HIT & RUN BLOG

A recent Reason-Rupe poll asked Americans to rate their favorability towards capitalism, socialism, a free market economy, and a government managed economy. Americans have the most favorable reaction to free markets (69%), followed by capitalism (55%), socialism (36%), and coming in last was a government managed economy (30%). 

Fully 66 percent of Americans have an unfavorable opinion of an economy managed by the government while 58 percent have a negative view of socialism. Only 21 percent reported a negative opinion of free markets but nearly double that, 38 percent, have a negative view of capitalism.

Interestingly, while younger people have a more positive of opinion of socialism and a government managed economy than older people, they are about equally likely to say they favor the free market system and capitalism as older Americans.

Among college-aged Americans, 58 percent report a positive view of socialism and 56 percent a positive view of capitalism. In contrast,  only 28 percent of seniors have a positive view of socialism while 61 percent have a favorable view of capitalism. This may give the impression young people are trending socialist.

However, college-aged Americans are far more supportive of a free market system (72%) than they are of a government-managed economy (49%). Seniors concur with young people on the free market system (74%), while only 28 percent have a positive view of a government-managed economy.

Several forces could likely be at play. First, young people don’t know what these words mean. The fact that they are more favorable toward socialism than a government-managed economy, which if anything is socialism-lite, demonstrates this. Second, young people like free markets and the technology, products, and wealth it creates, but they also want to feel confident the poor have access to what they need. In their minds socialism might simply connote a social safety net rather than government ownership. Third, individuals often trend left in their youth, but may change as they age. Fourth, this cohort of young people may be systematically different from older generations in holding a preference for both markets and government activism. It remains to be determined how this young generation will make the trade-off when markets and government action are at odds.

Examining other demographics differences confirms that capitalism as a concept is more popular among those with more education and income. For instance, 48 percent of those with high school diplomas or less have a favorable view of capitalism, compared with 62 percent of college grads, and 78 percent of those with post-graduate degrees. Those making more than $90,000 a year are 22 points more likely to favor capitalism than those making less than $90,000 a year (73 to 51 percent respectively).

White Americans favor capitalism over socialism 56 to 29 percent. However, African-Americans report being favorable to both capitalism (51%) and socialism (55%). Hispanics are more supportive of capitalism with 53 percent supportive of capitalism, and 45 favorable of socialism.

Democrats are split in half on capitalism and socialism. Fifty-three percent say they have a favorable view of capitalism and 50 percent a favorable view of socialism. In fact nearly 3 in 10 Democrats have a favorable opinion of both socialism and capitalism.

While independents share Democrats' skepticism of capitalism (48% favorable) they are far less supportive of socialism (33% favorable). Republicans predictably are strongly favorable of capitalism 62 to 33 percent, and fervently oppose socialism 18 to 77 percent.

Seven in 10 tea partiers have a favorable view of capitalism. Excluding tea partiers from the calculation, only a slim majority of Americans, 51 percent, have a favorable view of capitalism.

The decision between the free market economy and a government-managed economy is far less controversial. Roughly two-thirds across racial groups favor a free market economy. Nevertheless, while 26 percent of Caucasians have a positive reaction to a government managed economy, roughly 4 in 10 African-Americans and Hispanics have a favorable view a government managed economy.

Education similarly correlates with attitudes with post-graduates being nearly 20 points more likely than high school grads to favor the free market system (83 to 64 percent). Nevertheless, strong majorities across educational groups like free markets.

Differences are also diminished across income groups: 7 in 10 Americans making less than $90,000 a year have a positive view of free markets, as do 8 in 10 Americans making more than $90,000 a year.

Partisans also agree with 7 in 10 favoring free markets. Yet, Democrats are about twice as likely as independents and Republicans to have a favorable view of an economy managed by the government (41 to 20 percent respectively).

These results indicate that the public thinks differently about the words “free markets” and “capitalism.” These words do not carry the same meaning. While Americans don’t like either “socialism” or a “government managed economy” that much, socialism is more palatable to Americans than a government managed economy. This implies Americans must not think that socialism necessarily means the government runs the economy. Instead, Americans may think of socialism as government providing social services. 

