As fiscal talks continue in Washington, Republicans are already facing several disadvantages. Not only is President Obama holding a stronger hand -- with looming tax hikes, he clearly has more leverage -- polls show the American mainstream more likely to blame the GOP if talks fail.
But for Republicans, it gets worse. They have fairly specific policy goals in mind, but haven't persuaded the public at all. Consider the results of the new ABC News/Washington Post poll, which I turned into a chart.
Republicans are fighting tooth and nail to prevent higher tax rates on income above $250,000, but a clear majority of Americans support the idea. Republicans are pushing limits on tax deductions, and in this case, a plurality of Americans opposes the measure.
And on Medicare, which GOP policymakers are eager to cut, an overwhelming majority of Americans oppose raising the eligibility age -- an idea Republicans have repeatedly floated.
In other words, in the fiscal fight, the American mainstream disagrees with congressional Republicans on everything.
Wait, it gets worse.
When you dig through the internals (pdf) a bit, you find the results broken down by party and ideology, and while higher tax rates on the wealthy remain unpopular on the right, the poll found self-identified Republicans and self-identified conservatives balking at the very ideas GOP policymakers are pushing in Washington.
In other words, the Republicans' own rank-and-file supporters oppose their own party's proposals.
In a rather amusing twist, while only 30% of self-identified liberals support raising the Medicare eligibility age, among those who consider themselves "very conservative," support is even lower, at 29%.
Republicans hope to persuade the White House and congressional Democrats to embrace these far-right provisions, but Republicans haven't even persuaded their own voters yet. If this doesn't strengthen Democrats' resolve in the negotiations, they're not paying close enough attention.
Postscript: At the risk of being overly wonky, it's also worth pausing to note that trying to lower the debt by raising the Medicare eligibility age is an awful idea. Phil Longman had a good piece on this about a year ago.
Raising the Medicare retirement age to 67, a move favored by deficit hawks in both parties, might at first seem to be a reasonable adjustment. Since we are all living much longer, the idea goes, we can afford to wait longer to become entitled to Medicare. But the premise is false. For fully half of the U.S. population (specifically the poor and working-class Americans with earnings at or below the median), life expectancy at 65 is virtually unchanged since the 1970s. In many parts of the country, including much the South, life expectancy at birth for black males is not yet even 65, and in some places it is as low as 59.
As with plans to voucherize Medicare, the primary effect of increasing the age of Medicare eligibility would be to shift costs onto needy individuals, while also leading to worse health outcomes. Nor, in the grander scheme of things, would the proposal save the government much money, since most Medicare spending is concentrated on people well over the age of 67, and many of the people who would be cut from the Medicare rolls would wind up on Medicaid or qualifying for other means-tested government subsidies. The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that if the proposal were fully in effect in 2014 it would generate only about $5.7 billion in net federal savings but would impose twice as much cost ($11.4 billion) on individuals, employers, and states.
Similarly, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities tackled this, as did Paul Krugman, who described the proposal as “a terrible idea.”
First, the underlying notion — Americans are living longer, so retirement programs should start later — is true only of the upper half of the income distribution. Life expectancy for the other half has not risen much….
Second, raising the Medicare age would make America as a whole poorer — because while it might save the government some money (and even that isn’t totally clear, because treatment of some conditions would be delayed and impose higher costs when people finally do get on Medicare), it would push people into higher-cost private coverage. Austin Frakt estimates $2 of private costs for every dollar of budget savings.
This is, in short, a very poor idea — and obviously so. So naturally it’s hardening into orthodoxy among the VSPs.
That Americans hate the idea, too, is just gravy.
Leave a Comment:
Americans understand that raising the medicare eligiblity to 67 would force many of them to work until 67. Two of my employees are still working because we provide insurance. No other reason. (Maybe they like me?)
The alternative is to force people to go gault just at a time they might get sick. I would rather see the medicare tax go up a point or so.
Don't forget vastly increasing giving our tax money to arms dealers.
I could go along with raising the medicare tax and a slight increase in premiums to help stabilize the program. I would like to see studies on the effect of bringing people 55 to 65 into the Medicare system. It would seem to be an idea that business should support since that would likely reduce health insurance costs for employers and employees. It might even help Medicare by spreading health costs among more people who are likely to be healthier. Another possible way to fix Medicare and private insurance is to offer discounted premiums to people who do not smoke or are not overweight since these two factors contribute to a big part of our health costs.
when has public opinion stopped the GOP?
What matters, apparently, is what Grover Norquist, the Koch brothers, and Rupert Murdoch say. I don't recall seeing any of their names on any ballot.
forget "public opinion" when has Reality stopped the GOP
C'mon, folks. Don't you know the minority political party is supposed to run the country/prevent the majority political party from governing? Ask Mitch McConnell and the filibuster-slaphappy Senate Republicans. If the minority political party doesn't get it's way, it Tyranny of the Majority. Tyranny of the Minority is the way the Founding Fathers meant the country to be run.; just ask McConnell, Boehner, Ryan, Cantor, ...
First off, the next chance for the public to have any say is two years away.
A lot can happen in two years -- not least being that the public has a short attention span and is likely to forget all this. Closer to home, enough money from Norquist, the Kochs, etc. can help pin it on the Democrats. And best of all, the Democrats can probably be maneuvered into taking all the blame right away.
Isn't that what "bipartisan" means?
They were on the ballot as Romney/Ryan...and are still in power in republican controlled states...Scott Walker being the poster boy for corruption and Meat Puppetry...There is going to be some frantic "lame duck" sessions in some states as some of the state have lost their R-majority...but look out...the assault on our country continues at the state level...
By the way Mr. Bennen...why is MSNBC trying to be like Fox News? Why are we always subjected to right wing propaganda on MSNBC? Chuck Todd is a closet tea bagger...
