/PRNewswire/ -- Simultaneous studies, released this week by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), show soaring costs of illegal immigration in Florida and demonstrate strong voter objections to the burdens placed on them by illegal immigration. A new Zogby International poll of 801 likely voters across the state found that, by an overwhelming margin, Floridians believe that illegal immigration is harming their state. Their perceptions are rooted in reality. A separate FAIR study, the Costs of Illegal Immigration to Floridians found that providing education and health care to illegal aliens and their families, and incarcerating criminal illegal aliens, costs state taxpayers more than $3.8 billion annually, more than double the costs measured in 2005.
The Costs of Illegal Immigration to Floridians found that taxpayers spend:
-- $3.4 billion a year to educate illegal immigrant children and the U.S.
born children of illegal immigrants.
-- $290 million a year on unreimbursed health care for illegal aliens.
-- $90 million a year to incarcerate criminal illegal aliens.
-- The total represents an annual cost to each of Florida's native-born
headed households of $678.
The cost study also determined that the illegal alien population in Florida is now 950,000 persons. This represents 7.3 percent of the national total illegal alien population, and it is the nation's fourth largest concentration of illegal aliens after California, Texas and New York. It is also about 5.2 percent of Florida's overall population.
The Zogby poll found that:
-- 71.3% of Florida voters say illegal immigration has a negative impact
on the state. Only 14.4% believe it has a positive impact on Florida.
-- 83.5% of Florida voters believe illegal aliens have a negative impact
on the state budget, versus only 7.9% who believe their impact is
positive.
-- 57.5% believe illegal immigration should be reduced through better
enforcement of immigration laws. Only 36% of Florida voters favor
amnesty or legalization for current illegal aliens.
-- 68.6% of Florida voters want worksite immigration enforcement to
continue. Only 21.1% support the Obama administration's decision to
curtail worksite enforcement.
"Voters in Florida, like voters everywhere, want their elected officials in Washington and Tallahassee to protect their interests, their jobs, and their tax dollars from the impact of mass illegal immigration," said Stein. "At a time when the Obama administration is intent on systematically dismantling immigration enforcement, and congressional leaders are considering a new round of amnesty legislation, voters in this key state are saying unequivocally that it is time political leaders stopped pandering to the illegal immigration lobby, and started enforcing laws that serve the interests of ordinary Americans."
Showing posts with label poll. Show all posts
Showing posts with label poll. Show all posts
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Record number of voters back LP tax approach
A record number of voters agree with the Libertarian Party that tax cuts would help spur economic growth, America’s third-largest party notes Monday.
A Rasmussen Reports poll released March 26 finds 63 percent of all voters now say tax cuts will help America’s economy. That’s an increase from the 56 percent measured in February and the highest number since Rasmussen began tracking the question in the mid-1990s.
Among unaffiliated voters, the number is even higher – 68 percent.
“Libertarians have been cutting taxes since the day we elected our first official nearly 40 years ago,” said William Redpath, Libertarian National Committee Chair. “Republicans and Democrats have been working together to drive up spending and taxes, and a supermajority of voters agree with over 200 currently elected Libertarians that this is wrong.”
“No wonder interest in the Libertarian Party on the rise. Voters prefer the very popular Libertarian policy of fiscal responsibility and limited government to get the economy moving,” said Redpath.
President Obama is doing little to assuage fears his tax hikes will hurt the economy. The Rasmussen poll also finds 51 percent of voters believe increasing taxes hurts the economy, the highest number since early January.
The Rasmussen poll also finds 52 percent of voters think they already pay their “fair share” of taxes, and more voters prefer a candidate who opposes all tax increases (43 percent) than one who only wants to raise taxes on the rich (42 percent.) Last month, voters preferred the “tax-the-rich” candidate by a 44 percent to 40 percent margin.
