Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA)
Permanent URI for this communityhttp://hdl.handle.net/1903/10116
Browse
11 results
Search Results
Item Americans on Solving the Medicare Shortfall(2017-10-31) Kull, Steven; Ramsay, Clay; Lewis (aka Fehsenfeld), Evan; Williams, AntjeGiven 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 WaysItem Assessing the Iran Deal(2015-09) Kull, Steven; Ramsay, Clay; Lewis (aka Fehsenfeld), Evan; Gallagher, Nancy; Pierce, EricA 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.Item 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, AntjeAccording 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.Item How the American Public Would Deal with the Budget Deficit: A Study by the Program for Public Consultation and Knowledge Networks(2011-02) Kull, Steven; Ramsay, Clay; Lewis (aka Fehsenfeld), Evan; Subias, StefanA Study by the Program for Public Consultation and Knowledge Networks. The purpose of this study was to give a representative sample of Americans the chance to deal with the problem of the budget in such an integrated framework, one in which they would make tradeoffs. The goal was to have respondents face the kinds of challenges that policymakers face when making a budget. In this way we can see whether Americans are able to deal with such a challenge, and whether they in fact know what their value priorities are.Item 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, StefanThese 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.Item 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, StefanThese 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.Item Americans on the Middle East: A Study of American Public Opinion(2012-10) Telhami, Shibley; Kull, Steven; Ramsay, Clay; Lewis (aka Fehsenfeld), Evan; Subias, StefanIn 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.Item 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, StefanA 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.Item 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, StefanSix 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.Item 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, StefanAn 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.