More than 75 percent of 300 people in southwest Oregon supported additional protection for the Lower Rogue River corridor.

Commissioned by the American Rivers conservation group, the poll by Moore Information, a public research firm based in Portland with more than 30 years of experience, showed that 77 percent supported additional protection, according to pollster Bob Moore, who conducted the survey.

“The majority of voters clearly favors additional protection along the Rogue, including boaters, hunters and anglers and hikers,” Moore said. “Voters in the Rogue River Valley were especially supportive of the proposal.”

Released Tuesday, the poll taken Jan. 3-4 was of representative voters in Jackson, Josephine, Douglas and Curry counties, he said.

A clear majority also was supportive when asked specifically about legislative proposals to designate a new 58,000-acre wilderness and additional wild and scenic river protection, according to the pollsters.

Oregon’s U.S. Sens. Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley, both Democrats, and U.S. Representative Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., have introduced legislation in Congress that would expand permanent protection along the Lower Rogue.

In 2010, the American Forest Resource Council, a timber industry coalition based in Portland, dropped its opposition to wilderness designation for the largely roadless Zane Grey tract immediately downstream from the existing Wild Rogue Wilderness in the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest.

The Zane Grey area is on the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s Medford District.

Under the compromise between environmental groups and the council, the proposal had been reduced by some 13,000 acres with the wild and scenic rivers protection cut from 143 miles of tributary streams to 93 miles and reducing stream buffers. The designation is intended to protect the valuable salmon and steelhead fishery in the watershed.

However, Grants Pass resident Jim Frick, head of the Southern Oregon Resource Alliance, says his group is adamantly opposed to the designation. He cited the withdrawal of potential mining and logging areas if the legislation were to become law.

But Chad Woodward of American Rivers believes the designation would protect local businesses that depend on river tourism, clean water and the local fishery.

Recreation on the Lower Rogue generates $30 million annually while producing nearly 450 jobs, he noted.

“This poll demonstrates that the people of southwestern Oregon deeply value the Rogue River and want to protect this treasure for future generations,” he said.

“The new legislation will conserve one of Oregon’s greatest natural wonders and allow the Rogue River to remain a vibrant and central part of the local recreation and tourism economy,” he added.

Portions of the Rogue were included in the original 1968 Wild & Scenic Rivers Act.

Reach reporter Paul Fattig at 776-4496 or email him at pfattig@mailtribune.com.

As ballots begin arriving in voters’ mailboxes, Cornilles appears to be surging.  This surge is likely the primary reason the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee has continued their aggressive spending and also helps explain the recent purchase of more than $200,000 in the Portland media market by the Democrat controlled House Majority Fund Super PAC.

Cornilles is benefiting from a political environment that is more negative for Democrats than it was during the 2010 election.  Currently, more than six-in-ten district voters believe things in the country are off on the wrong track and just 48% approve of Barack Obama’s performance as president, while 48% disapprove.  By contrast in October 2010, Obama’s performance was 53/44% approve.

Both Cornilles and Bonamici still enjoy positive images.  Despite nearly a million dollars spent in negative advertising against him, Cornilles is rated favorably by 42%, unfavorably by 36%, while the remaining 22% have no opinion or have never heard of the Republican.  Bonamici’s image is 48% favorable, 33% unfavorable and 19% no opinion/never heard.

This poll was conducted for the Cornilles campaign, by telephone, using live interviewers, January 11-12, 2012, among a representative sample of 300 likely voters in the district. Cell phone only households were included as part of the sample.  Forty eight percent of the sample are registered Democrats, 35% Republicans and the remainder are non-affiliated/Independent/others.   The potential sampling error is plus or minus 6% at the 95% confidence level.

Ostensibly, the payroll tax is used for one specific purpose – to fund Social Security.  And voters by wide majorities across the United States believe that to be the case. They also believe that Social Security is separate from other government spending and should remain so.  They do not view Social Security as a welfare program.  Quite the contrary, they look at Social Security as a retirement program into which they have paid over the course of their working life and from which they should receive a fair return when they retire. And just like an IRA, 401K or any other retirement account, one can make the case that if you want it to be there when you retire, you have to pay into it while you are working.