A majority of voters, 54 percent, also agree with Libertarians that a tax policy that helps the economy grow is more important than the Democrat/Republican policy of making sure “everyone pays their fair share.” Only 39 percent of voters believe punitive taxation is more important than pro-growth taxation.
While Obama promised to raise taxes only on families whose combined income was more than $250,000 a year, as well as a tax cut for “95 percent of working families,” Americans are skeptical. Sixty-six percent of voters think Obama will raise taxes on families making less than $250,000 a year.
A Rasmussen Reports poll released March 26 finds 63 percent of all voters now say tax cuts will help America’s economy. That’s an increase from the 56 percent measured in February and the highest number since Rasmussen began tracking the question in the mid-1990s.
Among unaffiliated voters, the number is even higher – 68 percent.
“Libertarians have been cutting taxes since the day we elected our first official nearly 40 years ago,” said William Redpath, Libertarian National Committee Chair. “Republicans and Democrats have been working together to drive up spending and taxes, and a supermajority of voters agree with over 200 currently elected Libertarians that this is wrong.”
“No wonder interest in the Libertarian Party on the rise. Voters prefer the very popular Libertarian policy of fiscal responsibility and limited government to get the economy moving,” said Redpath.
President Obama is doing little to assuage fears his tax hikes will hurt the economy. The Rasmussen poll also finds 51 percent of voters believe increasing taxes hurts the economy, the highest number since early January.
The Rasmussen poll also finds 52 percent of voters think they already pay their “fair share” of taxes, and more voters prefer a candidate who opposes all tax increases (43 percent) than one who only wants to raise taxes on the rich (42 percent.) Last month, voters preferred the “tax-the-rich” candidate by a 44 percent to 40 percent margin.
A majority of voters, 54 percent, also agree with Libertarians that a tax policy that helps the economy grow is more important than the Democrat/Republican policy of making sure “everyone pays their fair share.” Only 39 percent of voters believe punitive taxation is more important than pro-growth taxation.
While Obama promised to raise taxes only on families whose combined income was more than $250,000 a year, as well as a tax cut for “95 percent of working families,” Americans are skeptical. Sixty-six percent of voters think Obama will raise taxes on families making less than $250,000 a year.
Monday, March 30, 2009
O'Leary Report/Zogby Poll Finds Business Leaders Not Happy with Obama's First 60 Days
/PRNewswire/ -- With the economy leading all headlines, and a never-ending stream of opinion polls flowing daily, The O'Leary Report, in conjunction with Zogby International, conducted the first comprehensive survey of America's business leaders to see what they think of Obama's policies to date. The survey found that a clear majority of business leaders staunchly oppose the President's actions over the past two months.
Below are some of the poll's results. This was an online survey of 884 business leaders, who are also likely voters, and it has a margin of error of +/- 1.5 percentage points. To see more results, go to www.olearyreport.com.
Question 1: In regard to the bank rescue plans and economic
stimulus, do you feel the Obama administration is trying to do too
much, is disorganized, needs more time, or is right on target?
Fifty percent of business leaders think the Obama administration is
disorganized, while only 10 percent think it is "right on target."
Twenty-eight percent think the Obama administration needs more
time, another 10 percent think it's trying to do too much, and one
percent are "not sure."
Question 2: How do you rate President Obama's efforts to free up
credit markets in his first 60 days?
Fifty-two percent of business leaders rate Obama's effort as
"poor," while only 15 percent say it is "excellent." Twenty-two
percent give Obama a "good" rating and 10 percent say "fair" (one
percent are not sure).
Question 3: Do you think the budget recently proposed by President
Obama spends too much, not enough, or the right amount?
A solid 62 percent majority think President Obama's budget spends
too much, while only 13 percent say "not enough." Only 16 percent
of business leaders think it spends the right amount, and nine
percent are not sure.
Question 4: The Employee Free Choice Act is a proposed bill that
would effectively eliminate the secret ballot used by workers in
deciding whether or not their plant, business, or small business
should be unionized. Do you favor or oppose the bill?
