Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA)

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

Browse

Author: search.filters.author.Kull, StevenStart date: 2020

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 10 of 14
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Public Opposes Expanding Presidential Power to Control Independent Agencies, Block Federal Spending, Replace Civil Servants
    (2025-03-13) Kull, Steven; Fehsenfeld, Evan; Lewitus, Evan Charles
    These are some of the findings of a new in-depth survey by the University of Maryland’s Program for Public Consultation (PPC), fielded March 4-7, 2025 with a representative sample of 1,249 adults nationwide. “Though Americans have many frustrations with the federal government, the large majority of Americans do not seem to see giving Presidents more power as the answer,” commented Steven Kull, Director of PPC. Respondents evaluated strongly stated arguments for and against expanding Presidential authority, over independent agencies and federal spending. The arguments against did better, especially those that focused on how centralizing more power in the Presidency risks corruption and politicization of essential government functions, and undermines the Constitution’s separation of powers. Large bipartisan majorities found those arguments convincing. The arguments in favor of expanding Presidential authority – that doing so would better allow Presidents to fulfill their agenda, which the people voted for, and take power away from unaccountable – were found convincing by smaller and less bipartisan majorities.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    The Role of Government in Abortion: A National Survey of Registered Voters
    (2022-10-24) Kull, Steven; Fehsenfeld, Evan; Lewitus, Evan Charles
    Since the Supreme Court Dobbs v. Jackson decision that overturned Roe v. Wade, the subject of the government’s role in abortion has been foreground in the public discourse. The Supreme Court effectively pushed the decision about abortion to the states, generating widespread debate. Sixteen states have established new laws making abortion illegal at any point in the pregnancy or reinstating such laws that were in place before the Roe v Wade decision. On the other hand, the voters of the relatively conservative state of Kansas rejected a ballot initiative which would have removed protections for abortion from their state’s constitution. A key question is where the American public stands on what role the government, state and/or federal should play in abortions. Standard polls that generally sought to establish public attitudes in single poll questions have produced seemingly contradictory results (to be discussed below).
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Swing State Survey: Majorities Favor Path to Citizenship over Mass Deportation, While Strengthening the Border
    (2024-10-10) Kull, Steven; Fehsenfeld, Evan; Lewitus, Evan Charles
    As the issue of immigration figures prominently in campaigns across the country, a new survey by the Program for Public Consultation (PPC) in six swing states and nationally finds numerous policies on which majorities of Americans agree, including, in most cases, majorities of both Republicans and Democrats. To deal with the millions of undocumented immigrants who have been living in the US, a majority in every swing state and nationally prefer offering them a path to citizenship, provided they meet several requirements, over mass deportation. To deter illegal border crossings, swing state and national majorities favor strengthening the border and making it harder for illegal immigrants to get employment by requiring that employers use the E-Verify system. At the same time, majorities favor increasing the number of work visas to meet the demand for workers through legal channels. Director of the Program for Public Consultation, Steven Kull, comments, “Majorities favor reforms that would reduce the number of undocumented immigrants, not via mass deportation, but by creating more legal pathways for people who want to live and work here, and by strengthening the border to make it more difficult for people to enter the country illegally.”
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Americans on Foreign Aid: National Survey Finds Common Ground on Foreign Aid Spending
    (2025-02-08) Kull, Steven; Fehsenfeld, Evan; Lewitus, Evan Charles
    An overwhelming majority of 89% of Americans say the US should spend at least one percent of the federal budget on foreign aid – the current amount the US spends on aid. This includes 84% of Republicans and 94% of Democrats. Fifty-eight percent oppose abolishing the US Agency for International Development and folding its functions into the State Department, including 77% of Democrats and 62% of independents. But 60% of Republicans favor the move. These are some of the findings of a new survey by the Program for Public Consultation at the University of Maryland, fielded February 6-7, 2025 with a representative sample of 1,160 adults nationwide.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Regulating Artificial Intelligence: A National Survey of Registered Voters
    (2024-03-29) Kull, Steven; Fehsenfeld, Evan; Lewitus, Evan Charles
