Program for Public Consultation (PPC)

Permanent URI for this collectionhttp://hdl.handle.net/1903/14753

The Program for Public Consultation (PPC) is joint program of the Center on Policy Attitudes (COPA) and the School of Public Policy at the University of Maryland. PPC was established to develop the methods and theory of public consultation and to conduct public consultations. In particular it will work with government agencies to help them consult their citizens on key public policy issues that the government faces. The Center on Policy Attitudes was established in 1992 with the express purpose of giving the public a greater voice in the public policy process. Its staff includes social scientists trained in various forms of research, especially survey research, as well as having broad background in public policy.

Browse

Now showing 1 - 20 of 38

Assessing the Iran Deal
(2015-09) Kull, Steven; Ramsay, Clay; Lewis (aka Fehsenfeld), Evan; Gallagher, Nancy; Pierce, Eric
A majority of a national citizen advisory panel, made up of a representative sample of American registered voters, recommends Congress approve the deal recently negotiated between Iran, the United States and other permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (plus Germany) on Iran’s nuclear program. After assessing strong critiques of the terms of the deal – including rebuttals – and then evaluating the pros and cons of alternatives, 55 percent concluded that Congress should approve the agreement, despite serious concerns about some of its details. Twenty-three percent recommended ratcheting up sanctions instead, 14 percent favored renewing negotiations to get better terms, and 7 percent recommended threatening Iran with military strikes unless they agree to better terms.
How Americans Would Fix the U. S. Postal Service: A Survey of the Citizen Cabinet, Nationally and in Maryland, Oklahoma, and Virginia
(2015-11) Kull, Steven; Ramsey, Clay; Lewis (aka Fehsenfeld), Evan; Pierce, Eric; Williams, Antje
Citizen Cabinet surveys are unique in that they take respondents through a process called a ‘policymaking simulation’ which seeks to simulate the process that policymakers go through in making a policy decision. The focus of this policymaking simulation is a series of reform options for the U.S. Postal Service, including ones that would mitigate or end the prefunding requirement for retiree benefits, increase revenues, or reduce operating costs. These options were based on proposals from the Postmaster General, the Inspector General, and bills under consideration in the Senate and House.
As Candidates Prepare to Debate Social Security, Americans Agree On a Path to Fix It
(2016-10-18) Kull, Steven; Ramsay, Clay; Lewis (aka Fehsenfeld), Evan; Williams, Antje
According to the Social Security Trustees’ Report, if no steps are taken by Congress to reform Social Security, its trust fund will be exhausted in 2033, and after that, the program will only be able to deliver benefits based on current receipts--which would result in a 23% benefit cut to retirees. A major reason that Social Security has not been addressed is a widespread assumption that the American public is not willing or able to face the issue and thus bringing it up is too politically risky. Social Security has been called a ‘third rail,’ implying that it is political suicide to address it. Much of the existing polling data tends to reinforce the belief that the public’s attitudes toward Social Security are too conflicted and anxious to support any kind of constructive action. While majorities believe that Social Security is headed for a crisis, when asked, in separate questions, about raising the retirement age, cutting benefits, or raising taxes, majorities often say they do not find these options appealing. Citizen Cabinet surveys take a different approach that goes beyond initial reactions. Rather than a series of separate questions, respondents go through a process called a ‘policymaking simulation’ in which they are asked to go into a problem‐solving mode. The objective is to put respondents in the shoes of a policymaker. Respondents are given a background briefing, presented arguments for and against policy options, and then finally make their recommendations.