True, the program has served as America’s piggy bank for several decades as the Social Security surplus has allowed Washington, D.C. (Republicans and Democrats alike) to mask the true size of our deficit.  But today the Social Security surplus is a thing of the past and as Baby Boomers begin filling the retirement rolls the program will be faced with even greater demands, while at the same time a massive federal deficit threatens the country’s economic well being.  That is a serious challenge faced by elected officials of both parties who are rightly concerned that ending the payroll tax deduction holiday during bad economic times could also harm the economy.  It’s not an easy decision nor is it made any easier when one looks through the prism of how Americans perceive Social Security and how they think it should be managed.

Recently we were in the field with a national survey in which we asked voters a series of questions about how they view Social Security vis-a-vis other government spending.  Here’s what we found.

Social Security, Medicare and Federal Income Taxes
“As you know, when we pay federal taxes there are three distinct items that are withheld from our paycheck: Social Security contributions, Medicare contributions, and federal income taxes.

Here’s what two people, let’s call them Smith and Jones, are saying about taxes we pay, spending and balancing the federal budget.

Smith says that Social Security contributions should pay for Social Security, Medicare contributions should pay for Medicare and federal income taxes should pay for everything else.  If one of these is not paying for itself we should adjust that program, not cut or change everything else.  Essentially Smith looks at these as three distinct and different budgets and says they should be managed accordingly.

Jones understands three separate items, Social Security contributions, Medicare contributions and federal income taxes are withheld but points out that from year to year the government sometimes takes in more money with one program than it does with another.  Jones thinks that we should use these different sources of income to balance out spending across all three of these elements and not think of them as three different budgets.

Which comes closest to your own view?”

Then we asked specifically about Social Security:

Social Security Taxes and the Federal Budget
“Social Security is financed by contributions set aside from employees and employers.  Do you think Social Security taxes and spending should be a separate budget in and of itself and be excluded when Congress and the President debate the overall federal budget, or not?”

We followed that question by asking voters who think Social Security “should be a separate budget in and of itself” if they would still feel this way if changes (e.g. raising retirement age, adjusting payroll deductions and lowering COLAs) needed to be made to Social Security to keep it solvent.  Even under those circumstances, by a 4:1 margin, voters want Social Security to remain separate from the overall federal budget.

Changes to Social Security
“This might mean that if Social Security was running low on money some changes such as higher withholding taxes, increasing retirement age or lower cost of living adjustments might be necessary to keep the program financially sound.  Would you still want Social Security managed as separate from other government spending if it required some changes to keep it financially sound?”

These findings seem to go against the idea that we can “pay for” the payroll tax holiday by cutting spending, because if Social Security really is a separate program, as Americans believe it to be, those spending cuts would be cuts to Social Security benefits.   Although that is not anyone’s intention, the other alternative is to fund Social Security from other revenue sources (tax hikes on the “rich” for instance) which, in effect, would make Social Security a different program altogether, something the data says Americans do not support.

Social Security is an extremely popular program in America and very unlikely to go away anytime soon.  There is little, if any, public support for that.  Furthermore, Americans believe Social Security is a separate retirement program and not funded by general revenues.  If that were to change, the program could devolve from a heretofore success story to one more federal program where recipients have no skin in the game and no interest in maintaining it responsibly.

Republicans must keep their commitment to lower taxes and less government, but unless they want to walk the USS Seniors’ plank by advocating the demise of Social Security, they also need to understand how Americans perceive it, what needs to be done to protect it and how to ensure that it is fully funded in a way that maintains its unique and separate role.

Social Security is still the third rail of politics and Republicans need to be careful that they are not perceived as changing the program into a welfare system in order to curry favor as the party of lower taxes.  That would contrast sharply with the party’s commitment to responsible spending and the long term economic vitality of the country.  Americans know that if they want Social Security to survive – and they do – they need to pay for it.

“Generally speaking, do you approve or disapprove of the job Barack Obama is doing as President?”

Obama Job Performance: Region and Party Affiliation

These data are from a survey of Washington voters.  Telephone interviews were conducted November 9-10, 2011 among a representative sample of 500 voters statewide. The potential sampling error associated with this survey is +/- 4% at the 95% confidence level.