The latest Reason-Rupe poll found that 72 percent of Americans are concerned about their state and local government’s ability to fund public employee pensions as currently promised. However, only 39 percent say they are “very” concerned while another 33 percent are only “somewhat concerned.”

This is reflected in how Americans prioritize dealing with public employee pension reform.  Thirty-five percent say public pension reform ought to be a “top priority” for government while another 41 percent say it should be “an important but lower priority” reform. In other words, Americans are moderately concerned about public employee pensions, but have not yet been persuaded it’s a crisis.

Part of the reason is that few Americans are aware public employee pensions are estimated to be underfunded up to $4 trillion dollars. (See here and here). To put this in perspective, this estimate exceeds the total amount of money the United States federal government spent in 2014—$3.5 trillion dollars.

Not surprisingly, older Americans, and are thus thinking more about retirement, and fiscal conservatives are more likely to say pension reform should be a priority.

For instance, 32 percent of private sector employees think pension reform ought to be a top priority, compared to 44 percent of retirees. Prioritization steadily increases with age, for instance, 27 percent of college-aged Americans want government to prioritize pension reform, compared to 34 percent among those 30 to 44 years old, up to 44 percent among those over 65.

Tea partiers are also 10 points more likely to prioritize pension reform—and this cannot be explained by age. Indeed, even younger tea partiers prioritize pension reform. Forty-three percent of tea party supporters want pension reform to be a top priority compared to 33 percent of non-supporters.  Find more discussion of what the public thinks about public pension reform here.

The Reason-Rupe national telephone poll, executed by Princeton Survey Research Associates International, conducted live interviews with 1003 adults on cell phones (501) and landlines (502) January 29-February 2, 2015. The poll’s margin of error is +/-3.8%. Full poll results and methodology can be found here, including poll toplines (pdf) and crosstabs (xls).

The latest Reason-Rupe poll finds that nearly 8 in 10 Americans think that the public should be allowed to vote on increases to public employees pensions and benefits. Support is largely non-partisan with 73 percent of Democrats, 81 percent of independents, and 80 percent of Republicans favoring such votes.

Solid majorities of both public (61%) and private (82%) sector workers also favor allowing the public to vote on such increases. Nevertheless, as one might expect, public employees themselves are more opposed to such a proposal. Indeed government workers are more than twice as likely as private sector workers to oppose allowing the public vote on public pension increases (37 to 16 percent). Find more discussion of what the public thinks about public pension reform here.

The Reason-Rupe national telephone poll, executed by Princeton Survey Research Associates International, conducted live interviews with 1003 adults on cell phones (501) and landlines (502) January 29-February 2, 2015. The poll’s margin of error is +/-3.8%. Full poll results and methodology can be found here, including poll toplines (pdf) and crosstabs (xls).

Actuaries estimate public sector pension plans could be underfunded up to $4 trillion dollars. This means that many state and local governments may not have enough money to fund government employees' pension benefits. This could also mean that governments raise taxes or cut services to pay promised pension benefits—thereby holding the taxpayer responsible, or cut pension benefits—holding government workers responsible.

In short: pension reform requires trade-offs—tough trade offs. Governments have largely promised government workers defined-benefit pension plans, which guarantee a regular pension payment for the rest of government retirees’ lives. Because they are guaranteed, taxpayers are on the hook regardless of how well government and the employees contribute or how well the market performs. In contrast, private sector workers generally save for retirement with 401-k style retirement accounts based on what they and their employer contribute and market returns. In other words, private sector employees are responsible for their own retirement savings. 

The latest Reason-Rupe poll took these difficult questions to the American people to ask how they would make trade-offs between promises made to government workers and taxpayer bailouts of the pension programs. As one might expect, significant differences emerge between public sector workers and private sector workers.

Part of the issue is that private sectors workers think government employees’ benefits are better than those with similar jobs in the private sector by a margin of 60 to 36 percent. Moreover, private sector workers tend to hold both government officials and public employees responsible for the underfunded pension problem, while government workers primarily blame government officials. Consequently, private sector workers approve of a number of proposed reforms to control public employee pension costs that public employees predictably oppose.

Calculating Defined Benefit Contributions

For instance, 62 percent of private sector employees favor setting a cap on the dollar amount of annual pension payments government workers are allowed to receive and 33 percent oppose. In contrast, 53 percent of government workers oppose such a salary cap, while 38 percent favor.

