A large majority of Americans—nearly three in four—say they have not noticed effects of this year’s across-the-board spending cuts.
According to the latest United Technologies/National Journal Congressional Connection Poll, only 23 percent of respondents have “seen any impact of these cuts” in their communities or on them personally, while 74 percent said they had seen no impact from sequestration.
The results highlight a difficult issue for Democrats and the Obama administration in the broad fight over government spending: The budget cuts they decry not only haven’t exasperated the public, they’ve gone largely unnoticed. That means both parties’ political attacks over the sequester have less salience.
The poll results also are notable as Washington navigates the federal government shutdown and possible breach of the debt ceiling—two parallel crises carrying the potential of economic harm. While President Obama has stressed Senate Democrats’ acquiescence to what he called “Republican spending levels,” congressional Republicans are advocating another round of reductions in exchange for a debt-limit increase. Yet, absent reductions in Social Security or Medicare spending, it appears most Americans do not experience—or do not think they are experiencing—the effect of lower government spending.
Of the people who said they had noticed some sequester impact, the most common effect cited was “furloughs for federal workers you know.” Fifty-eight percent of that subset said they had noticed furloughs, while 54 percent said they had seen “cuts in government services you use,” and 45 percent said they themselves had seen “cuts in your paycheck or paychecks received by your family.”
College graduates were most likely to know a furloughed federal worker, with three-quarters of those who said they had noticed the sequester citing that particular effect. Respondents making less than $50,000 a year, meanwhile, were most likely among that subset to have noticed cuts to government services they use or to their families’ paychecks. Nonwhites were also more likely than other respondents to say that they had personally felt cuts in paychecks or services.
But again, relatively few respondents in each of those subgroups have even noticed sequestration to begin with. Just 21 percent of nonwhites, 23 percent of people earning less than $50,000 a year, and 25 percent of college graduates said they had noticed the cuts.
The United Technologies/National Journal Congressional Connection Poll was conducted Oct. 3-6 by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. The poll surveyed 1,000 adults, half via cell phone, and carries a margin of error of plus or minus 3.7 percentage points.
What We're Following See More »
The Commission on Presidential Debates put out a statement today that gives credence to Donald Trump's claims that he had a bad microphone on Monday night. "Regarding the first debate, there were issues regarding Donald Trump's audio that affected the sound level in the debate hall," read the statement in its entirety.
"A video of Donald Trump testifying under oath about his provocative rhetoric about Mexicans and other Latinos is set to go public" as soon as today. "Trump gave the testimony in June at a law office in Washington in connection with one of two lawsuits he filed last year after prominent chefs reacted to the controversy over his remarks by pulling out of plans to open restaurants at his new D.C. hotel. D.C. Superior Court Judge Brian Holeman said in an order issued Thursday evening that fears the testimony might show up in campaign commercials were no basis to keep the public from seeing the video."
No matter that his recall of foreign leaders leaves something to be desired, Gary Johnson is the choice of the Chicago Tribune's editorial board. The editors argue that Donald Trump couldn't do the job of president, while hitting Hillary Clinton for "her intent to greatly increase federal spending and taxation, and serious questions about honesty and trust." Which leaves them with Johnson. "Every American who casts a vote for him is standing for principles," they write, "and can be proud of that vote. Yes, proud of a candidate in 2016."
"By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump." That's the message from USA Today editors, who are making the first recommendation on a presidential race in the paper's 34-year history. It's not exactly an endorsement; they make clear that the editorial board "does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement." But they state flatly that Donald Trump is, by "unanimous consensus of the editorial board, unfit for the presidency."