November 17, 2011

The contest for Attorney General between King County Council colleagues Bob Ferguson and Reagan Dunn will be Washington’s second marquee race in the 2012 election.

A new poll by Moore Information, a Portland-based firm that polls for Republicans, shows the race dead even with a big block of undecided voters.  Democrat Ferguson has 25 percent, Republican Dunn is at 24 percent, with a whopping 44 percent undecided.

Eight percent said they would vote for neither man.

“Regionally, Ferguson leads in King County, Dunn leads in Eastern Washington and the race is a dead heat in the rest of the state,” Moore reported.

Ferguson has a Democrat-type lead of 39-19 percent in King County.  He has relentlessly doorbelled two County Council districts in races where he upset two entrenched Democratic county council members.

In Eastern Washington, which shows signs of being very tired with Democrats running things in Olympia, Dunn has a 35-17 percent lead.  The battleground between these two is likely to be the rest of the Puget Sound basin and Northwest Washington.

Moore Information has been the place to turn for Republicans in tight races, its best-known clients being former Republican Sen. Slade Gorton and guberatorial and U.S. Senate candidate Dino Rossi.

The poll came on a day when Ferguson proposed a three-part strategy for dealing with gangs across the state.  Its provisions:

–Creation of a specialized Gang Unit in the Attorney General’s office “to promote greater collaboration across county lines” and more cooperation between diverse law enforcement agencies;

–Passage of legislation that would hit repeat gun offenders with the serious charge of Unlawful Possession of a Firearm in the First Degree;

–Increased investment in prevention efforts to keep kids from falling prey to gang recruitment.

Dunn, who is also talking about gangs, released a list of endorsements from 25 sheriffs and county prosecutors in 18 of the state’s 39 counties.

The Attorney General’s office has been a stepping stone to higher office.  Gov. Chris Gregoire served three terms before being elected Governor in 2004.  Slade Gorton was a three-term AG in 1980 when he ended the 36-year career of U.S. Sen. Warren Magnuson.

The job is coming open next year because incumbent Republican Attorney General Rob McKenna is running for Governor.

Posted by Joel Connelly on November 17, 2011 at 12:44 pm

Voters in California’s most competitive Congressional Districts are divided in their partisan preference for Congress and are, likewise, divided in their assessment of President Obama’s performance and latest jobs proposal.    However, a majority prefer a candidate who will go to Washington, D.C. to change Congress over a candidate who would go to D.C. to help Obama enact his agenda.  The job situation and the budget deficit and debt are the leading economic concerns, but a plurality believes Congress should give a higher priority to keeping the deficit down than to boosting the economy.  When it comes to federal income taxes, tax reform and elimination of corporate loopholes is considered more important than increasing taxes on the wealthy.  Voters are also divided on the state’s Dream Act and a plurality would send illegal immigrants home rather than securing borders and giving illegal residents a pathway to citizenship.  Finally, neither the Tea Party nor the Occupy Wall Street movement is impressive to a majority of voters.    More details follow.

Political Climate.  The political climate in these ten congressional districts is very competitive;  43% favor a Democrat for Congress, 40% a Republican and 17% don’t have a preference at this time.  This competitiveness is further demonstrated by voters’ current rating of President Obama’s performance; 49% approve and 49% disapprove. However, among voters with strong feelings, Obama’s rating is negative; 27% strongly approve, while 38% strongly disapprove of the president’s efforts.   Not surprisingly, Democrats and Democrat constituencies prefer a Democrat for Congress and are more likely to be positive about the President, while Republicans prefer a Republican for Congress and widely disapprove of Obama.  DTS/other voters narrowly favor a GOP candidate (36-31%) and narrowly disapprove of Obama’s performance (45% approve/52% disapprove).  Women prefer a Democrat for Congress, while men are evenly divided in their partisanship; however when it comes to Obama’s performance, women and men are evenly divided.

