Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA)

Permanent URI for this communityhttp://hdl.handle.net/1903/10116

Browse

Now showing 1 - 20 of 43

The American public and the Arab awakening: a study of American public opinion
(2011-04) Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA); Telhami, Shibley; Kull, Steven; Ramsay, Clay; Lewis (aka Fehsenfeld), Evan; Subias, Stefan
An overwhelming majority of Americans think that it would be positive for the United States if the Middle East were to become more democratic, and a solid majority would favor this happening even if it resulted in the country being more likely to oppose U.S. policies. These are some of the findings of a new poll conducted by the Anwar Sadat Chair for Peace and Development and the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland. The poll of 802 Americans was fielded April 1-5 by Knowledge Networks.
American Public Favors Safe Havens in Syria
(2012-03) Kull, Steven
These are some of the findings of a poll of 727 Americans, conducted March 3-7, 2012 by the Program on International Policy Attitudes.
The American Public on the 9/11 Decade: A Study of American Public Opinion
(2011-09-08) Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA); Telhami, Shibley; Kull, Steven; Ramsay, Clay; Lewis (aka Fehsenfeld), Evan; Subias, Stefan
Six in ten Americans believe that that the U.S. weakened its economy by overspending in its responses to the 9/11 attacks. In particular, respondents felt this was especially true of the U.S. mission in Iraq. Two out of three Americans perceive that over the decade since 9/11, U.S. power and influence in the world has declined. This view is highly correlated with the belief that the U.S. overspent in its post-9/11 response efforts -- the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. These are some of the findings of a new poll conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) and the Anwar Sadat Chair for Peace and Development at the University of Maryland. The poll of 957 Americans was fielded August 19-25, 2011, by Knowledge Networks.
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.
Americans on International Trade Policy
(2019-06) Kull, Steven; Destler, I. M.; Fehsenfeld, Evan; Lewitus, Evan Charles
Promoting the Growth of Trade Through an International Rules-Based System: Respondents were introduced to the international system for promoting international trade—two-thirds said they were familiar with it. Evaluating arguments for and against continuing to seek to further the growth of international trade through international agreements, in most cases large majorities from both parties found both pro and con arguments convincing, with Democrats responding more to the pro arguments and Republicans responding more to the con arguments. Nonetheless, in the end an overwhelming bipartisan majority approved of United States, together with other countries, promoting international trade through a set of agreed-on rules that seek to lower barriers to trade and to ensure trade is done fairly. The World Trade Organization: A very large majority approved of the US continuing to be part of the World Trade Organization, though for Republicans this was only a modest majority, while Democrats approved overwhelmingly. MITIGATING THE NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF TRADE: Increasing Unemployment Benefits: As a means of addressing some of the negative effects of trade, a bipartisan majority favored increasing unemployment benefits, with a majority favoring increasing the amount from 39% to 50% of previous earnings. However, a bipartisan majority did not support increasing the maximum period of unemployment benefits beyond the current average of 26 weeks. Worker Retraining and Education: Presented several proposals for job training and education under consideration in Congress, very large bipartisan majorities favored proposals to increase spending on training for jobs in cybersecurity and the energy industry, and a proposal to provide employers a tax credit for apprenticeship programs. Trade Adjustment Assistance: A majority of six in ten favored expanding the Trade Adjustment Assistance program to more people who get laid off from their job directly because of an increase in trade, however six in ten Republicans were opposed. Just four in ten, but a modest majority of Democrats, favored extending such assistance to all people who get laid off from their job. Labor and Environment Standards in Trade Agreements: Overwhelming bipartisan majorities favored including in new international trade agreements the requirement that countries abide by both the labor and environmental standards they have committed to, that they do not lower their standards to attract business or to get a competitive edge, and that there is an effective system for enforcing these requirements. Impact of Mitigating Negative Effects on Attitudes About Trade: Respondents who disapproved of promoting greater trade through international agreements, while also favoring steps to mitigate the negative effects, were asked how they would feel about the promoting trade if the mitigating steps they favored were adopted. About half said that they would then favor promoting greater trade through international agreements. THE USE OF TARIFFS: Steel Tariffs: Voters divided sharply along party lines on the US administration invoking the national security exemption and imposing tariffs of 25% on steel imports and 10% on aluminum imports, with a large majority of Republicans approving and a large majority of Democrats disapproving. Overall, a very slight majority approved. Tariffs on China: Voters divided along party lines on whether the US should have imposed tariffs on China without first getting a WTO ruling. Going forward, a modest majority opposed imposing additional tariffs on China to get them to change their trade practices, but instead favored working through the WTO to get a ruling against China. Views on both issues are highly polarized along partisan lines with large majorities of Democrats favoring working through the WTO and large majorities of Republicans favoring imposing tariffs. North American Trade: NAFTA and the USMCA: Asked about the original North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) agreement, a very large majority, including a majority of Republicans, expressed approval. Told about the proposed U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) agreement, a slight majority favored it, with large majority of Republicans in support and a modest majority of Democrats opposed. If Congress does not approve the USMCA deal, a large majority favors staying in NAFTA. Those who favored the new USMCA agreement and approved the steel and aluminum tariffs were asked whether they would be willing to lift the new steel and aluminum tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico if it appears necessary to get an agreement on USMCA; most said they would.