Americans on Solving the Medicare Shortfall
(2017-10-31) Kull, Steven; Ramsay, Clay; Lewis (aka Fehsenfeld), Evan; Williams, Antje
Given current policy crosscurrents, it is little wonder that even raising the subject of Medicare policy seems to open the door to anxiety among the public and among Medicare recipients. This consultation seeks to provide a framework that lets the public consider multiple possible changes that experts have evaluated and scored, without being locked into an “either/or” choice of keeping everything the same versus changing the nature of Medicare. DEVELOPMENT OF THE POLICYMAKING SIMULATION The present policymaking simulation includes eleven different options estimated to aid Medicare’s fiscal condition over the next 25 years, as the babyboomer generation passes through the program. These options selected were previously scored by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), except for one scored by the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission or MEDPAC, another independent agency that advises Congress. They considered sixteen reform options which fell under four categories:  Reducing Medicare’s Net Payments for Benefits  Reducing Payments to Providers  Increasing Revenues  Controlling Costs in Other Ways
Americans on Tax Reform
(2017-11-21) Kull, Steven; Lewis (aka Fehsenfeld), Evan; Martens, Francesca; Koeppel, Austin
INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAXES Income Taxes on the Wealthy ‐ When presented the effective tax rates for different income brackets, for incomes over $200,000, less than a quarter favored reductions, including fewer than four in ten Republicans and less than a third in very red districts. Rather an overall majority favored increasing taxes by 5% or more for incomes over $200,000, with this majority increasing at progressively higher income brackets. Among Republicans, nearly half favored increases on incomes over $500,000, while in very red districts this was a majority. Income Taxes on the Middle Class ‐ Modest majorities proposed reducing taxes on those with incomes from $30,000 to $50,000 by 5%. This included a substantial majority of Republicans, only half of Democrats, but a modest majority in very blue districts. For income of $50,000 to $100,000 there was no majority support for increases or decreases, but a majority of Republicans cut taxes by 5%. Deducting State and Local Taxes ‐ Nearly seven in ten, including a majority of Republicans and six in ten in very red districts, opposed the proposal in the House bill to eliminate the deductions for state and local taxes on individual federal income taxes, including property taxes. Six in ten opposed the proposal in the Senate bill to eliminate the deductions for state and local taxes, with an exception for $10,000 for property taxes. In this case, a majority of Republicans favored the proposal, but a substantial majority in very red districts were opposed. Mortgage Deduction ‐ Views were divided on the proposal to lower the maximum amount of deductible interest for new mortgages to the interest paid on $500,000 on all home mortgages. Six in ten Republicans favored the proposal, while six in ten Democrats were opposed. Very red and very blue districts were similarly polarized. Reducing and Then Eliminating the Estate Tax ‐ A modest majority opposed eliminating the estate tax in six years and in the meantime doubling the amount that can be transferred tax‐free. Three quarters of Democrats and six in ten independents opposed the proposal while three-quarters of Republicans favored it. In blue districts, majorities were opposed, including six in ten in very blue districts. In very red districts a majority favored it, but in other red districts views were divided. CORPORATE TAXES Corporate Tax Rates ‐ Six in ten opposed lowering the top corporate tax rate from 35% to 20%, including eight in 10 Democrats and two-thirds of independents. Two-thirds of Republicans favored the idea, but majorities opposed it in red districts, including nearly six in ten in very red districts. Territorial Tax ‐ The least popular proposal, opposed by nearly seven in ten, is to eliminate the U.S. corporate income tax on profits made by their subsidiaries in other countries. More than eight in ten Democrats and nearly seven in ten independents were opposed. Republicans were evenly divided, but in very red districts nearly seven in ten were opposed. Pass‐Through Businesses ‐ Overall views were divided about the proposal in the House bill to set a new maximum tax rate for owners of 'pass‐through' businesses at 25%. Three quarters of Democrats and a slight majority of independents were opposed while three-quarters of Republicans were in favor. Very red districts were in favor, while very blue districts were opposed. Immediate Expensing ‐ Views are divided on the proposal to allow businesses for the next five years to deduct the full amount of their investments (other than buildings) in the year they make the investments. Three‐quarters of Republicans favor the proposal, while nearly three-quarters of Democrats are opposed. Very red districts were in favor, while very blue districts were opposed.
Overwhelming Bi-Partisan Majority Opposes Allowing Churches, Other Nonprofits, to Engage in Political Activity
(2017-11-28) Kull, Steven; Fehsenfeld, Evan; Martens, Francesca; Lewitus, Evan Charles
An overwhelming majority of 79% voters oppose the proposal to allow churches and other non-profit organizations to endorse political candidates and provide them money and other support. This includes 71% of Republicans as well as 88% of Democrats and 78% on independents. Most (55%) say it is ‘very important’ to keep the current law. The proposal to reverse the Johnson Amendment, which prohibits political activity by tax-exempt organizations, is in the House tax reform bill and in other proposed legislation, including H.R. 172, H.R. 781, and S. 264.
Large Scale Study Finds Majorities in Very Red Districts Oppose Key Provisions in Tax Reform Bill
(2017-11-29) Kull, Steven; Lewis (aka Fehsenfeld), Evan; Martens, Francesca; Koeppel, Austin
An in-depth survey on tax reform finds that majorities in very red districts, as well as very blue districts, oppose key provisions in the Republican tax reform bills including reducing taxes on the wealthy, reducing the corporate tax, eliminating or limiting state and local tax deductions, and eliminating the tax on income from subsidiaries in other countries. However, very red districts favor, while very blue districts oppose, eliminating the estate tax, lowering the tax on pass-through businesses, lowering the cap on the mortgage deduction, and allowing immediate expensing by businesses for a five year period. The study, conducted by the University of Maryland’s Program for Public Consultation (PPC), was released by Voice of the People, a nonpartisan organization seeking to give citizens a greater voice in public policy. The sample of 2,637 registered voters was large enough to make it possible to divide the sample six ways according to the partisan dominance of the respondent’s district, ranging from very red (Republican) to very blue (Democrat), based on Cook’s PVI ratings.
