessarily negative and dangerous, but 53 percent said that this kind of debate has always gone on and reflects genuine differences in political beliefs. Forty-five percent of Democrats and 64 percent of Republicans said it has been ever thus.

Image by ilovebutter.

Karlyn Bowman

Roe vs. Wade at 38

By Karlyn Bowman

January 21, 2011, 1:12 pm

When I first started writing about public opinion on abortion many years ago, the issue was a major political flashpoint. That’s not the case any longer. One reason may be the remarkable, rock-hard stability of opinion on it. Neither pro-life nor pro-choice activists have managed to alter the basic contours of opinion. In 1975, when Gallup asked about the availability of abortion, 21 percent of respondents said it should be legal under any circumstances, 54 percent said only under certain circumstances, and 22 percent said illegal under all circumstances. In 2010, those responses were almost identical: 24, 54, and 19 percent, respectively. The question has been asked more than 40 times, and opinion has barely budged.

Opinion is stable and complex. Americans value the sanctity of life and want to protect it. They also value personal choice, and questions that frame the abortion issue as a matter of individual choice show strong majority support. They want to keep abortion legal, but they are also willing to put considerable restrictions on its use. They favor parental consent and a waiting period, for example. One of the few abortion-related issues on the congressional radar screen is Republicans’ efforts to codify the Hyde amendment, which bars federal funding of abortion but must be renewed each year. Here again, public opinion is stable. Americans have long opposed federal funding of abortion.

There are some hints in the data that young people are more likely than in the past to consider themselves pro-life, but the polls aren’t consistent on the point, and we will have to wait for more surveys to see if something is happening to change the basic structure of opinion.

Karlyn Bowman

Obama 2.0

By Karlyn Bowman

January 19, 2011, 1:37 pm

obamaIn anticipation of the State of the Union speech next week, most major pollsters are assessing President Obama’s standing at the halfway point of his term. The editors of AEI’s Political Report have collected many of the new ones. A new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll, like an ABC News/Washington Post poll taken at about the same time, showed an uptick in Obama’s ratings, likely a result of the good feeling after the lame-duck session, a few green economic shoots, and the president’s reaction to the Tucson tragedy. Will the improved ratings last?

Americans still want President Obama to succeed, and they rate him highly on many personal attributes. A new Gallup poll shows, for example, that 61 percent are satisfied with his strong moral character. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll finds 74 percent rating him highly on having good family values. But performance is key, and here the numbers must worry the White House. In the same CNN poll that showed an uptick in the president’s approval rating, half said that his policies would move the country in the right direction. But almost that many, 46 percent, said they would move the country in the wrong direction. Forty-seven percent in an early January Quinnipiac poll thought his first two years had been mainly a success, but 45 percent called them mainly a failure. The proportion that likes him personally and approves of most of his policies in the December NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll was 37 percent. Particularly troubling in many recent polls are the low marks the president gets from whites. Working-class whites, as our colleague Henry Olsen has written, deserted the party in droves in 2010.

In addition to the in-depth look at the president, the January AEI Political Report examines attitudes about Michelle Obama, the healthcare bill, trade, and much more.

Karlyn Bowman

The Tucson Tragedy and Gun Laws

By Karlyn Bowman

January 12, 2011, 11:54 am

handgunMuch of the commentary after the Tucson tragedy has been about incendiary political rhetoric and not about gun laws. Some commentators have suggested that this is a triumph for the National Rifle Association, but I don’t think so. Americans have simply changed their minds about whether stricter gun control laws or more laws will reduce gun crime. In December, our colleague Andrew Rugg posted a terrific summary piece that described the change in attitudes. Forty-four percent in Gallup’s latest poll, down from 79 percent in September 1990, supported stricter laws governing the sale of firearms. Rugg also wrote that the new polls also showed that a record low number favored a ban on the possession of handguns.

Opinion about gun control is unlikely to change in the wake of the Tucson shootings. ABC’s Gary Langer noted yesterday that “previous heinous gun crimes have not prompted greater [public] support for gun control in general. To the contrary, overall movement in recent years has been in opposition to stricter gun laws.” The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza echoed Langer in writing about legislative reactions, noting that in the past, other episodes of broad-scale gun violence have not produced stiffer federal gun control measures. As Langer explains, Americans believe “gun ownership is a constitutional right; they overwhelmingly believe the availability of guns is not the primary cause of gun violence; and they broadly favor better enforcement of existing gun laws over creating stricter laws.”

In a new CBS News poll released this morning, 57 percent said that stricter laws would have had no effect on preventing the violence in Tucson. Eighteen percent said such laws would have done a lot to prevent it, and 18 percent said such laws would have done a little.

Image by Robert Nelson.

obamaIn his news conference yesterday announcing a bipartisan framework on tax cuts, President Obama said in response to a reporter’s question:

I could have enjoyed the battle with Republicans over the next month or two, because as I said, the American people are on our side. This is not a situation in which I have failed to persuade the American people of the rightness of our position. I know the polls. The polls are on our side on this. We weren’t operating from a position of political weakness with respect to public opinion.