While voters are divided in their partisan preferences and rating of the President, a clear majority (55%) favors a candidate who wants to change the way things are done in Congress compared to just over a third (36%) who favor a candidate who will go to Washington, D.C. to help President Obama enact his agenda.  There is majority support for the candidate who wants to change Congress among men and women alike, among white and DTS/other voters and a plurality of Latino voters agree.  Further, among voters who expressed no partisan preference for Congress, the candidate who wants to change Congress was favored by a 61-18% margin over the candidate who wants to help the Obama agenda.

“How would you rate the job Barack Obama has been doing as President?”

“Do you prefer a candidate who will go to Washington, D.C. to help President Obama enact his agenda or a candidate who will go to Washington, D.C. to change the way things are done in Congress?”

Obama Jobs Plan.  Voters are divided over the President’s latest jobs plan;  43% support, 39% oppose and 19% have no opinion.  Democrats widely support “the $450 billion plan aimed at creating jobs” (65-16%), while GOP voters widely oppose the plan by an identical margin (16-65%).  DTS women and DTS voters age 45+ oppose the plan but DTS men and younger DTS voters are divided.    Latino voters support Obama’s plan, 53-30%, while Anglo voters are divided.

“President Obama recently proposed a $450 billion plan aimed at creating jobs.  Given what you know about it, do you support or oppose the plan?”

Health Care. Fewer than four-in-ten voters  would repeal the President’s health care reform plan, but only one-in-four would leave it as is.  Today, 39% would repeal the plan, while 34% would “amend and improve it”, 23% would “leave it alone and see how it works” and only 2% would “leave it the way it is and make no changes.”  Almost seven-in-ten Republicans (69%) would repeal Obama care, while fewer than one-in-seven Democrats (15%) favor repeal.  Among DTS/other voters, 41% favor repeal, 34% would amend and improve and 24% would leave it alone.  Women and men hold similar views on this issue.  Among Latino voters, 31% favor repeal, 41% favor amendment and 27% favor leaving it alone.

“What should be done about the Obama health care reform plan that passed Congress last year — repeal it, amend it and improve it, leave it alone and see how it works, or leave it the way it is and make no changes?”

Economic Issues.  A plurality of voters (48%) in the ten districts believe they are worse off today financially than when Barack Obama became President, while 19% say they are better off and 31% say there has been no change.  Voters who are worse off widely disapprove of Obama’s performance (19% approve, 79% disapprove), but voters who believe they are better off widely approve of Obama’s performance (92/8%) as do voters who have seen no change in their personal financial picture (70/28%).  Almost two-in-three GOP voters say they are worse off financially, as do a majority of DTS/other voters.  Latino voters’ situations reflect that of the sample as a whole, 49% are worse off, 18% are better off and 31% have seen no change in the past three years.

“Are you and your family better off or worse off financially than you were when Barack Obama became President in January 2009?”

The job situation is voters’ leading economic concern (33%), followed by the budget deficit and debt (26%), Social Security and Medicare (15%), financial and housing markets (14%) and rising prices (8%).  The job situation is the leading economic concern among Moderates and Liberals (Democrats, Republicans and DTS/others alike) but the deficit and debt is the leader among Conservatives (Democrats, Republicans and DTS/others alike).  Senior citizens are equally concerned about jobs, the deficit/debt and Social Security/Medicare, and those age 65 and older are more concerned about Social Security than any other age group.  Female Latinos and Latinos age 18-44 are more likely to be concerned about the job situation, but male and older Latinos are equally concerned about the job situation and the deficit/debt.

“Which one of the following economic issues concerns you the most — the budget deficit and debt, the financial and housing markets, Social Security and Medicare, the job situation, or rising prices?”

More specifically on Congressional economic priorities, there is a slight preference for Congress to keep the budget deficit down (50%) over boosting the economy and risking larger deficits (41%).   Not surprisingly, Republicans widely favor keeping the deficit down (73%), while a majority of Democrats prefer boosting the economy and risking larger deficits (59%).  Among DTS/other voters, keeping the deficit down is favored 54-39%.  Among Latinos, keeping down the deficit is favored by 49%, while boosting the economy and risking larger deficits is favored by 44%.  Men and women are on the same page on this question, as both narrowly favor keeping the deficit down.

“Should Congress be more concerned about keeping the budget deficit down, even though it may mean it will take longer for the economy to recover, or should Congress be more concerned about boosting the economy even though it may mean larger deficits in the future?”