Overwhelming Bipartisan Majority Opposes Repealing Net Neutrality
(2017-12) Kull, Steven; Fehsenfeld, Evan; Martens, Francesca; Lewitus, Evan Charles
Overwhelming bipartisan majorities oppose the plan that the Federal Communications Commission will consider this Thursday, December 14, to repeal the regulations requiring net neutrality. Respondents were given a short briefing and asked to evaluate arguments for and against the proposal before making their final recommendation. The survey content was reviewed by experts in favor and against net neutrality, to ensure that the briefing was accurate and balanced and that the strongest arguments were presented. At the conclusion, 83% opposed repealing net neutrality, including 75% of Republicans, as well as 89% of Democrats and 86% of independents.
Overwhelming Bipartisan Majorities Favor Greater Restrictions on Lobbying by Former Government Officials
(2017-12) Kull, Steven; Fehsenfeld, Evan; Lewitus, Evan Charles; Martens, Francesca
Overwhelming bipartisan majorities support proposed legislation that calls for extending the period that former government officials must wait before they can lobby the government and prohibiting former executive branch officials from ever lobbying on behalf of foreign governments. Similarly, large majorities favor ending the support the government currently provides for former US Presidents. Currently, former Members of Congress are prohibited from lobbying Congress for two years after leaving office. Proposed legislation H.R. 383 by Rep. Posey [R-FL-8], H.R. 796 by Rep. DeSantis [R-FL-6], H.R. 1951 by Rep. O’Halleran [D-AZ-1] and H.R. 346 by Rep. Trott [R-MI-11] calls for extending this period to five years. In the survey, 77 percent approved of such an extension, including 80% of Republicans and 73% of Democrats.
Six in Ten Support the Alexander-Murray Healthcare Fixes
(2018-01) Kull, Steven; Fehsenfeld, Evan; Lewitus, Evan Charles; Martens, Francesca
A new in-depth survey presented the three key provisions of the Alexander Murray bill, that addresses issues with the Affordable Care Act (ACA), to a sample of 2,511 registered voters and had them evaluate arguments for and against each provision. In the end, all three proposals were endorsed by about six in ten voters. These include allowing Americans age 30 and up to have low cost, high deductible ‘copper plans,’ and reversing the Trump administration cuts for health-care cost subsidies for low-income people, and cuts for outreach and education for the ACA exchanges. One of the most controversial aspects of the ACA is that Americans age 30 and up cannot have what are called ‘copper plans,’ which have lower premiums but require patients to pay nearly all of the medical costs until they meet the high deductible of $7,150. The proposal in the Alexander-Murray bill is to allow older people to have such low-cost plans as well.
Survey: Six in Ten Oppose Spending $25 Billion for Wall, But Half Favor Some New Spending
(2018-03) Kull, Steven; Fehsenfeld, Evan; Martens, Francesca; Lewitus, Evan
Currently, there is much debate about the US legal immigration system. Respondents were given a a number of options to evaluate for changing the US system for legal immigration. The US system for legal immigration provides selected foreigners with the right to reside in the United States on a permanent basis by providing them with what is commonly known as a “green card.” This also gives them the right to work and the obligation to pay taxes. Some people argue that the number of legal immigrants to the US should be reduced, others say the number should be increased. There are also proposals for changing the way that immigrants are selected.
Public Supports Reforming How Members of Congress are Elected
(2018-04) Kull, Steven; Fehsenfeld, Evan; Lewitus, Evan Charles; Martens, Francesca
Majorities of voters support a number of bold reforms to change how members of Congress are elected, including having congressional districts drawn by independent citizen commissions, and adopting ranked choice voting and multi-member districts, according to a new, in-depth survey from the University of Maryland’s Program for Public Consultation. These three reforms comprise new legislation – The Fair Representation Act – sponsored by Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) and cosponsored by Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.), Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md). The highest level of support was for changing the way that House congressional districts are designed—a prominent issue now that the Supreme Court is considering whether the federal government should prevent state legislatures from designing congressional districts to the benefit of the dominant party, popularly known as gerrymandering.
