Bipartisanship on the Stimulus: Clean Power and… Um…
EmailWhen it comes to stimulus spending, bipartisanship starts with alternative energy.
The problem: It also pretty much ends there.
Clean power is a perennial favorite in public opinion – it sounds, well, clean, and a welcome respite from that longtime bugbear, foreign oil. When we asked priorities for stimulus spending in our latest ABC News/Washington Post poll, top place went to the proposal to double the production of alternative energy in the next three years.
Forty-one percent of Americans said that should be a “highest priority” item in stimulus spending. Most striking is its level of bipartisan support: Forty-two percent of Democrats, 41 percent of Republicans and 40 percent of independents assigned it top priority.
That’s a nice result for President Obama as his administration announces environmental initiatives today – he’s ordering a review of EPA rules on auto emission standards and Hillary Clinton is naming a State Department point man on climate change. But as is almost always the case in politics and policy, life quickly gets more complicated.
First off, climate change is not the public’s most pressing concern, by a long shot. Just 17 percent in our poll say it should receive the highest-level priority from Obama and the Congress, last on the list of 11 items we tested, and down from 26 percent in 2006. One reason is the elephant in the room: Seventy-six percent give top-level priority to the economy, toasting every other issue we tested.
This turns the discussion to priorities specifically for stimulus spending. And here the bipartisan agreement we see on alternative energy quickly melts away.
The very next item on this list is the single most partisan of all – extending unemployment benefits and health care coverage for people who lose their jobs. Overall 38 percent give this a highest-level priority for stimulus spending – but that ranges from 52 percent of Democrats to just 21 percent of Republicans, a 31-point chasm.
Indeed Republicans didn’t love many of the recovery package items. Apart from the alternative energy proposal, no more than 22 percent of Republicans give a top-shelf rating to any of the dozen stimulus items we tested. That’s not surprising, since Republicans don’t love stimulus spending at all; as I’ve noted previously, 58 percent in the GOP say it’s more important to avoid a sharp increase in the federal deficit than to try to improve the economy by raising federal spending. Sixty-two percent of Democrats disagree, which sets the stage for some of the big gaps in stimulus priorities we see. Examples:
-Twenty-nine percent of Democrats give a top priority to providing aid to the states in order to avoid cuts in state services. Only 7 percent of Republicans agree.
-Thirty-eight percent of Democrats (and in this case, independents alike) give a top priority to upgrading schools with new technology. Among Republicans, it’s 18 percent, a 20-point drop-off.
-Thirty-eight percent of Democrats are hot for rebuilding roads, bridges and schools; among Republicans, it’s 21 percent.
Also noteworthy – though also not surprising, given longtime public preferences – is the tepid interest in tax cuts. Just 23 percent overall give a highest-level priority to a $500 tax cut for most working Americans, and here the partisan gap narrows – 26 percent of Democrats give it a top priority, as do 19 percent of Republicans. On a business tax cut, it’s 17 percent overall – 22 percent among Republicans, 13 percent among Democrats. (Tax cuts long have been less in demand than is commonly assumed. Ask President Dole.)
The partisan gap does narrow further on three other items, but mainly because they’re among the lowest-priority proposals for all concerned – upgrading the power grid, computerizing medical records and, last on the list, expanding high-speed internet access to rural areas.
Among all Americans, the items with the top highest-priority mentions are alternative energy (as noted, 41 percent), extending unemployment and health care (38 percent), upgrading schools (33 percent) and rebuilding infrastructure (30 percent). Next, at 23 to 26 percent “highest priority,” are improving energy efficiency in homes and offices (with a 14-point partisan gap), putting a moratorium on home foreclosures (a 15-point partisan gap) and the personal tax cut. See the full list below, including a partisan comparison.
As noted, fixing the economy is the public’s overwhelming demand of Washington today, and suggestions that people will be patient with the process are hardly a sure bet. (Ronald Reagan, greeted by recession toward the start of his presidency, lost 25 points in approval in his first two years in office. See the chart.) The data in this note provide a counterpoint: While the public is united in demanding economic solutions, it’s far less united on just what those solutions should be.