When it comes to federal income taxes, tax reform is a higher priority than increasing taxes on the wealthy.  Fully 60% believe “reforming the federal tax system by eliminating loopholes so that big corporations can’t avoid paying taxes” is more important than increasing taxes on wealthy people (30%).    Tax reform is rated more important by women and men like, along with Republicans, Conservative Democrats, DTS/others, Latinos and Anglos.  However, Moderate Democrats are divided between the two options and Liberal Democrats prefer increasing taxes on the wealthy.

“When it comes to federal income taxes, which is more important — increasing taxes on wealthy people, or reforming the federal tax system by eliminating loopholes so that big corporations can’t avoid paying taxes?”

Illegal Immigration.   Voters in these districts are divided over the California “Dream Act;” 48% support and 45% oppose a law allowing illegal immigrants who have graduated from a California high school to pay “in-state” tuition at California universities.  Democrats widely support the law (69-25%), while GOP voters are in wide opposition (30-63%) along with a majority of DTS/others (39-53%).  Latino voters support the law (58-37%), while Anglos are divided (46-46%).  Women and voters age 18-64 narrowly support the law, but men are divided and voters age 65+ oppose the Dream Act.

“Would you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose a law that allowed illegal immigrants who have graduated from a California high school to pay ‘in-state’ tuition at California Universities?”

However on the question of illegal immigration in general, a plurality (50%) believe illegal immigrants should be “sent back to their homeland and then apply to this country legally,” while four-in-ten (39%) believe “we need to make our borders more secure and give those already here a path to citizenship.”  The remaining 11% have no opinion.  Among GOP voters there is wide support for sending illegal immigrants back to their homeland and a plurality of DTS/other voters would also send them back, but a majority of Democrats favor the path to citizenship.  Latino voters favor the pathway over sending illegal immigrants back (51-42%), while more than half of Anglos would send them back.  Women and men are in agreement, as pluralities of both genders would return illegal immigrants.

“Some people say there are 10 million illegal immigrants already in this country and what we need to do is make our borders more secure and give those already here a path to citizenship.  Other people say illegal immigrants have broken our laws and should be sent back to their homeland and then apply to immigrate to this country legally.  With whom do you agree?”

Images of the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street.  Overall, there isn’t a great deal of difference between perceptions of the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street among voters in these districts.  The Tea Party is approved of by 38% and disapproved of by 46%, while Occupy Wall Street’s ratio is 40% approve, 37% disapprove.  There are major differences by party; Republicans approve of the Tea Party, 62/19%, while disapproving of Occupy, 19/57%.  Democrats approve of Occupy, 58/20%, while disapproving of the Tea Party, 18/68%.  Latinos approve of Occupy, 46/30%, but disapprove of the Tea Party, 29/49%.  Women and men are divided in their views of Occupy and men are divided on the Tea Party, but women are negative about the Tea Party.  Just 8% approve of both groups, while only 9% disapprove of both.  In general, voters who approve of the Tea Party lean toward the views of Republicans while voters who approve of Occupy lean toward the views of Democrats.

“Do you approve or disapprove of the ___?”

Summary. The results of this survey clearly show that these districts are in play in 2012 for both parties.  But the candidates who will prevail will be those who can demonstrate their understanding of the need to change the way things are done in Washington and address economic concerns – whether it is job related, Medicare and Social Security problems, budget and deficit concerns or housing issues.

Currently Republicans have an edge with DTS/other voters but it is only a slight edge, 36% to 31%.  In order to win in these districts, Republicans will have to capture a significant majority of them.  Issues matter but the typical GOP versus Democrat national campaign rhetoric could cause trouble for partisans on both sides.  These voters are looking for solutions and the survey results show that few of the issues overwhelmingly favor the Democrat or Republican position.  Like statewide candidates in purple or light blue states, Republicans looking to win here must demonstrate their understanding of the need to solve the many problems facing their constituencies without appearing overly partisan.

Likely voters in Washington State are widely impressed with private forest landowners’ efforts to protect water quality and habitat and, as a result, less than one-in-three favor more regulation of private forest land and more than six-in-ten are comfortable with their own use of wood products. 