Well, yes, but. Most polls showed that most people’s first preference was to extend the tax cuts for the middle class. But that doesn’t mean they were hostile to extending tax cuts for all. People’s second preference was to extend tax cuts for all. In most polls, between 15 and 20 percent of respondents wanted to allow the tax cuts to expire for everyone. In the latest poll, released yesterday by the Pew Research Center, 47 percent wanted to keep expiring tax cuts only for those with incomes below $250,000, but to end the tax cuts for incomes above that; another third wanted to extend them for all. Eleven percent wanted to end all the cuts.

Polls on individual items can’t tell you how Americans will react to a package of the kind the president and House Republicans agreed to yesterday. I’m guessing that most Americans will be happy to move on.

Image by Stefanie.

Karlyn Bowman

The Estate Tax Lives? Dies?

By Karlyn Bowman

December 1, 2010, 9:52 am

A new poll from Gallup and USA Today asked people about how important it was for the lame-duck Congress to take action on six different things. A solid majority, 56 percent, said it was very important to pass legislation that would keep the estate tax from increasing significantly next year. In terms of major importance, this was the top issue in the poll, outranking extending unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed (48 percent said that was very important), allowing gay men and women to serve in the military (32 percent), and passing the DREAM act (31 percent). The only item to come close in terms of high importance was extending some form of federal income tax cuts passed under President Bush that are set to expire (50 percent said this was very important).

Virtually every poll I’ve ever seen shows that Americans don’t like the estate tax. The sentiment is broad and deep. In this poll, 68 percent of Republicans, 54 percent of Independents, and even 48 percent of Democrats said it was very important to keep the tax from increasing.

Karlyn Bowman

Obama on Firm Ground on Pay Freeze

By Karlyn Bowman

November 30, 2010, 2:49 pm

empty-walletPresident Obama has recommended a two-year pay freeze for most of the nearly 2 million civilians who work for the federal government. The freeze must be approved by Congress. A new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll suggests the president is on firm ground on this one. In the poll, people were asked whether it was more important to reduce the budget deficit or more important to prevent ten different programs from being significantly cut. The top response for the axe was salaries and benefits for federal government workers. Sixty-eight percent said it was more important to reduce the budget deficit, while only 30 percent thought it was more important to prevent the program from being cut significantly.

Image by NoHo Damon.

Karlyn Bowman

Turkey and Trimmings

By Karlyn Bowman

November 24, 2010, 10:27 am

Reports of the family dinner hour’s demise have been exaggerated. In a new Pew Research Center poll, 50 percent of people with children age 17 or younger said they ate dinner together every day, and 34 percent said they do so a few times a week. Eleven percent said they do so occasionally, and 3 percent said their family never eats together.

As for the upcoming Thanksgiving feast, 89 percent of respondents said they expected to eat a Thanksgiving meal with members of their family. Only 8 percent did not.

data_11-24-10_large

In a new Pew Research Center poll, 90 percent of respondents said they were very or somewhat confident their 2010 vote had been counted accurately. Only 7 percent were not too or not at all confident about their vote. Those responses are very similar to the responses Pew got in interviews after the 2004, 2006, and 2008 elections.

The polls conducted ten years ago during the height of the controversy over the Bush v. Gore election in 2000 showed a remarkably resolute public. Most Americans, unlike many in the media, never saw the election aftermath as a constitutional crisis. In polls conducted in mid-November, only around 10 percent described the situation as a crisis, while four in ten said it was a major problem, and almost that many said it was a minor problem or not a problem at all. Overall confidence in the Supreme Court did not waver throughout the ordeal, but, in polls taken around the time, Democrats became less confident in the Court and Republicans more so.

Although around four in ten Americans had doubts about whether Bush legitimately won the election, overwhelming majorities in other questions said they would accept him as the legitimate president once the controversy was resolved. In five polls taken between mid-November and mid-December, around 80 percent gave that response.

As for limiting his mandate because of the closeness of the election, around 15 percent of those surveyed said Bush should scale back his plans. Eighty percent wanted the new president to pursue his plans for the country.

Most Americans in late 2000 said their own vote had been counted fairly, although they had doubts about the votes of some Floridians. Still, the faith most people had that the system would work is yet another indication that, despite all our complaints about the way our democracy is working, its foundations are strong.

Karlyn Bowman

Paycheck Fairness?

By Karlyn Bowman

November 9, 2010, 5:09 pm

Tomorrow, our colleague Christina Hoff Sommers will speak on a panel on Capitol Hill about the Paycheck Fairness Act, a top priority for Democrats in the lame duck session. Sommers says the act “overlooks mountains of research showing that discrimination plays little role in pay disparities between men and women, and it threatens to impose onerous requirements on employers to correct gaps over which they have little control.” She believes the legislation would, if passed, “set women against men, empower trial lawyers and activists, perpetuate falsehoods about the status of women in the workplace and create havoc in a precarious job market. It is 1970s-style gender-war feminism for a society that should be celebrating its success in substantially, if not yet completely, overcoming sex-based workplace discrimination.” The event, which also features former Labor Secretary Elaine Chao, Hudson Institute economist Diana Furchgott-Roth, and former Congressional Budget Office head June O’Neill, will  take place at the Capitol Visitors Center, room SVC 212-10. It begins at 10 a.m.


The American Enterprise Institute takes no institutional positions on policy advocacy or political campaigns. The views expressed on The Enterprise Blog represent those of the individual writers.

AEI