The biggest problem with Fox News is they only tell the AWM (angry white men) what they want to hear. As a result AWM were surprised when the nation voted for Obama. They can be completely flumoxed by simple things like arithmatic. Chuck Todd might be a closet tea bagger, but at least we are hearing tea bag stuff and can't claim surprise when tea party ideas begin to gain traction. The same with Morning Joe. The righties on that show provide progressives with a valuable service.
For all of its liberal-leaning, I have to say that MSNBC does try to show both sides of the issue. They regularly have Republican contributors (although Fox et al would argue they are RINOs and don't actually represent TRUE conservative views). Rachel, specifically, has documentation to back up her stories and is always asks her guests if she got the facts of the stories correct before proceeding with the interview. I sometimes flip over to Fox just to see what the RWNJs are ranting about and I have yet to see any liberals invited to offer an opposing view. As with the case of the author, Ricks, any opposing views are quickly shut down. Fair and accurate? Only if by fair you mean one-sided and by accurate you mean their drummed up "facts".
I like MSNBC and its shows. I go into MSNBC feeling secure in the fact that they won't raise my blood pressure, but I always bear in mind that MSNBC is closer to the left than center. I respect them for having folks like Chuck Todd and Morning Joe. I respect Rachel Maddow's unbelievable intelligence and her willingness to sit with far right Republicans on a panel while being the best of the Left Leaning commentators, but I do personally try to seek out news sources that try to be fair and balanced. I try to read what the Washington Post has to say even if they are owned by Right Wing millionaires. I try to listen to NPR and CNN. I in no way take everything of MSNBC says as the news. You can't get the news from one source and expect it to be completely fair.
I agree totally, especially about Chuck Todd. But mainly I dislike his arrogance, even his ad is promoting how important he is. I wonder how long John McCain and the other two "amigos" as Chris Matthews calls them, would continue their misguided assault on Ambassador Rice if msnbc gave it little coverage. Also, it seemed to me that Romney got the lions share of coverage over Obama during the campaign.
I dont know about Chuck being a tea bagger. He is certainly not my favorite and probably closer to the bottom end for me. But I think he tries too hard to appear balance with false equivalences. And I believe Chuck's wife works as a consultant for Dems. Now of course he could still be a right winger.
I did find it interesting that Chuck and wifey attended the White Correspondent with Eric Cantor and wife. They could just be neighbors.
Remember, when you go to a PITA meeting, you won't find any recipes for Beef Stroganoff.
Or, if you wander into a Pork Council Seminar, you will not find any mention of a Vegan diet.
This is what happens when you submit to the echo chamber. The GOP does not believe that they lost because people did not like their ideas. They blame it on voter fraud, too moderate of a candidate, uniformed voters, promises of free stuff, skewed polls, and everything except their policies.
In fact, it is their policies. My Rush Limbaugh listening, Glenn Beck subscribing, Fox News watching mother sat out this election specifically because of Mitt Romney's tax plan to eliminate deductions. If she is not voting GOP because of their policies, there is a real problem with them.
Your mother sounds like a Republicans worst nightmare , a cognoscente voter who is aware of the issues, even if they are 100% Republican
Great post, but don't present charts like this, starting at 20 instead of zero in order to make the difference on the bars look greater than it is. It's a big enough difference on its own - this is Fox News bush-league crap, we should be above that.
Seconded: Starting an axis at something other than 0, especially if done without making clear not of it on the graph, is one of the most basic things on the list of "how to lie with graphs."
It should only ever be done when it is necessary in order to make the graph readable, (e.g. the values are all in the range of 1,000,000 to 1,000,500), and it should always include a clear visual indicator, (e.g. 'breaking' the axis and the bars to make the jump obvious).
so, the republican rank and file isn't down with what their leaders are pushing? big deal. in a rational world, this really might be troublesome for the gop. truth is that the bulk of that rank and file is like an enraged bull, goaded on by the likes of limbaugh, beck, and fox. they can't process the fact that ryan and company would gladly toss their grandmother out of the nursing home. all they can see is that kenyan socialist who's gonna take their assault rifles away. my point, the republican rank and file are two legged sheep, willingly sheared at the ballot box. thank god they are becoming an endangered species.
They're not "endangered" enough yet. More like an animal that's been hurt, keep back cause they'll bite. Sad part is it's not as though they're floating better ideas regarding the issues that we need to confront, they're floating the same failed policy positions as though they don't see that those policies failed US and will continue to fail.
Thank you for a well-researched piece!
The "Silent Voters" seem to be "Voicing Their Voices" in a "Loud and Clear Way" - perhaps, things will start to be better, I hope!
The Old Mountain Goat
So let's see. The Neoclowns want to dismiss the use of the 12th Amendment and stop using the electorate. Tell y'all what...How's about we all swap that one for the 2nd amendment changes we are looking for??? I have this to say to President Obama. My Street Smarts is telling me the Boener is setting you up for a crash on the buttock side. Do not play the nice guy. Walk away. Give them no more ammo to use against you or in this case We The People. Since the election he has found his wicked smile again. He is laughing at you. Let the crap hit the fan and what will be will be. If it gets bad just use your emergency powers and roll over them. Sure they were elected. I wonder how much per vote was given out??? NO ONE TRUSTS THEM ANYMORE.
The President has a color printer in his office, right..? Or he can borrow someone's color printer from down the hall, right..?
Why doesn't he just PRINT OUT THIS CHART and when the Republican'ts whine about "The American People Don't Want Us To Raise Anyone's Taxes", just WHIP IT OUT and slide it across the table..?
If "Everything Is On The Table", why aren't OUR opinions on the table too..?