Americans on Israel and the Iranian Nuclear Program: A Study of American Public Opinion
(2012-03) Kull, Steven; Telhami, Shibley; Ramsey, Clay; Lewis (aka Fehsenfeld), Evan; Subias, Stefan
These are the results of a poll of the American Public conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes and the Anwar Sadat Chair to better understand American public attitudes on Israel and the Iranian Nuclear Program.
Americans on Nuclear Weapons
(2019-05) Kull, Steven; Gallagher, Nancy; Fehsenfeld, Evan; Lewitus, Evan Charles; Read, Emmaly
US-Russian Arms Control Treaties: More than eight in ten favor the US continuing to have arms control treaties with Russia, with support among Republicans comparable to that of Democrats. Extending New START: Eight in ten favor the United States agreeing to extend the New START Treaty. Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty: Two thirds, including a majority of Republicans, oppose withdrawing from the INF Treaty and favor instead staying within the Treaty and redoubling efforts to work with the Russians to address concerns of both sides. Nuclear Weapons Testing: Overwhelming majorities from both parties approve of the US continuing its moratorium on nuclear testing, effectively abiding by the 1996 Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. In the event the US develops a technological innovation that might make it possible to build a new type of nuclear weapon that could destroy more of an adversary’s nuclear weapons, a majority still said they would oppose breaking the moratorium, though a bare majority of Republicans favored it. US NUCLEAR WEAPONS CAPABILITIES: Minimum Retaliatory Capability: Eight in ten or more from both parties support the US having a retaliatory nuclear capability destructive enough that no country could think that there would be any advantage in attacking the United States with nuclear weapons. Low Yield Warheads and the Need for Matching Nuclear Options Respondents were presented a rationale for developing nuclear capabilities over and above the minimum retaliatory capability based on the need to threaten to match any type of nuclear capability an adversary might use. When presented a specific example of the current debate over whether the US should put low-yield nuclear warheads on missiles on submarines to match corresponding Russian capabilities, a bipartisan majority of two-thirds supported adding a low-yield option to nuclear missiles on submarines. Yet, when asked about the general principle, a plurality endorsed the view that a minimum retaliatory capability is adequate, over the view that the US must have the capability to retaliate against a major attack using only a type of weapon similar to the type the adversary used. Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs): Knowing that the United States currently has strategic weapons on submarines, bombers, and land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles, six in ten, including a majority of Republicans, favor phasing out the ICBM force. However, only one-third favor unilaterally reducing the net number of strategic warheads in the U.S. arsenal instead of putting more warheads on submarines and bombers to keep the same total as the Russians. FIRST USE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS: US Declaratory Policy on First Use: Only one in five endorsed the United States explicitly declaring that it would consider using nuclear weapons first and stating what kinds of non-nuclear attacks would prompt the United States to consider doing so. Just slightly more than one in five favored explicitly declaring that the United States will never use nuclear weapons first. A majority favored continuing the current policy of being ambiguous about whether and under what conditions the United States would consider using nuclear weapons first. Presented a list of possible types of attack, less than one in six favored declaring that the United States would consider using nuclear weapons in response to any of them. Limiting Presidential First Use: Two thirds, including six in ten Republicans, support Congressional legislation requiring that to use nuclear weapons first, the President would first have to consult Congress and it would have to issue a declaration of war on the country to be attacked with nuclear weapons.