Similarly, 58 percent of private sector workers say government worker pensions should be based on salary alone, but government workers think (55%) employees should be allowed to increase their pensions by also counting unused sick time, vacation time, and specialty pay.

Shifting Government Workers to 401k Style Accounts

Many reformers believe that shifting public employees from defined benefit pensions that keep taxpayers on the hook to 401k-style accounts like those in the private sector will be more sustainable in the future and less costly to taxpayers. However, government workers oppose such a transition, and understandably so. Shifting to 401k-style accounts would essentially break a promise (and a contract) made to government workers when they took their jobs and hold them more responsible for saving for their own retirements like private sector workers.

Not surprisingly private sector workers—who largely fund government workers’ defined benefit pensions—strongly favor shifting current employees to 401k style accounts by a margin of 65 to 31 percent. However, public employees oppose 52 to 46 percent. Nevertheless, a slim majority of government workers would favor such a reform if it only applied to future government workers, and not themselves (54 percent favor to 43 percent oppose).

When survey respondents were asked if they would favor 401k-style accounts for government workers if it meant “benefits were not guaranteed and would depend on how well the employees and government save and invest,” 57 percent of private sector workers continue to favor such a transition, only an 8 point decrease. Public employees would continue to oppose 61 to 37 percent.

The one message tested that persuaded private sector employees to oppose a shift was if “this meant breaking a contract made with public employees when they first accepted their jobs.” Fifty-two percent would oppose such a shift and 43 percent would continue to favor. Public employees continued to oppose 73 to 25 percent.

Interestingly, government workers remain opposed to 401k-style accounts even if that means taxes would have to be raised on everyone else or government would have to cut services. Indeed, 56 percent would still oppose a shift if otherwise taxes would need to be raised and 54 would oppose if otherwise government would need to reduce services. Private sector workers were much opposed to both these alternatives, particularly tax hikes. Fully 73 percent would favor shifting government workers to 401k-style accounts if otherwise taxes would be raised and 64 percent would favor a shift if otherwise government services would be cut.

Funding Current Pensions

While shifting government workers into 401k-style accounts may ease the future burden on taxpayers, this does not sufficiently address the current problem of promised, underfunded benefits. Once again, the primary proposed reforms include tax hikes, service cuts, or reforming public employee pensions.  

In the absence of concrete trade-offs, both government workers and private sector employees oppose raising taxes or cutting government services to fund pension benefits. Similarly, roughly 7 in 10 of both private and public workers oppose cutting benefits to already retired government employees.

However, the two groups diverge over current government employees. Government workers also oppose (68%) reducing their own future pension benefits while private sector workers marginally favor (51%).

The reform that both public and private sector workers agree upon to deal with underfunded pensions is to increase government workers’ required pension contributions (65% of public employees, 88% of private employees favor).

Nevertheless, while government employees are willing to contribute more, they don’t think they should have to contribute at least 50 percent of their pensions costs with 53 percent opposed and 46 percent in favor. Conversely, 6 in 10 private sector workers find it appropriate for government workers to contribute at least half of their retirement benefit costs.

While increasing required employee contributions may help alleviate the underfunded pension problem, it will likely be insufficient. In these situations, localities may find their two options are to raise taxes/cut government services or cut public employee pensions. When the trade-offs are presented this way, private and public workers reach consensus:

Nearly three-fourths of government workers and more than 8 in 10 private sector workers would prefer to “renegotiate public employee contracts to reduce pension benefits and make current employees contribute more to their own pension” rather than raise “property, sales, and/or income taxes” or “reduce public services ranging from police and fire protection to recreation.”

Particularly striking, when given the choice between tax hikes/service cuts and reducing pensions for already retired public employees, both private (73%) and public (53%) employees oppose raising taxes to pay benefits at current levels.  When it comes to government service cuts to pay benefits to already retired government workers, 57 percent of private sector workers oppose, but 52 percent of public employees would favor.

In sum, neither taxpayers nor government workers want to be responsible for fixing the public pension crisis. To be sure, public employees would prefer to not raise taxes or cut services for taxpayers and private sector workers would prefer not to break a contract made with government employees. Nevertheless, public employees tend to prefer policies that would keep taxpayers on the hook for dealing with the crisis, just as taxpayers want government employees to solve the problem on their own. However, when trade-offs are made clear and concrete: either tax hikes/service cuts or renegotiate government workers’ contracts to reduce pension benefits, both groups agree on the later.