ABC/Post 1/16/09 “Highest” priority for stimulus spending All Dem Rep IndDoubling the production of alternative energy in the next three years 41% 42% 41% 40%Extending unemployment insurance and health care coverage for people who lose their jobs 38 52 21 40Upgrading schools with new technology 33 38 18 38Rebuilding roads, bridges and schools 30 38 21 29Improving energy efficiency in homes and offices 26 31 17 26Putting a moratorium on home mortgage foreclosures 24 30 15 25Giving most working Americans a 500-dollar tax cut 23 26 19 24Giving federal money to states to avoid cuts in state services 18 29 7 14Updating power lines and the system that distributes electricity around the country 17 19 15 16Cutting taxes paid by businesses and corporations 17 13 22 17Computerizing all Americans' medical records in the next five years 14 15 12 16Expanding high-speed internet access to rural areas 7 7 5 6
Gulf of Mexico to Become Gulf of America? 
Can Mitt Romney Win Conservatives Back?
The best stimulus this economy could get would be the passage of “The Fair Tax Act of 2009″.
The FairTax:
* Enables workers to keep their entire paychecks
* Enables retirees to keep their entire pensions
* Refunds in advance the tax on purchases of basic necessities
* Allows American products to compete fairly
* Brings transparency and accountability to tax policy
* Ensures Social Security and Medicare funding
* Closes all loopholes and brings fairness to taxation
* Abolishes the IRS
This legislation is there now and ready to be signed by President Obama. Start e-mailing your representatives and urge them to support this legislation.
Posted by: devilkev | January 26, 2009, 12:55 pm 12:55 pm
We need to utilize everything in out power to reduce our dependence on foreign oil including using our own natural resources.OPEC will continue to cut production until they achieve their desired 80-100. per barrel. The high cost of fuel this past year seriously damaged our economy and society. Oil is finite. We are using oil globally at the rate of 2X faster than new oil is being discovered. I just read a book by a guy named Jeff Wilson called The Manhattan Project of 2009 Energy Independence Now. I highly recommend this book to anyone who is worried about our economy and would like to see us become more energy independent.
Posted by: Sherry | January 26, 2009, 1:10 pm 1:10 pm
Dramatically lower (maybe 50%) the payroll tax rate for things like social security. This benefits employees and companies. It would help save some of the jobs that would have been cut. Companies and workers have been paying more than is needed for many years and Congress just spends the excess with the promise to pay it back someday. If needed, lower the taxes or increase the deduction for people not getting a paycheck, like the elderly. I would be hesitant to give more money to those on welfare expect for very extreme situations and people who have recently lost their jobs. States just eliminate taxes on basic food items and increase taxes on non essentials like soda, beer, candy, and dessert items – maybe based on some factor already know like nutrient value of each product.
Posted by: MikeMo1947 | January 26, 2009, 1:43 pm 1:43 pm
I’m confused about how these numbers reconcile with the ones just mentioned on Meet The Press that said something like 48% of Republicans support the stimulus plan versus something like 27% disagreeing.
Because it sounds like if Republicans don’t like spending OR tax cuts, then they don’t support a stimulus program.
Are they internally conflicted or something? Sensing that something needs to be done, but also sensing that none of the proposed solutions really gets to the root of the problem, except the subsidization of green industry which is geared towards growing productivity?
You know what’s missing from the questionnaire is whether people support non-financial measures such as renewing the textile quota to limit imports from China, diplomacy with China with the ultimate goal of rebalancing trade by improving the ratio of productivity as a percentage of GDP to consumption of GDP, with the reverse for China to promote sustainability of that trade relationship, etc.
Posted by: SamTheTVCat | January 26, 2009, 3:35 pm 3:35 pm
The more people that lose their job or know someone who loses their job, the more people will favor unemployment benefits.
That seems pretty clear. Now cutting the cost of heating and powering your infrastucture will keep dollars in the wallet for consuming other things like food and shelter.
I want more potholes, less driving.
Posted by: EARL_E | January 26, 2009, 5:17 pm 5:17 pm
It would also appear that Obama may witness a Constantine-like civil war where green republicans are at odds with the military-industrial oiligarchy republicans.