Seventy-two percent of business leaders oppose this bill, which
Obama supports. Only 19 percent favor the bill, and 10 percent are
not sure.
Question 5: Do you agree or disagree that President Obama's
proposed tax hikes for those making $250,000 or more will hurt
businesses, forcing them to lay-off employees?
Fifty-two percent of business leaders agree that Obama's tax hikes
will hurt businesses and increase unemployment; while 42 percent
disagree (six percent are not sure).
Below are some of the poll's results. This was an online survey of 884 business leaders, who are also likely voters, and it has a margin of error of +/- 1.5 percentage points. To see more results, go to www.olearyreport.com.
Question 1: In regard to the bank rescue plans and economic
stimulus, do you feel the Obama administration is trying to do too
much, is disorganized, needs more time, or is right on target?
Fifty percent of business leaders think the Obama administration is
disorganized, while only 10 percent think it is "right on target."
Twenty-eight percent think the Obama administration needs more
time, another 10 percent think it's trying to do too much, and one
percent are "not sure."
Question 2: How do you rate President Obama's efforts to free up
credit markets in his first 60 days?
Fifty-two percent of business leaders rate Obama's effort as
"poor," while only 15 percent say it is "excellent." Twenty-two
percent give Obama a "good" rating and 10 percent say "fair" (one
percent are not sure).
Question 3: Do you think the budget recently proposed by President
Obama spends too much, not enough, or the right amount?
A solid 62 percent majority think President Obama's budget spends
too much, while only 13 percent say "not enough." Only 16 percent
of business leaders think it spends the right amount, and nine
percent are not sure.
Question 4: The Employee Free Choice Act is a proposed bill that
would effectively eliminate the secret ballot used by workers in
deciding whether or not their plant, business, or small business
should be unionized. Do you favor or oppose the bill?
Seventy-two percent of business leaders oppose this bill, which
Obama supports. Only 19 percent favor the bill, and 10 percent are
not sure.
Question 5: Do you agree or disagree that President Obama's
proposed tax hikes for those making $250,000 or more will hurt
businesses, forcing them to lay-off employees?
Fifty-two percent of business leaders agree that Obama's tax hikes
will hurt businesses and increase unemployment; while 42 percent
disagree (six percent are not sure).
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Zogby/O'Leary Report Poll Finds Majority of American Voters Don't Fault U.S. Gun Laws for Mexican Drug Violence
/PRNewswire/ -- U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has stated that the Obama administration would like to resurrect the Clinton ban on semi-automatic firearms, as well as other gun control laws.
One of the reasons for bringing back these unpopular laws, according to Holder, is that Mexican drug cartels are becoming increasingly violent and warring with Mexican government troops. Holder says that some of the guns being used by the Mexican drug mafia are being obtained illegally from the United States.
Mexico is a country with a reputation for political corruption and a healthy disregard for the individual rights of its citizens. Still, Holder and the Obama administration think that limiting the Second Amendment rights of U.S. citizens is a cure for drug violence in Mexico.
However, according to a recent poll conducted by The O'Leary Report and Zogby International, a vast majority of the American voting public disagrees.
The poll, which was conducted March 20-23 and has a margin of error of plus-or-minus 1.5 percentage points, asked 4,523 likely voters:
"Mexican officials, gun control groups and officials at the Department of Homeland Security claim drug cartels are crossing the U.S. border in order to obtain guns illicitly. Others say that the Mexican drug cartels are equipped with military hardware including grenades, anti-tank missiles and mortars - all weapons that are not available to the American public. Which of the following do you think is the main source for Mexican drug cartel arms?"
Sixty-five percent of voters say that the international black market is the main source for Mexican drug cartel arms; while only 13.5 percent think these arms are coming from U.S. gun stores (3.5 percent think the arms are coming from somewhere else and 18 percent are not sure).