The Reason-Rupe national telephone poll, executed by Princeton Survey Research Associates International, conducted live interviews with 1003 adults on cell phones (501) and landlines (502) January 29-February 2, 2015. The poll’s margin of error is +/-3.8%. Full poll results and methodology can be found here, including poll toplines (pdf) and crosstabs (xls). 

• Toplines (.pdf)
• Questionnaire
• Methodology
• Detailed Tables

The new Reason-Rupe national telephone poll of 1,003 adults finds 72 percent of Americans are concerned their state and local governments may not be able to afford the pensions that have been promised to government workers. With those worries in mind, 82 percent favor requiring current public employees to contribute more towards their own future pensions and benefits.

A majority of Americans, 53 percent, believe public employees should contribute at least 50 percent of the cost of their retirement benefits. Fifty-eight percent of Americans favor setting a cap on the maximum dollar amount of annual pension payments public workers can receive during retirement, while 35 percent oppose a cap on pension payments.

Sixty-seven percent of Americans favor shifting future public employees, those who haven’t been hired yet, from guaranteed defined-benefit pensions to 401(k)-style retirement accounts and 59 percent of Americans favor shifting current public employees to a 401(k)-style retirement system.  However, only 38 percent of Americans support transitioning current public employees from guaranteed pensions to 401(k)-style retirement accounts if it means breaking a contract with existing workers. At the same time, 6 in 10 would favor such a transition if otherwise taxes would have to be raised or government services reduced.

Ultimately, sixty-six percent of Americans think shifting public employees from guaranteed pensions to 401(k)-style retirement accounts is a “good idea” because 401(k)-style accounts “give employees flexibility to take the plan with them from job to job and are less costly to taxpayers,” while 29 percent say such a reform is a “bad idea” because “benefits would not be guaranteed and would depend on how well the employees and governments saved and how the market performs.”

Trade-Offs in Pension Reform

Reason-Rupe posed a series of questions to gauge how Americans weigh specific aspects of the trade-offs that governments may be confronted with and it is clear Americans do not want to cut services or raise taxes to pay for public pensions.

Seventy-seven percent of Americans oppose reducing spending on services like education, health care and infrastructure so that the funding can be used to pay for public employee benefits at current levels. Similarly, 74 percent of Americans oppose raising property taxes, sales taxes or income taxes to fund a public pension shortfall.

But Americans don’t want to cut current workers’ or retirees’ benefits, unless they have to.  Seventy-one percent oppose reducing pension benefits that are currently being paid to already-retired public employees, while 27 percent favor a reduction in benefits to these retirees. Fifty-three percent of Americans oppose reducing current public employees’ future pension benefits, while 44 percent favor reducing the pension benefits of current government employees who have not yet retired.

Nevertheless, when confronted with the hard choice of pension reforms or higher taxes, 81 percent of Americans say public employee contracts should be renegotiated to reduce pension benefits and current employees should contribute more to their own pensions, while 16 percent say taxes should be raised to fully fund public pensions at promised levels.

Likewise, when presented with the choice between cutting government services and pension reform, Americans choose the latter. Eight in 10 Americans favor renegotiating public employee contracts to reduce pension benefits and making current employees contribute more to their own pensions, while 15 percent favor reducing public services ranging from police and fire protection to recreation so that pensions can be maintained at current levels for past and present public employees.

Public Concern About Underfunded Pension Systems

Seventy-two percent of Americans are concerned that their local and state governments won’t be able to fund public employee pensions as currently promised. Thirty-nine percent are “very concerned”; 33 percent are “somewhat concerned”; 15 percent of Americans are “not too concerned”; and 11 percent are “not concerned at all” about government’s capacity to pay for public pensions.

Seventy-six percent of Americans think pension reform should be a priority for government: 35 percent say it should be a “top priority” and 41 percent say it should be an “important but lower priority.”

Nearly three-quarters of Americans, 74 percent, are concerned their local or state governments will raise taxes in order to pay for public employee pension obligations in the future. Forty-two percent are “very concerned” and 32 percent are “somewhat concerned.”