Here are more details. 

In a Moore Information statewide survey of likely voters in Washington, 70% said they believed private forest landowners protect wildlife habitat on their forest land “very” or “fairly” well.  In addition, 66% said they thought private forest landowners protect fish habitat in streams “very” or “fairly” well and 64% said they thought water quality in streams on private forest land was “very” or “fairly” well protected.   Further, there was widespread agreement throughout the state among all voter subgroups that habitat and water quality on private forest land was “very” or “fairly” well protected. 

 Are Private Forest Landowners Doing
a Good Job Protecting Wildlife Habitat, Fish Habitat and Water Quality?

Perhaps as a result of these perceptions, only 28% of likely voters statewide believe more regulation of private forest land is necessary, while 51% would like to see less regulation, 9% no changes and 11% had no opinion.  On this issue, likely voters in Seattle are at odds with likely voters in the rest of the state.  In Seattle, a plurality favors more regulation of private forest land, while elsewhere in the state, a majority favors less regulation.

 Should There Be More Regulation or Less Regulation of
Privately Owned Forest Land?

At the same time, 63% of likely voters believe “it is okay to use wood and paper products because they come from a renewable, natural resource,” while 32% believe “people should use alternatives to wood and paper because we are depleting the forests.”  A majority of likely Seattle voters and almost two-in-three elsewhere in the state are comfortable in their use of wood and paper products. 

 Is It Okay to Use Wood and Paper Products Because
They Come From a Renewable, Natural Resource?

These data come from live telephone interviews conducted by Moore Information.  The surveys were conducted May 9-10, 2011 and August 7-8, 2011 among representative samples of 500 likely voters statewide for each survey.  The potential sampling error is plus or minus 4% at the 95% confidence level.  Please let us know if you have questions.

Rob McKenna currently leads Democrat contender Jay Inslee in the race for Governor by a margin of 37% to 32%. There are still a number of undecided voters in this race, but McKenna appears to be doing well among key demographic groups critical to a Republican victory in Washington State.

McKenna v. Inslee
“If the general election for Governor were held today and the candidates were … for whom would you vote?”

Importantly, there appears to be little to no gender gap today. McKenna leads Inslee among men by a 37% to 30% margin and leads among women, 36% to 33%. Moreover, he is doing much better among Republicans, who prefer him over Inslee by a margin of 80% to 4%, than Inslee is doing among Democrats, who prefer him over McKenna by a margin of 66% to 9%.

Today a large majority of the critical Independent vote is undecided in this race, and they currently make up a large plurality (47%) of all undecided voters. Nonetheless, McKenna leads among Independents with 25% of the vote, while Inslee receives just 6% – indicating the potential for McKenna to do very well with these voters.

By media market, the race is a dead heat in the Seattle DMA: McKenna gets 36% of the vote and Inslee 35%. McKenna leads by double digits in the Eastern Washington markets of Yakima and Spokane, but his lead is not outside the margin of error in the Portland DMA, where more than half of voters are currently undecided.

At this stage of the campaign, this race appears very fluid with almost one-in-three voters not opting for either candidate. However, among those who have decided, McKenna is hitting the right targets and doing well with the audiences he must have to win statewide.

This memo contains findings from a survey of Washington voters. A total of 500 interviews were conducted September 10-11, 2011 among a representative sample of voters, statewide. The potential sampling error associated with this survey is +/- 4% at the 95% confidence level.

“As you know, when we pay federal taxes there are three distinct items that are withheld from our paycheck: Social Security contributions, Medicare contributions, and federal income taxes.

Here’s what two people, let’s call them Smith and Jones, are saying about taxes we pay, spending and balancing the federal budget.

Smith says that Social Security contributions should pay for Social Security, Medicare contributions should pay for Medicare and federal income taxes should pay for everything else. If one of these is not paying for itself we should adjust that program, not cut or change everything else. Essentially Smith looks at these as three distinct and different budgets and says they should be managed accordingly.

Jones understands three separate items, Social Security contributions, Medicare contributions and federal income taxes are withheld but points out that from year to year the government sometimes takes in more money with one program than it does with another. Jones thinks that we should use these different sources of income to balance out spending across all three of these elements and not think of them as three different budgets.