Americans on Police Reform
(2020-07-14) Kull, Steven; Fehsenfeld, Evan; Lewitus, Evan "Charles"
For decades now, there have been periodic efforts to reform police practices and laws regarding the use of force, especially deadly force, by law enforcement officers. The recent deaths of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor and other incidents of law enforcement officers using deadly force have stimulated protest and demands for policing reforms. The U.S. House of Representatives recently passed the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act (H.R. 7120), sponsored by Rep. Karen Bass (D-CA), The JUSTICE Act (S. 3985), sponsored by Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC), failed to get cloture in the U.S. Senate, meaning the measure could not proceed for debate or a vote. . The provisions in these two bills continue to the basis for ongoing debates over police reform, including: ● when police officers should use deadly force; ● what types of force police officers should be able to use, such as chokeholds; ● the use of no-knock warrants; ● the standards by which officers are held accountable for their use of excessive force; ● whether racial bias among police is a problem to be addressed; and ● how much regulation there should be of military equipment transferred to the police. Both bills address these issues, to different extents. The most significant difference between the House bill and the Senate bill is how mandatory the proposed reforms are. The House bill would require that police departments and local governments implement new policies or be denied access to federal funding for police departments. The Senate bill would offer police departments new funding for training and data collection, and only in a few cases requires that police departments adopt new policies. The House bill also includes provisions to change the standards by which officers are criminally convicted and held civilly liable, which the Senate bill does not. To bring the American people a voice at the table of the current debate on this legislation, the Program for Public Consultation (PPC) has conducted an in-depth on-line survey of over 3,000 registered voters with a probability-based sample provided by Nielsen Scarborough. Unlike standard polls that rely on respondents’ existing impressions and information, PPC took respondents through a process called a ‘policymaking simulation’ that seeks to put respondents in the shoes of a policymaker. Respondents: ● are given a briefing on policy options under consideration ● evaluate strongly stated arguments both for and against each option ● make their final recommendation. The content of the process is thoroughly reviewed by experts across the spectrum of opinion on the policy options to ensure that the briefing is accurate and balanced and that the arguments are the strongest ones being made by proponents and opponents.
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.
AMERICANS ON THE FY 2020 FEDERAL BUDGET
(2019-08) Kull, Steven; Fehsenfeld, Evan; Lewitus, Evan Charles; Koeppel, Austin; Read, Emmaly
As Congress lifts the national debt ceiling, increasing the budget deficit, a unique survey has found that bipartisan majorities are ready to cut the deficit by $376 billion, primarily by raising taxes on high incomes. The survey participants—who were shown the current deficit, and given the opportunity to propose changes in spending and taxes—proposed reversing the 2017 tax cuts for incomes over $200,000, treating capital gains and dividends as ordinary income for those with incomes over $200,000, and applying an extra tax of 4% on income over $5 million. In the interactive online survey, conducted by the University of Maryland’s Program for Public Consultation (PPC), a sample of 2,403 registered voters were presented the discretionary budget (broken into 34 line items) and the budget deficit for 2019. They were given the opportunity to modify spending levels up or down, getting immediate feedback on the impact of their changes on the deficit. While Congress is headed for increasing the defense budget, in the survey a majority cut it $51 billion (Republicans $14 billion, Democrats $101 billion). Majorities of both Republicans and Democrats cut subsidies to agricultural corporations by $7 billion and spending on federal enforcement of federal laws by $2 billion. While majorities of Republicans and Democrats made small increases to some programs, this did not extend to the majority of the whole sample. Overall, the majority made net reductions in spending of $70 billion. Republicans cut $52 billion, Democrats $111 billion, and converged on cuts of $27 billion.
Americans on the Middle East: A Study of American Public Opinion
(2012-10) Telhami, Shibley; Kull, Steven; Ramsay, Clay; Lewis (aka Fehsenfeld), Evan; Subias, Stefan
In mid-September 2012, attacks on US diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt—countries going through revolutionary processes that began with the Arab Spring—shocked Americans in the midst of a closely fought presidential campaign. The very different governments of Libya and Egypt, both new and untested, had to formulate responses to the attacks, which immediately fed in to the American political process. These are the results of a poll conducted by the University of Maryland’s Anwar Sadat Chair and the Program on International Policy Attitudes to learn what have been the American public’s first impressions of these events, and how attitudes on other issues in the region may have changed.