Despite the size of unfunded pension liabilities across the country, half of Americans say their local or state governments have not raised taxes or cut services nor have plans to do so to help pay for public pension costs. Roughly a quarter says their governments have raised taxes or reduced services or have plans to do so to help pay for pension costs, and another quarter say they don’t know.

Public Employees Favorability and Benefits

Half, 50 percent, of Americans approve of the job President Barack Obama is doing, while 44 percent disapprove.  Just 23 percent of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing, while 69 percent disapprove.

A majority, 54 percent, of Americans has a favorable view of public employees (24 percent have a “strongly favorable” view and 30 percent have a “somewhat favorable” view), while 28 percent have a “neutral” view of public workers, nine percent have a “somewhat unfavorable” view, and five percent have a “strongly negative” view.

Regarding the retirement benefits public employees receive, 52 percent of Americans believe public employees receive better benefits than private sector workers in similar jobs, while 24 percent think public and private-sector worker benefits are about the same, and 19 percent believe government workers have worse benefits of those in similar positions in the private sector.

A strong majority of Americans, 78 percent, believes the public should get to vote on any increases to public employee pensions, while 20 percent say the public should not get to vote.

Retirement and health care benefits are highly valued by Americans. When considering whether to take a new job or stay at their existing job, 30 percent of Americans say benefits such as health care and 401(k) savings are the most important factor, followed by how interesting the work is (20 percent), earning the highest pay possible (17 percent), making a difference in society (13 percent), a pension (nine percent), and a flexible work schedule (seven percent).

When asked to choose, 65 percent of Americans would rather take a job with a lower salary but more health and retirement benefits, while 33 percent would rather take a job with a higher salary but fewer health and retirement benefits.

Contact

Kristen Kelley, Communications Specialist, Reason Foundation, (443) 722-5592

Americans like the police, but older, more affluent, white, conservative Republicans really like the police. Fully 72 percent of Americans say they have a favorable view of the police, and 24 percent have an unfavorable view, according to the latest Reason-Rupe poll. However, favorability has declined 6 points since the question was asked in April earlier this year. It’s possible greater public awareness of police militarization in the aftermath of the Ferguson, MO protests has undermined public confidence.

While majorities of Americans have a favorable opinion of the police, intensity of support varies widely across groups. Most striking are differences across race/ethnicity.

Fully 80 percent of white Americans have a positive view of the police, with 43 percent who are very favorable. However only 52 percent of black and Hispanic Americans share this favorable view, and only 2 in 10 have a strongly favorable opinion of the police. Forty-three percent of African-Americans and 46 percent of Latinos have an unfavorable view of the police, compared to 17 percent of Caucasians.

Democrats (66%) and independents (60%) are also considerably less favorable of the police compared to Republicans (85%). However, different racial compositions within the political parties explain part of the difference. Only 55 percent of nonwhite Democrats like the police, compared to 75 percent of white Democrats, and 86 percent of white Republicans.

While liberals tend to be more distrustful of the police than conservatives—fiscal conservatives are themselves divided. Using the Reason-Rupe typology, social conservatives (51%) are more likely than libertarians (41%) to have a strongly favorable view. Only 30 percent of liberals and 35 percent of communitarians share conservatives’ strongly favorable attitudes toward the police.

Older and wealthier Americans are also more likely to like the police. For instance, 83 percent of seniors are very favorable toward the police, and fully 50 percent are very favorable. In contrast, 60 percent of 18-29 years are favorable, and 30 percent are very favorable. Similarly by income, 83 percent of households making more than $90,000 a year have a favorable view, including 47 percent with a strongly favorable opinion. However, considerably fewer (65%) among those making less than $45,000 annually share a favorable view of the police, including only 30 percent with a strongly favorable view.

A standard statistical procedure to simultaneously account for basic demographic characteristics finds that being Caucasian, higher income, and from the South are the strongest statistically significant predictors of support for the police, followed by being a Republican, and a woman.

As to be expected, those who have a favorable view of police officers are most likely to think officers are generally held accountable for misconduct (61%), only use lethal force when necessary (59%), and believe the criminal justice system is fair to all races (51%). Conversely, those with a negative view of the police are far less likely to believe police officers are held accountable (22%), use lethal force only when necessary (22%), and say the justice system lacks racial bias (26%).