Six in Ten Oppose Legislation to Delay Lowering Ground Ozone Levels
(2018-04) Kull, Steven; Fehsenfeld, Evan; Lewitus, Evan Charles; Martens, Francesca
A new survey finds that six in ten voters oppose proposed Congressional legislation that postpones, for eight years, current requirements to lower ground ozone levels. Such ozone contributes to the creation of smog and is harmful to humans, but lowering ozone levels incurs economic costs. The legislation, H.R 806 Ozone Standards Implementation Act of 2017, passed the US House on July 18,2017 and is now pending in the Senate.
Majority of US Voters Oppose Tariffs on Solar Panels
(2018-04) Kull, Steven; Fehsenfeld, Evan; Lewitus, Evan Charles; Martens, Francesca
A new survey finds that nearly six in ten voters oppose the new tariffs on solar panels imposed by the Trump administration, including a majority in very red districts. However, nearly six in ten Republicans favor the tariffs.
Overwhelming Bipartisan Public Opposition to Repealing Net Neutrality Persists
(2018-04) Kull, Steven; Fehsenfeld, Evan; Lewitus, Evan Charles; Martens, Francesca
Since the December 14 FCC decision to repeal the requirements that Internet service providers abide by net neutrality, the FCC continued to promote their decision as a means for promoting Internet innovation and have parried criticism that it will drive up costs for consumers saying that the Federal Trade Commission will be in a position to protect against unfair practices. However, a new survey finds that overwhelming bipartisan opposition persists even when presented the FCC arguments as well as opposing arguments. Eighty-six percent oppose the repeal of net neutrality, including 82% of Republicans and 90% of Democrats. This is up slightly from a survey conducted during the run-up to the December decision when 83% were opposed. Opposition among Republicans has increased from 75% to 82%, while Democrats have held steady.
Overwhelming Majority of Public Supports Making it More Possible for Third Candidate to Participate in Presidential Debates
(2018-04) Kull, Steven; Fehsenfeld, Evan; Lewitus, Evan Charles; Martens, Francesca
As a Federal District Court considers a claim that the Commission on Presidential Debates should eliminate requirements that plaintiffs say effectively excludes a third, unaffiliated candidate from participating in the presidential debates, a new survey of American voters finds overwhelming support for making it more possible for a third candidate to participate in the presidential debates. A similarly large majority favors efforts to make it more possible for independent and third-party candidates to compete in Congressional elections.
Americans Evaluate Campaign Finance Reform
(2018-05) Kull, Steven; Fehsenfeld, Evan; Martens, Francesca; Lewitus, Evan Charles
A major study of voters’ views of campaign finance finds that large majorities support numerous bills in Congress that seek to reduce or offset the influence of big campaign donors. These include bills that call for a Constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United decision, increasing disclosure requirements for campaign donations, and promoting more small campaign donations. The questionnaire includes findings on a Constitutional Amendment to limit the terms of Congressional Representatives though they were not referenced explicitly in the report.
Large Majorities Oppose Trump Administration Move to Allow More Offshore Drilling, Ease Inspection Requirements
(2018-05) Kull, Steven; Fehsenfeld, Evan; Lewitus, Evan Charles; Martens, Francesca
A new survey of registered voters finds that 60% oppose the Trump Administration’s proposal to lift the ban on oil drilling along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts and to expand the allowed area around Alaska. In the 17 states along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts that would be affected by the lifting of the ban, 64% are opposed. Respondents were told that among the 17 states that would be affected by the ban, in 15 of them the governors have requested a waiver that would keep the current drilling ban in place. Seventy-one percent of respondents favored granting these states such a waiver.
Overwhelming Bipartisan Majorities Support Bill Giving Judges Discretion to Moderate Prison Sentencing
(2018-08) Kull, Steven; Fehsenfeld, Evan; Lewitus, Evan Charles
A new survey finds overwhelming bipartisan support for provisions in a bill that would give judges greater discretion to ease prison sentencing, sponsored by U.S. Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA). Some provisions were also contained in the House-passed First Step Act. Both pieces of legislation would roll back mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses that were set in the 1990s in response to a surge in crime, which has since abated. Such mandatory minimums played a key role in the more than doubling of the rates of incarceration that occurred in the subsequent decades. Proponents of the bill argue that this level of incarceration was an over-reaction that should be moderated, while opponents of the bill credit the high levels of incarceration with the reduction in crime.
Overwhelming Bipartisan Majorities Support Bill Giving Judges Discretion to Moderate Prison Sentencing
(2018-08) Program for Public Consultation
As you may know, there is a major debate these days about the number of Americans in prison. This debate has been prompted by the fact that the number of Americans in prison is historically high. As we will see, some people say this has gone too far, while others say it has contributed to the reduction in crime.