Posted on 08/17/2012 7:14:41 AM PDT by Kaslin
One of the things Mitt Romney's selection of Paul Ryan as his running mate ensures is a series of polling questions over the coming months asking voters what's more important: creating jobs or cutting government spending; helping the economy or cutting deficits; repealing the president's health care law or focusing on the economy.
These questions reflect the way official Washington views the world, but they don't make sense in Mainstream America. In Washington, it's a given that more government spending is needed to help the economy. Most Americans hold the opposite view. So when you ask whether cutting spending or helping the economy is more important, the question doesn't make sense. For most Mainstream voters, one leads to the other.
To gain a sense of how strong this belief is, consider the fact that voters are fairly evenly divided when asked whether they fear the government will do too much or too little to help the economy. At Rasmussen Reports, we asked those who wanted more government intervention what they would like the government to do. Most said cut spending. Overall, 66 percent of voters believe that the best thing the government can do for the economy is to cut spending.
The same dynamic exists when it comes to repeal of the national health care law. Rather than being seen as a diversion from talking about the economy, 43 percent believe repeal would help the economy. Just 27 percent think it would hurt. That's part of the reason most voters consistently support repeal. So, once again, it's not a choice between repealing the health care law and focusing on the economy. They're part of the same plan.
But the gap between the Political Class and Mainstream America doesn't end there. In Washington and on the campaign trail, Ryan is presented as either a serious budget hawk or a budgetary extremist, depending on who's doing the talking. Yet fewer than half the nation's voters believe government spending will go down even if Romney wins and Republicans gain full control of Congress. That was true before Ryan was selected, and it's true after.
So while voters think spending cuts are what the economy needs, they don't expect either team in the presidential race to deliver. The choice is seen by many as between one team that will increase spending and another that will maintain the status quo. It's a reasonable perspective in a nation where total government spending has increased every year since 1954.
Republican House Speaker John Boehner recently highlighted another gap by praising Ryan's vote in favor of the bailouts. He called those who opposed the bailouts "knuckledraggers." While Boehner reflects the conventional wisdom in Washington that the bailouts saved the economy, only 25 percent of voters agree. Most belong to the group Boehner considers knuckledraggers.
Finally, on Medicare, the Washington view is that Ryan's plan for changing it will hurt the GOP ticket. While the issue is volatile and that may happen, the initial reaction from voters is much different. On the topic of Medicare, more voters in Florida fear the president's health care law than the Ryan plan.
As Campaign 2012 progresses, we'll hear lots of analysis and polling data based on the Washington view of the world. But the election will be decided outside of the nation's capital.
The two are not dichotomous.
I love Rasmussen’s writing and analysis. This is what Romney and Ryan need to help shape their stump speeches.
“We will repeal ObamaCare, not just because it is a terrible law, but also because it is a drag on the economy that is preventing the creation of new jobs.”
“We will cut federal spending, not just because too much of what the federal government spends is shockingly wasteful, but also because the massive deficit and the $15T debt are a drag on the economy and are preventing the creation of new jobs.”
“We will not repeat the Stimulus or TARP, not just because using tax dollars from successful businesses and frugal individuals to bail out those who gambled recklessly is un-American, but also because market distortions from rewarding failure prevent the creation of new jobs.”
Every main point of their campaign should link to the economy. You don’t create real jobs by taking tax dollars from productive Americans and spending that money on federal programs, and emphasizing that point could get Obama tossed out of our White House.
In the most simple terms possible, B.O. is taking out a credit card on each of us in our names, however we don't have access to using that card. What is it at right now? $40,000 per year and growing? That means that over three years each of us have had $120,000 placed on that card taken out in our name. If you have four people in your household, B.O. has absconded with nearly $500,000 since he was elected that we will be responsible for paying back. And we didn't even get a new car for our effort.
In some quarters they would call this identity theft.
False dichotomy, false dichotomy, and false dichotomy.
Does anyone in DC ever ask an honest question, or is every breathing, moue, and glottal stop uttered to deceive, betray, and lie?
(That's a rhetorical question.)
“He called those who opposed the bailouts “knuckledraggers.” While Boehner reflects the conventional wisdom in Washington that the bailouts saved the economy, only 25 percent of voters agree.”
And there is our problem in a nutshell. This is what Speaker Boner thinks of 75% of the people outside the beltway. I think of the people who opposed the bailouts as free market capitalists. Boner loves him some big government as much as Obama does. He has to go, he is a disgrace.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.