The Reason-Rupe national telephone poll, executed by Princeton Survey Research Associates International, conducted live interviews with 1004 adults on cell phones (503) and landlines (501) October 1-6, 2014. The poll’s margin of error is +/-3.8%. Full poll results can be found here including poll toplines (pdf) and crosstabs (xls). 

Senators Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Rand Paul (R-KY) have teamed up this year to introduce several bills aimed at reforming the nation’s criminal justice system. The latest Reason-Rupe poll finds Americans are receptive to several of the proposed reforms.

77% Favor Eliminate Mandatory Minimums for Nonviolent Offenders

The latest Reason-Rupe poll finds that 77 percent of Americans favor eliminating mandatory minimum prison sentences so that judges have the ability to make sentencing decisions on a case-by-case basis. Seventeen percent oppose this policy change, and 6 percent don’t have an opinion.

Support for eliminating mandatory minimums has increased 6 points since the poll first asked this question in December 2013.

Returning sentencing discretion to judges is popular across partisanship, race, age, income, and education. For instance, 81 percent of Democrats support eliminating mandatory minimums, as do 75 percent of independents and 73 percent of Republicans, including 69 percent of tea party supporters. Similarly, 77 percent of white Americans, 80 percent of African-Americans, and 73 percent of Hispanics favor eliminating mandatory minimum prison sentences for nonviolent offenders.

73% of Americans Support Restoring Voting Rights

Americans also support restoring voting rights to nonviolent drug offenders who have served their sentences by a margin of 73 to 24 percent.

Restoring voting rights is also widely popular across demographic groups, although Democrats are more supportive. Eighty-one percent of Democrats favor allowing nonviolent drug offenders who have served their sentences to vote and 17 percent oppose. In contrast, 66 percent of non-partisan independents and 64 percent of Republicans agree; 28 and 32 percent oppose, respectively.

Solid majorities across race/ethnic groups agree, but to different degrees. Fully 91 percent of African-Americans support restoring voting rights, compared to 66 percent of Hispanics and 72 percent of Caucasians.

Americans Sharply Divided Over Sealing Court Records

Americans are sharply divided on whether to allow nonviolent drug offenders to petition a court to have their records sealed once they’ve served their sentences, making them inaccessible to the public without a court order, with 47 percent in favor and 48 percent opposed.

Significant partisan and demographic differences emerge on allowing nonviolent drug offenders to petition a court to have their court records sealed.

Slim majorities of Democrats (53%) and non-partisan Independents (51%) support this reform, but a majority of Republicans oppose (59%). Notably, tea party supporters are no more likely to oppose (54%) than regular Republicans.

White Americans oppose allowing nonviolent drug offenders to petition a court to have their court records sealed by a margin of 53 to 43 percent. Conversely, a majority of black (56%) and Hispanic (64%) Americans favor this reform, while only a third oppose.

Men are slightly more likely to favor than women: 51 percent of men favor, 43 percent oppose; inversely, 43 percent of women favor and 53 percent oppose.

The two youngest generations, Generation X and the Millennials support allowing court records to be sealed, while the two older generations—the Baby Boomers and Silent Generation—oppose. In fact 57 percent of Americans under 45 favor allowing nonviolent drug offenders to petition to have their records sealed and 39 percent oppose. However, by age 45, majorities of Americans begin to oppose this type of reform: 57 percent oppose and 38 percent favor.

Notably, majorities of both white and nonwhite Americans under 45 support this reform (54 and 59 percent respectively). Only white Americans over 45 oppose allowing court records to be sealed, 61 to 36 percent. Older nonwhite Americans are evenly divided at 46 percent.

Politicians may find criminal justice reform to be a winning issue for them going forward for two primary reasons. First, support is relatively stable within age cohorts, meaning that younger Americans support criminal justice reform and will likely continue to do so even as they age. Second, racial differences largely disappear across young white and nonwhite Americans, meaning that support for reform is broadly popular.

More from Reason’s Lauren Galik on criminal justice reform, Annual Privatization Report 2014, Criminal Justice and Corrections.