Constantine united the Roman Empire as the first Christian Roman Emporer, Obama can only seek to aim so high as the first African American President.
Maybe it is the kick-off of the Green Revolution, The Green for All,Party.(GAP)
Posted by: EARL_E | January 26, 2009, 5:26 pm 5:26 pm
I see a lot of ways for the Goverment to throw a lot of money at a lot of projects, but nothing to put a lot of people to work quickly.
I propose a five year, $5,000 tax deduction for home improvement or purchase.
This would encourge a lot of people who are playing ‘wait and see’ to get that new roof or go ahead and get that foreclosed house while I can get the tax deduction.
Tho it is a $5,000 deduction for that person, it would be only reduce thier taxes $1,000 – $1,500, but increase contractor/agent incomes, state and local sales taxes.
Posted by: Jack_B | January 27, 2009, 9:59 am 9:59 am
At the beginning of the “bailout” Texas (My home state) and reportedly other states said they had hundreds of infrastructure projects ready to start, all they needed was money. Why now is there so little emphasis on putting money into these projects? Why does the Obama administration say that 75% of the trillion dollars will be spent by the end of 2010? If we can spur construction on infrastructure we can put a million people to work within months and possibly put some of the Cat people back to work.
The administration needs to start planning on these long term stimulus projects but must concentrate on those projects that can start now. Again, may I add that the IT infrastructure of the states and possibly the federal government needs as much help as the bridges and roads, maybe more since many of the programs are older than many roads and bridges that need repair.
Posted by: Joe Scheible | January 27, 2009, 10:49 am 10:49 am
Yes we do need some form of affordable clean energy. The whole world needs it. Only problem is we don’t have any marketable technology that will meet the need. To think we can discover, manufacture and implement any form of clean energy that’s affordable in the near future is purely speculation. What a wonderful thought it is to dream of once again having the edge on manufacturing and transportation. But we can’t eat pipedreams.
Posted by: mmonroeliveson | January 27, 2009, 2:36 pm 2:36 pm
Do you realize that if the federal goverment had given each tax paying american a 1 million dollar grant, it would have cost far less than 800 billion and would have stimulated the economy within a few days. The money would have paid down debt and been spent on goods and services. Instead they give billions away that won’t really help the current economy at all.
Posted by: Richard Kerr | January 28, 2009, 7:26 pm 7:26 pm
We voted for Obama in overwhelming numbers for many reasons, but in large part because we believed he had a vision we believed in, from fixing our economy, to safeguarding our national security, to acceleratiing out efforts to address environmental threats. We signed on to “big and bold” steps to solve these ills.
Now that he has proposed a plan to do just that, why is it that all we hear in the media is what’s wrong with the plan, not what’s right with it? It is a brilliant plan to address economic recovery while concurrently addressing our other serious challenges. Remember? Job creation was the central thrust of his approach. Why is it that every petty criticism that Obama’s Republican opponents throw at it are not taken for what they are, fault-finding and sabotage? It is clear R’s indiscriminately oppose ALL gov’t spending, no matter how dire the need for massive stimulus, and conversely, favor tax cuts for the wealthy for every situation.
We already had massive tax cuts under Bush, and it put us in the ditch. Time for “Change”, remember?
Posted by: Jeannie Brooks | January 29, 2009, 12:59 pm 12:59 pm
To the greedy, shameful (in Obama’s words)who accepted billions in bonuses, from us, the taxpayer. Why can’t we retain the rest of the stimulus payout until these bonuses are returned? We are all in this mess together.
Posted by: Lee P. | January 30, 2009, 1:38 pm 1:38 pm
clean air, i m getting tire of this, i grew up in the 60′s, and 70′s, did anyone one worry about then? If the President wants us to have clean air, and these new cars for clean air, well he can by everyone one, hows that. I think the prisident is forgetting the middle class people again.
thats not worry about the clean air act, thats get the presendent to drop gas and fuel prices and get the those people that got lay off from work, back to work.
Posted by: christine m | January 31, 2009, 6:49 pm 6:49 pm
Didn’t former President Bush have a stimulus package? I remember getting a few bucks from the gov’t. Didn’t the Republicans go for it then?