    As the House’s new Task Force on Artificial Intelligence considers how government should address AI issues, such as deepfakes in the election and bias in algorithms, a new survey finds very large bipartisan majorities favor giving the federal government broad powers to regulate Artificial Intelligence (AI). They endorse seven proposals currently under consideration in Congress and the Executive Branch for regulating AI-generated deepfakes and AI making decisions with the potential for harm. Internationally, as the United Nations agrees on a US-led resolution to ensure AI does not violate human rights, voters favor the US working to establish an international agency to regulate large-scale AI projects, and create an international treaty prohibiting AI-controlled weapons.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    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.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Survey: Ban on Stock Trading for Members of Congress Favored by Overwhelming Bipartisan Majority
    (2023-07) Kull, Steven; Fehsenfeld, Evan; Lewitus, Evan "Charles"; Thomas, JP
    Overwhelming bipartisan majorities favor prohibiting stock-trading in individual companies by Members of Congress (86%, Republicans 87%, Democrats 88%, independents 81%), as well as the President, Vice President, and Supreme Court Justices (87%, Republicans 87%, Democrats 90%, independents 82%) according to an in-depth survey by the Program for Public Consultation at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Large Bipartisan Majorities Favor Prohibiting Sale of Property and Oil Reserves to Affiliates of Foreign Adversaries
    (2023-07) Kull, Steven; Fehsenfeld, Evan; Lewitus, Evan "Charles"; Thomas, JP
    – Large bipartisan majorities favor proposals that would prohibit the sale of US real estate and oil reserves to entities linked to foreign adversaries, including China and Russia. Three-quarters (73%) support a prohibition on the sale of property, including farmland; while 72% support a prohibition on selling oil from US oil reserves, according to an in-depth study by the Program for Public Consultation at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy. Concerns among Members of Congress over the US’ economic relations with its adversaries, particularly China, have been on the rise. This has been caused in part by increasing purchases of US agricultural land by Chinese companies; as well as the sale of US oil reserves to Chinese energy companies. Members of Congress and state legislatures have introduced legislation to address this issue. Rep. Gallagher, the Chairman of the House select committee on China, recently put forward a bipartisan bill which would give federal officials greater authority to block companies affiliated with foreign adversaries from acquiring certain US lands, particularly those near sensitive sites (e.g. military bases, telecommunication infrastructure.)
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Six-in-Ten Voters Favor Carbon Fee and Rebate Plan
    (2021-03) Kull, Steven; Fehsenfeld, Evan; Lewitus, Evan "Charles"
    Bipartisan Majority Rejects Suspending Regulations on Emissions as Part of Plan – A new in-depth national survey finds that 62% of registered voters favor one of the few proposals for curbing greenhouse gas emissions that has support from both Republican and Democratic leaders — the carbon fee and rebate. This proposal would charge a fee on energy companies per ton of emissions (to encourage transitions to alternative energy sources), with a substantial portion of the costs presumably passed on to consumers in the form of higher energy costs (to encourage efficiency). To offset the higher energy costs, the revenue from the fee would be returned as a rebate to consumers on an equal basis. For low to middle income consumers the rebate would more than offset the higher energy costs. This proposal has been promoted by former Republican officials James Baker and the recent George Schultz as part of the Climate Leadership Council and was endorsed in a recent letter signed by over 3,500 economists, including dozens of Nobel Laureate winners, former Chairs of the Council of Economic Advisers, and former Chairs of the Federal Reserve Board, including both Republicans and Democrats. Variations of the proposal appear in several pieces of Congressional legislation including H.R. 763, S. 2284, H.R. 4051, S. 1128, S. 4484 and H.R. 4142 from the 116th Congress.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Two-in-Three Voters Favor Creating National Green Bank
    (2021-06) Kull, Steven; Fehsenfeld, Evan; Lewitus, Evan "Charles"
    In a new in-depth survey, two-thirds of registered voters favored legislation calling for the federal government to create a national green bank to invest in and promote private investment in clean energy. Green banks are public, non-profit banks and currently exist at state and local levels. The legislative proposal respondents evaluated is called the National Climate Bank Act, which would create a national bank with $35 billion of seed money, to support existing green banks, help to create new ones in US cities and states, and invest directly in clean energy projects. The basis of the legislative proposals were two bills in the 116th Congress (National Green Bank Act and National Climate Bank Act). The National Climate Bank Act has been resubmitted in the 117th Congress and is earmarked at a higher level of funding.