The Reason-Rupe national telephone poll, executed by Princeton Survey Research Associates International, conducted live interviews with 1004 adults on cell phones (503) and landlines (501) October 1-6, 2014. The poll’s margin of error is +/-3.8%. Full poll results can be found here including poll toplines (pdf)  and crosstabs (xls). 

AP Photos

While 73 percent of Americans say most members of Congress do not deserve to be reelected this November, Reason-Rupe finds that 53 percent are yet still satisfied with the candidates running for Congress in their own districts. However, only 9 percent report being “very satisfied” while 44 percent are “somewhat satisfied.” Thirty-four percent are unsatisfied (20% somewhat, 14% very), while 12 percent don’t have an opinion.

In keeping with America’s federalist tradition, Americans are more supportive of candidates closer to home. Fifty-seven percent say they are satisfied with candidates for state level offices, and a third are dissatisfied. Slightly more, 62 percent, are satisfied with candidates for local level offices, and a quarter are dissatisfied.

Strong Democratic (60%) and Republican (56%) partisan voters are about equally likely to report satisfaction for their districts' House and Senate candidates for the upcoming midterm elections. Only 3 in 10 report dissatisfaction with state-level candidates.

However, independent and independent-leaning Republican voters are least likely to be happy with candidates running in their districts. Instead, 53 percent of non-partisan independents and 48 percent of independent-leaning Republican voters say they are dissatisfied with the House and Senate candidates running in their districts. Independent-leaning Democrats are similar to strong Democrats with only 30 percent dissatisfied.  

Similarly at the state-level, pluralities of Independents and independent leaning-Republicans are dissatisfied (roughly 46%) with state level candidate options, while about 4 in 10 are satisfied. Conversely, majorities (6 in 10) of strong partisans are satisfied with state-level candidate choices, and 27 percent are dissatisfied.

Independents are more supportive of local-level candidates. Both partisan and independent leaners are satisfied with candidates for local level offices—roughly 60 to 70 percent. About a quarter are dissatisfied.

Only at the local level do a plurality (48%) of non-partisan independents report satisfaction with candidate options, with a third dissatisfied.

Taking a closer look at who these dissatisfied voters are reveals they tend to come disproportionately from independent and independent-leaning Republican voters, are more male (57%), and are more likely to favor smaller government and free market solutions to complex economic problems.

These results comport with oft-found survey results that Americans dislike Congress but like their own member of Congress. They also demonstrate that candidates running closer to home receive higher marks than federal-level candidates.

These data also suggest that Republican candidates must deal with more unpredictable voters, as independent-leaning Republicans are considerably less happy with their candidates than independent-leaning Democrats and partisan voters.

The Reason-Rupe national telephone poll, executed by Princeton Survey Research Associates International, conducted live interviews with 1004 adults on cell phones (503) and landlines (501) October 1-6, 2014. The poll’s margin of error is +/-3.8%. Full poll results can be found here including poll toplines (pdf)  and crosstabs (xls). 

The latest Reason-Rupe poll finds 70 percent of Americans favor legalizing over-the-counter birth control pills and patches without a doctor’s prescription, 26 percent oppose such a proposal, and 4 percent don’t know enough to say. There has been a slight uptick in support for OTC birth control, rising from 66 percent in May of 2013. Moreover, Reason-Rupe finds that women across income groups highly support legalizing OTC birth control at about the same rates.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have announced their support for such a proposal arguing it could improve contraceptive access and use and decrease unintended pregnancy rates. Republicans too have been pushing for this reform, with Democrats surprisingly reluctant.

Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal raised the idea in 2012 in his widely read Wall Street Journal op-ed:

“As an unapologetic pro-life Republican, I also believe that every adult (18 years old and over) who wants contraception should be able to purchase it. But anyone who has a religious objection to contraception should not be forced by government health-care edicts to purchase it for others. And parents who believe, as I do, that their teenage children shouldn't be involved with sex at all do not deserve ridicule.”

Planned Parenthood and some Democrats have pushed back, expressing concerns that legalizing OTC birth control would require women to pay for it, rather than have it paid for by their health insurance premiums. For instance, Rebecca Leber explained:

"For low-income women, cost can be what’s most prohibitive. Under the Affordable Care Act, the pill and other forms of contraception count as preventative care, which means insurance covers them completely—without any out-of-pocket expenses."

