By Douglas E. Schoen - Wall Street Journal
Polling in 10 states shows that Americans want politicians to cut spending and reduce public employee benefits before they raise taxes.
Americans believe that bold action to restrict spending is necessary to stabilize the finances of state government.
Last month in a wide-ranging national survey of 1000 randomly selected registered voters and in 10 polls in individual states each with 400 respondents my polling company found that voters strongly favor measures to pare the compensation of current and future public employees. They strongly oppose higher taxes.
Specifically over three-quarters (78) say their state faced a budget crisis this year and 68 say that the crisis was resolved with spending cuts. Overwhelmingly they blame politicians for creating and exacerbating the problems: 48 say elected state officials made careless and self-serving decisions while only 6 say state governments did not tax enough.
The top priorities for resolving current fiscal issues are to cut government spending (47) and to ask for greater sacrifice from current public employees by having them contribute more towards their benefits (31). By almost two-to-one they think that current public employees should have to contribute more toward their pension benefits because of budget problems.
A majority (51) say they would not be willing to cut social service programs provided by your state to maintain the compensation of public employees; and 60 say that education and health care should not be cut so that the salaries and benefits of public employees could be paid at current levels.
Further by 48 to 40 voters say that public employees salaries should be frozen and they should be required to contribute more towards their benefits when states face the type of crises they are now facing. Close to two-thirds (64) say they would not be willing to have their taxes raised as a means of keeping salaries and benefits of current employees at current levels.
However there is a clear distinction in voters minds between what current public employees should be asked to contribute and what retired public employees should be asked to contribute. Sixty-nine percent say retirees should not have to contribute more towards their health-care benefits or take a reduced pension because of state and local government budget problems.
A majority (56) supports reducing certain state services to address state budget crises if programs need to be cut. Voters are most inclined to cut libraries and parks services and least inclined to cut education health care police and fire protection. However a whopping 60 of voters oppose increasing state sales income or other taxes to reduce budget deficits.
While there is a clear sense that cutting spending and reducing salaries and benefits will result in fiscal stability for state governments there is no similar linkage between reforming the collective bargaining process and achieving fiscal well-being for individual state governments.
Put simply the voters dont see a connection between the two.
Collective bargaining is not overwhelmingly popular in the abstract. A majority (50) agrees that public employees should not bargain collectively and use union power to limit or delay the delivery of important government services. Moreover 60 of voters feel that collective bargaining is a benefit and can be changed and negotiated based on economic circumstances while 30 see it as essential and a basic right of labor. In the recent disputes between state governments and public unions over collective bargaining voters side with state officials by 46 to 39.
However this skepticism towards collective bargaining does not translate directly into support for the steps that Governors Scott Walker of Wisconsin and John Kasich of Ohio took in their individual jurisdictions.
Nationally the Wisconsin law to restrict public employee collective bargaining rights was opposed 49 to 45 and the similar Ohio legislation was opposed by 45 to 40. In the states there was similar opposition. Wisconsin voters oppose Mr. Walkers measure 52 to 45 and Ohio voters oppose Mr. Kasichs measure 52 to 43.
Yet the reason for this apparent movement against collective bargaining reform is that unlike reducing state spending and benefits voters nationally and in those two states are not convinced that clear savings will result from reforming the labor relations process. By 56 to 33 voters nationally say it is unclear how much money will actually be saved by limiting collective bargaining rights.
Voters also reject the notion that reforming collective bargaining will make government more efficient in each of these two states. A solid majority (55) rejects that notion in Wisconsin and a 45 to 41 plurality in Ohio rejects this notion as well. By large margins in both states59 to 17 in Ohio and 43 to 28 in Wisconsinvoters say it is more important to reform public employee salaries and benefits than it is to reform collective bargaining.
On other measures that restrict current public employee rights and benefits voters say that tenure for teachers should be phased out 56 to 39. Fundamental reform of public sector pension plans is strongly favored. Voters support moving all new public employees from a defined benefit plan to a defined contribution plan by 69 to 17.
One of the reasons voters feel so strongly about reducing the level of compensation for state employees is that they believe that they are earning disproportionately high wages relative to those in the private sector.
There is a clear belief that public employees are better compensated than those in the private sector: 41 of voters think the salaries and benefits of most public employees are too high for the work they do while 32 think theyre about right and 13 think theyre too low.
Voters also think that while public sector workers generally can retire with full benefits at about age 57 years old this is too early. Generally they say the normal retirement age should be 65.
It is clear that American voters endorse a very specific agenda to reduce spending pare back employee benefits and hold the line on taxes wherever and whenever possible. The electorate clearly shows sympathy with the concept of limiting collective bargaining rights but so far has not seen or come to accept the direct linkage between restricting that benefit and assuring the ongoing fiscal well-being of their state.
Mr. Schoen who served as a pollster for President Bill Clinton is author of Hopelessly Divided: The New Crisis in American Politics and What It Means for 2012 and Beyond.(Rowman and Littlefield 2012). The national survey discussed in this op-ed was conducted on Aug. 5-10. The states individually surveyed on Aug. 29-Sept. 5 were Florida Illinois Indiana Michigan Montana North Carolina New York Ohio Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. All surveys were conducted for the Manhattan Institute.