I am not sure I understand why education is such a big part of President Obama’s stimulus package. I feel education is important but I feel gaining energy independence at this point in time would be more beneficial.
Posted by: Diana S | February 2, 2009, 12:19 am 12:19 am
Is spending our way out of a deficit the same as digging your way out of a hole?
I would think the best way to get out of a hole Is to fill it back in. Fill in a bit step up, scrape the edges some more fill in more and step up till you reach the top. Or should we dig till we reach china?
I don’t think the politicians have a grip on reality right now and I can say that as a Black woman from the hood I think all of them on the left and right should be fired – except maybe, just maybe the 11 Democrats that voted against the Bail out this time around and the Original few who voted against it when Bush first proposed it. They might actually still have some sense
Politicians are playing games when all we want is for them to save America not Pass the Pork and try and tell us it is a good thing.
And I keep thinking don’t the Democrats want to be right, don’t they want to pass something that will work and not just a massive spending increase, they have a chance here to make the republicans eat crow and all they seem to be doing is paying back friends and funding pet projects and not doing anything to fix the underlined problem that started this mess, Fannie and Freddie and the Housing/credit crunch. If they stick with that this bill would not only be cut in less than half but Politically in the eye of the public it would be a huge win. But instead it is all about playing a game instead of saving America or so it seems to the general public.
Posted by: Ayesha | February 6, 2009, 10:06 am 10:06 am
Ayesha is dead on. Enough politics! This bill (if there really has to be one) should be about putting money into the hands of people who can stimulte the economy…not paying off political special interest groups. By the way, on ABC news tonight Krugman already started the “we’re not spending enough” mantra. I believe this is the same excuse that was used to explain away the failure of the “Great Society” 40 years ago. Sadly, there are too many influential people in this country who won’t be satisfied if there is one penny in your pocket that didn’t go through Washington first.
Posted by: Peter | February 8, 2009, 6:49 pm 6:49 pm
the stimulte bill just pay political special interest groups.it is useless for economy.
Posted by: Linda | February 9, 2009, 1:28 pm 1:28 pm
the goverment wants world economy. the working people didn’t ask for it. now the blue collar jobs are all over seas. duh! i wonder why we are broke
Posted by: robert l welker | February 9, 2009, 9:46 pm 9:46 pm
Its amazing how no one has mentioned the pink elephant in the dining room of the economy; the gas price escalation of 2008 and the domino effect it had on the remaining economic indicators. The media and the government must have gotten one hellava kickback for keeping mum.
Posted by: David | February 10, 2009, 6:48 pm 6:48 pm
Instead of giving billions to companies that have already proven they are incompetent… divide that money up amoung the taxpayers and see how much that would stimulate the economy. With a million dollars, we could pay off our mortgage, buy new cars, new furniture, send our kids to school; isn’t THAT stimulating?
Posted by: Sherry Ramos | February 11, 2009, 8:19 am 8:19 am
As always, what they say is not what they do!! They sing an dance pretty to get the voters to vote for them an then reality HITS!! When Obama was wanting everyone to come to his way of thinking to get a vote, everyone thought he was the greatest. Now he visits Canada and he bends like sough dough bread. Now many of the people who voted for him are going deaper than ever in this resession. That group is getting larger and larger. I am with every one on how to spend this stimulus money. The companies will still lay people off and pad the pockets of their CEOs. If they need to save money then they should fire all of the chiefs and save the Indians!!! Base line that I am trying to say is the stimulus of this economy needs to start with the top being cleaned and maybe there will be our economy will revive. ‘Cause too many cheifs spoil anything they touch. It is the same old poitics – you do not see them laying off any of the Congress men or women to save money. Some of them owe more taxes than my house is worth!!! That should be grounds of termination. We need to hold them to the ramification of their choice. We teach our children that there are remifications to the choices we make and if you make a bad decision you need to deal with the good or bad outcome of that decisions. All people need to indeedly be treated the SAME. If you want to really do something GOOD you should start with your own back yard. Get the trash out of our Congress and maybe the grass will grow in the cleaned out space. I could go on and on as I have seen many fasets in this total government system.
Posted by: Jo | February 20, 2009, 5:14 pm 5:14 pm