Planned Parenthood recently released an ad in North Carolina warning: “Just when insurance is finally covering the cost of prescription birth control, Thom Tillis [the Republican] says no—women should pay the $600 dollars a year…he’s turning the pill into yet another bill.” To be clear, Democrats are not necessarily opposed to legalizing OTC birth control, but rather they want to ensure women don’t have to pay for it.

Reason’s own Elizabeth Brown has countered:

"Affordability isn’t the only factor in making something accessible. Those championing the contraception mandate as a way to increase access assume everyone always has insurance coverage. What about undocumented women? Or those between jobs and temporarily uninsured? What about young women who can’t let their parents know they’re on the pill? Or domestic abuse victims who want to keep this information from their husbands? These are just a few of the situations in which a woman would find OTC pills much more accessible and affordable than the prescription-only kind, even if those prescription pills came with no co-pay."

Despite costs concerns, OTC birth control legalization receives strong support from women across income groups at roughly the same rates. Among women making less than $30,000 a year, 65 percent support legalization and 35 percent oppose. In the middle, women making between $30K-$60K a year support the proposal 70 to 29 percent. And again, among women making more than $60,000 a year, 67 percent support and 32 percent oppose legalizing OTC birth control.

Men too support legalization, 71 percent to 21 percent, similar to women, 68 to 30 percent.

In addition, support for legalization is high across race and ethnicity. Seventy-two percent of Caucasians, 73 percent of African-Americans, and 61 percent of Hispanics say OTC birth control should be legal

Legalization has bi-partisan support as well. In fact, Republicans and Democrats support it at roughly the same level (65% and 69% respectively) with Independents even more in favor (74%).

Elite debate over the issue has trickled down to some degree, with libertarians (75%) and conservatives (71%) more in favor than liberals (64%) and communitarians (62%). (Political groups identified using the Reason-Rupe three-question screen).

Despite concerns over the cost of OTC birth control, strong majorities across income groups favor the proposal. For instance, 64 percent of Americans making less than $30,000 annually support legalization as do 69 percent of those making more than $100,000.

The Reason-Rupe national telephone poll, executed by Princeton Survey Research Associates International, conducted live interviews with 1004 adults on cell phones (503) and landlines (501) October 1-6, 2014. The poll’s margin of error is +/-3.8%. Full poll results can be found here including poll toplines (pdf)  and crosstabs (xls) 

The latest Reason-Rupe poll finds that a solid majority—66 percent—of Americans favors conducting air strikes against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. While 52 percent oppose sending ground troops to Iraq, 58 percent believe sending at least a small number of troops (24%) or even a large number (34%) will be necessary to successfully combat ISIS.

While Politicians often wish to avoid discussing trade-offs, the Reason-Rupe poll asked Americans how they would like to pay for military against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Somewhat predictably, two groups emerge: 35 percent say cut non-entitlement federal spending, another 34 percent say raise taxes on wealthy people. Another 8 percent say we should raise taxes on all income groups, 6 percent want to borrow the money, and 4 percent want to cut entitlement programs to pay for military action.

If federal spending had to be cut to pay for military action, Americans say they would first cut social safety net programs (19%) like food stamps, unemployment benefits, and Medicaid, another 17 percent say they would cut infrastructure and transportation spending. Nine percent would cut government-funded science and medical research, 7 percent would cut entitlement programs, 3 percent would cut education, 2 percent would cut veterans programs. In fact, a total of 8 percent actually volunteered another answer that was not offered on the survey: cutting Congressional salaries. Another three percent said there were literally no programs that could be cut. One middle-aged man from Philadelphia said “none of the programs” could be cut because “they are all vital to our survival.” Twelve percent offered a variety of other smaller programs to cut, and another 19 percent didn’t know what to cut.

Overall, these data reflect a predictable pattern—Americans want other people to bear the costs of various government activity, either in form of taxing rich people or cutting social services for low-income individuals.

The Reason-Rupe national telephone poll, executed by Princeton Survey Research Associates International, conducted live interviews with 1004 adults on cell phones (503) and landlines (501) October 1-6, 2014. The poll’s margin of error is +/-3.8%. Full poll results can be found here including poll toplines (pdf)  and crosstabs (xls).