Which comes closest to your own view?”

Perhaps most interesting here is the rare agreement among partisans, genders and ages. Democrats are slightly more likely to allow for the mixing of funds but a majority of them (55%) oppose doing so while less than a third (30%) favor cross pollinating these three budget items. Republicans and Independents feel even more strongly with 70% of GOP voters and 61% of Independents believing these budget items should be managed and funded separately. Independents are the least likely of these three groups to support the Jones position of mixing funds with only 14% of them supporting that option, while only 18% of Republicans support Jones’ position.

On this question younger men, older men, younger women and older women all look almost identical in support of the Smith position ranging from 59% to 63% and support of the Jones position hovering between 20% and 25%. Clearly, voters see Medicare and Social Security as separate elements from the overall federal budget and they want it managed that way.

We pursued this further breaking out Social Security from Medicare and asked a similar question about each program. The findings are similar but respondents feel more strongly about keeping Social Security apart from the overall federal budget (67% of voters say keep it separate) than Medicare (59% say keep it separate).

Social Security and the Budget

“Social Security is financed by contributions set aside from employees and employers. Do you think Social Security taxes and spending should be a separate budget in and of itself and be excluded when Congress and the President debate the overall federal budget, or not?”

Medicare and the Budget

“Medicare is financed by contributions set aside from employees and employers. Do you think Medicare taxes and spending should be a separate budget in and of itself and be excluded when Congress and the President debate the overall federal budget, or not?”

Even when we later presented the possibility that keeping Social Security a separate program could lead to “higher withholding taxes, increasing retirement age or lowering COLAs” a majority (53%) of voters still maintain support for keeping Social Security as a separate budget. In fact, among voters over age 55 support for maintaining a separate program, even if it calls for tough changes, stands at 55%. Additionally, 57% of Republicans, 53% of Independents and 49% of Democrats still want Social Security managed as a separate entity. Women appear to have a change of heart on this question more so than men but they are more likely to move to the “don’t know” than to the “no” column.

As stated previously, keeping Medicare separate from the overall federal budget enjoys support from a large majority of Washington voters (59%), with 72% of Independents, 57% of Republicans and 54% of Democrats feeling this way along with 60% of women and 58% of men.

However, when we ask people if they would still support this approach if it could mean “raising co-pays on things like home health care and raising premiums and cost-sharing for some beneficiaries” 45% of all voters say they would still support managing Medicare as a separate program while 8% of voters moved away from their initial support for separate management. Falloff when we introduce potential difficult choices comes more from women than from men but 54% of Independents still want the program managed separately. Republicans and Democrats look almost identical on this question both in their initial support and after hearing that doing so might require tough changes.

Clearly voters in Washington are predisposed to believe that these programs should be managed separately and even after hearing that doing so might result in unpopular changes to each program, separate management still enjoys majority support on Social Security and is basically split on Medicare.

So what does this mean? Well, today we talk about the overall budget as a fungible mass of income and outlays. When Republicans talk about reducing the deficit and controlling the federal debt they are invariably attacked for wanting to balance the budget on the backs of senior citizens. Delinking Social Security and Medicare from the overall budget process and effectively managing that messaging would allow for serious debate on Social Security and Medicare that addressed the actuarial realities of each system, not the GOP’s commitment to Nana and Gramps. It would preclude arguments that Republican concerns about spending in the general federal budget demonstrate a decided lack of concern for seniors and their problems.

If Social Security and Medicare are facing funding problems then they can be addressed based on the economic realities of each system, not Washington, D.C.’s entire overall approach to the budget process. Voters in a blue state like Washington believe Social Security and Medicare should each be managed and funded separately from the overall federal budget. This is hardly surprising given that the funding mechanism on every worker’s paycheck separates out these elements with specific taxes for each. We’ve been telling Americans for decades that’s how the system works. Maybe it’s time to show them in word and deed that it really does.

This memo contains findings from a survey of Washington voters. A total of 500 interviews were conducted September 10-11, 2011 among a representative sample of voters, statewide. The potential sampling error associated with this survey is +/- 4% at the 95% confidence level.