Opinion
Infrastructure: It’s Job 1 to Americans
By Frank Luntz
January 23, 2009
I’m a pollster and political consultant associated with Republican causes: the Contract with America, the “death tax” and, of course, ending wasteful Washington spending. So why am I behind the new stimulus legislation — the biggest spending bill ever to be considered by Congress? Maybe because when it comes to some things — crumbling schools, overcrowded highways, an ineffective energy system, clean-water facilities that don’t clean water and trains and planes that are always late — we’re all on the same side.
Last month, I conducted a national survey of 800 registered voters on their attitudes toward infrastructure investment. It was commissioned by Building America’s Future, a bipartisan coalition of elected officials — chaired by Pennsylvania Gov. Edward G. Rendell, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg — formed to support infrastructure investment.
The survey’s findings were unlike any other issue I have polled in more than a decade. Iraq, healthcare, taxes, education — they all predictably divide and polarize Americans into political camps. Not infrastructure.
Consider this: A near unanimous 94% of Americans are concerned about our nation’s infrastructure. And this concern cuts across all regions of the country and across urban, suburban and rural communities.
Fully 84% of the public wants more money spent by the federal government — and 83% wants more spent by state governments — to improve America’s infrastructure. And here’s the kicker: 81% of Americans are personally prepared to pay 1% more in taxes for the cause. It’s not uncommon for people to say they’d pay more to get more, but when you ask them to respond to a specific amount, support evaporates. (That 74% of normally stingy Republicans are on board for the tax increase is, to me, the most significant finding in the survey.)
This isn’t “soft” support for infrastructure either. It stretches from Maine to Montana, from California to Connecticut. Democrats (87%) and Republicans (74%) are prepared to, in Barack Obama’s words, put skin in the game, which tells you just how wide and deep the support is.
And Americans understand that infrastructure is not just roads, bridges and rails. In fact, they rated fixing energy facilities as their highest priority. Roads and highways scored second, and clean-water treatment facilities third.
But there’s more: Accountability. The poll found that Americans are far less interested in doing projects quickly than in doing them right. “Don’t screw it up” would be a more popular rallying cry than “get it done.” Washington should not mistake the message of the November election and the desire for change with an “at all cost” mentality. In the poll, 61% chose “accountability” as their first or second priority in any government investment — not the creation of jobs (34%) and not that the investment be truly national in scope (25%).
The context of the poll is clear: Americans have a serious case of bailout fatigue. They’ve seen government pony up to Wall Street and Motor City. Yet the stock market continues to fall, jobs continue to disappear and the spending just plain continues. Top executives received their Christmas bonuses, and the rest of America was left asking, “Where’s my bailout check?”
New jobs and potential economic recovery are an important part of the infrastructure rebuilding effort, but if Washington cares about what Americans really want, Congress and the administration must establish four core stimulus principles to protect American taxpayers:
Accountability comes first. Next is transparency (24% of those polled put it at the top of their lists). Americans see themselves as shareholders in their country, and they firmly believe that they have the right to know their money is spent wisely, and expect to see the evidence on an ongoing basis.
The data also show significant support for a third principle — setting public priorities through citizen input (13% ranked it their highest priority, which means that the people, not just the politicians, should have their say). And finally, 16% rank measurable results as the highest priority when it comes to government investment. Will the billions of dollars spent make a quantifiable difference in the daily lives of Americans in all 50 states?
Right now, 78% of Americans polled say government is responsible for the failure of America’s infrastructure. They don’t think the problems can be solved in the first 100 days of a new administration in Washington. Rather, they want ongoing strategic investments to improve America’s standard of living and our individual quality of life. When more than 98% of Americans believe they have “the right to demand” that America’s infrastructure is “efficient, convenient and modern,” Washington better not fail.
Does Congress get it? Think about that the next time you’re sitting in traffic.
Frank Luntz is a pollster and communication specialist. His clients have included Rudolph W. Giuliani and Michael R. Bloomberg.
The New York Times
Where the Money Is
A trillion here, a trillion there …
President-elect Barack Obama is warning us to expect trillion-dollar budget deficits “for years to come.”
The economy is in a precipitous downturn and no one, on the left or right, is advocating tax increases that would jeopardize a recovery.
In the meantime, we’re spending money as fast as we can: the Troubled Asset Relief Program ($700 billion and counting); Mr. Obama’s proposed stimulus program ($800 billion and counting); and important initiatives still to come, like an overhaul of the way we pay for health care.
China, which has purchased more than $1 trillion of American debt, is getting antsy. As Keith Bradsher of The Times has reported, the global downturn has prompted Beijing “to keep more of its money at home, a move that could have painful effects for U.S. borrowers.”
Mr. Obama has tried to assure the public that his administration will be as careful as possible with its monumental spending, promising to invest wisely and manage the expenditures well. And he has made it clear that he is aware of the minefields that accompany mammoth long-term deficits.
At some point, however, someone is going to have to talk about raising revenue. The dreaded T-word is going to come up: taxes.
Well, there’s a good idea floating around that takes its cue from the legendary Willie Sutton. Why not go where the money is?
The economist Dean Baker is a strong advocate of a financial transactions tax. This would impose a small fee — ranging up to, say, 0.25 percent — on the sale or transfer of stocks, bonds and other financial assets, including the seemingly endless variety of exotic financial instruments that have been in the news so much lately.
According to Mr. Baker, the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, the fees would raise a ton of money, perhaps $100 billion or more annually — money that the government sorely needs.
But there’s another intriguing element to the proposal. While the fees would be a trivial expense for what the general public tends to think of as ordinary traders — people investing in stocks, bonds or other assets for some reasonable period of time — they would amount to a much heavier lift for speculators, the folks who bring a manic quality to the markets, who treat it like a casino.
“It raises money in a way that comes primarily at the expense of speculation,” said Mr. Baker. “The fees would be a considerable expense for someone who is buying futures, or a stock, or any asset at 2 o’clock and then selling it at 3. The more you trade, the more you pay.
“For the typical person holding stock, who is planning to hold it for a long period of time, paying the quarter of one percent on a trade is just not that big a deal.”
The fees, though small, could amount to a big deal for speculators because in addition to the volume of their trades they often make their money on very small margins. Someone who buys an asset and then sells it an hour later at a one percent appreciation might feel quite pleased. He or she would be less pleased at having to pay a quarter-percent fee to purchase the asset in the first place and then another quarter percent to sell it.
This, according to Mr. Baker, is part of the beauty of the transfer tax; it tends to curb at least some speculation. “It’s a very progressive tax,” he said, “that discourages nonproductive activity.”
A hallmark of the Bush years has been the rampant irresponsibility — by the White House, Congress and the general public — when it comes to matters of finance. The costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were placed on credit cards and off the books. Their ultimate overall costs will be in the trillions.
Incredibly, President Bush and Congress cut taxes in wartime, which is insane.
Budget deficits and the national debt are streaking toward the moon. And the only remedy anyone has come up with for fending off Great Depression II has been deficit spending on a scale reminiscent of World War II.
Excuse me, but did somebody say the baby boomers are about to start retiring?
Maybe the piper will never have to be paid. Maybe the deficits will someday magically right themselves. Maybe some prosperous future generation will be more than happy to clean up the mess we left behind.
If none of that is true, we should start looking now for some real money somewhere. A stock transfer tax is not a bad place to start.