Americans on U.S. Role in the Ukraine-Russia War
(2023-07) Kull, Steven; Fehsenfeld, Evan; Lewitus, Evan "Charles"; Thomas, JP; Bunn, Davis; Sapp, Bethany
In March of 2022, Russia launched a full invasion of Ukraine. The United Nations, including the US, quickly declared this invasion to be an act of aggression that violates Ukraine’s national sovereignty as guaranteed by the UN Charter. The invasion triggered a series of debates over the US’ role in this conflict: ● the degree of US intervention, if any; ● how to weigh any benefits of intervention against the risk of Russia escalating to nuclear attacks; ● whether to press Ukraine to enter peace negotiations, and if so, under what conditions. A bipartisan majority of seven-in-ten voters favor the US continuing to provide significant military aid to Ukraine to help in their ongoing war with Russia, according to an in-depth study by the Program for Public Consultation together with the Center for International and Security Studies at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy. Continuing to provide military aid to Ukraine, including military equipment, ammunition, training and intelligence, was favored by 69%, including 55% of Republicans, 87% of Democrats and 58% of independents. The sample was large enough to enable analysis of attitudes in very Republican and very Democratic districts based on Cook PVI ratings. In both very red and very blue congressional districts, equally large majorities (71%) favored continuing military aid.
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.
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.
Bipartisan Majorities Favor Tax Incentives For Clean Energy and Efficiency
(2020-11-13) Kull, Steven; Fehsenfeld, Evan; Lewitus, Evan Charles
A new in-depth survey finds bipartisan majorities support a number of tax incentives that seek to reduce the use of fossil fuels. The proposals, all introduced in Congress, include measures to encourage developing alternative sources of clean energy–such as solar and wind, making homes and commercial buildings more energy efficient, and the use of electric vehicles. The support from majorities of Republicans and Democrats was rooted in voter concern about the health effects of fossil fuels as well as their impact on climate.
Consulting Americans on the Payroll Tax Cut for Employees and Employers: A Study by the Program for Public Consultation and Knowledge Networks
(2011-12) Kull, Steven; Ramsay, Clay; Lewis (aka Fehsenfeld), Evan; Subias, Stefan
These are the results of a poll conducted by The Program for Public Consultation on public opinion of 2012 payroll tax cuts. The poll was fielded from December 3 to 9, 2011 as part of a larger study with a sample of 907 adult Americans. Please contact PPC if you would like a detailed sample design.
Consulting the American People on the 2001/2003 Tax Cuts: A Study by the Program for Public Consultation and Knowledge Networks
(2012-02) Kull, Steven; Ramsay, Clay; Lewis (aka Fehsenfeld), Evan; Subias, Stefan
These are the results of a poll conducted by The Program for Public Consultation on public opinion of 2013 U.S. proposed tax cuts. It is part of a series of in-depth consultations on issues relating to the American economy—including a major study, released in February 2011, on how the public would deal with the budget deficit, and a study on temporary payroll tax cuts for employees and employers (December 2011). Please contact PPC if you would like a detailed sample design.
Faith and Global Policy Challenges: How Spiritual Values Shape Views on Poverty, Nuclear Risks, and Environmental Degradation
(2011-12) Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA); Kull, Steven; Steinbruner, John; Gallagher, Nancy; Ramsay, Clay; Lewis (aka Fehsenfeld), Evan; Siegel, Jonas; Jones, Kevin; Subias, Stefan
A majority of Americans professing a belief in God favor cooperative international efforts to combat climate change, environmental degradation, and the spread of nuclear weapons, according to the findings of this public opinion poll conducted jointly by the University of Maryland's Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland (CISSM) and its Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA). The study also finds that a majority of "believers" consider addressing global poverty a "spiritual obligation" and think that the United States should work cooperatively with other nations to reduce it. The poll was fielded from September 9 to 19, 2011, with a sample of 1,496 adult Americans, including large numbers of Catholics and Evangelicals.
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.