Among voters aged 18-29 years old, one of President Obama's strongest groups of supporters, 73 percent say international black market, and just six percent say U.S. gun stores (two percent say somewhere else and 19 percent are not sure).
A strong majority of self-described Independent voters (66 percent) also say that the international black market is main source of arms for Mexican drug cartels, and only 12 percent say U.S. gun stores (four percent say somewhere else and 19 percent are not sure).
One of the reasons for bringing back these unpopular laws, according to Holder, is that Mexican drug cartels are becoming increasingly violent and warring with Mexican government troops. Holder says that some of the guns being used by the Mexican drug mafia are being obtained illegally from the United States.
Mexico is a country with a reputation for political corruption and a healthy disregard for the individual rights of its citizens. Still, Holder and the Obama administration think that limiting the Second Amendment rights of U.S. citizens is a cure for drug violence in Mexico.
However, according to a recent poll conducted by The O'Leary Report and Zogby International, a vast majority of the American voting public disagrees.
The poll, which was conducted March 20-23 and has a margin of error of plus-or-minus 1.5 percentage points, asked 4,523 likely voters:
"Mexican officials, gun control groups and officials at the Department of Homeland Security claim drug cartels are crossing the U.S. border in order to obtain guns illicitly. Others say that the Mexican drug cartels are equipped with military hardware including grenades, anti-tank missiles and mortars - all weapons that are not available to the American public. Which of the following do you think is the main source for Mexican drug cartel arms?"
Sixty-five percent of voters say that the international black market is the main source for Mexican drug cartel arms; while only 13.5 percent think these arms are coming from U.S. gun stores (3.5 percent think the arms are coming from somewhere else and 18 percent are not sure).
Among voters aged 18-29 years old, one of President Obama's strongest groups of supporters, 73 percent say international black market, and just six percent say U.S. gun stores (two percent say somewhere else and 19 percent are not sure).
A strong majority of self-described Independent voters (66 percent) also say that the international black market is main source of arms for Mexican drug cartels, and only 12 percent say U.S. gun stores (four percent say somewhere else and 19 percent are not sure).
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
AIG Gives $644,000 in 'Campaign Bonuses' to U.S. Senators and Representatives According to The O'Leary Report
/PRNewswire/ -- As President Barack Obama and Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) continue to point fingers over which one of them is to blame for the stimulus bill's "Dodd Amendment," which specifically excludes bonuses from caps on executive pay, one thing is clear: both Obama and Dodd profited from AIG campaign "bonuses" and an overwhelming majority of Americans want them to give this money back.
According to a breaking poll conducted by The O'Leary Report and Zogby International, 73 percent of Americans think any members of Congress who received campaign contributions from AIG over the last two years should return the money.
This might go double for President Obama and Senator Dodd, who were by far the largest recipients of AIG campaign cash in the last election cycle. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Obama received $104,332 from AIG and Dodd raked in $103,900. Obama and Dodd far outpaced the rest of Congress, as the next largest beneficiary received about $45,000 less than each of them. All told, AIG gave a total of $644,218 to federal candidates over the last election cycle.
The O'Leary Report/Zogby poll, which was conducted March 20-23 and has a margin of error of plus-or-minus 1.5 percentage points, asked 4,523 likely voters: "Should members of Congress who received campaign donations over the past two years from the troubled financial giant AIG return the contributions?"
Seventy-three percent of all respondents say "yes," these members of Congress should return their AIG bonuses. Among self-described Democrats, 61 percent say yes, as do 83 percent of Republicans and 78 percent of Independents.
Sixty-four percent of young voters aged 18-29 years old, one of the President's most enthusiastic support groups, think that Obama and congressional recipients of AIG donations should return them. Seventy-four percent of taxpayers and 70 percent of Americans who have no federal income tax liability also think the money should be returned.
The Center for Responsive Politics lists AIG as the fourth largest contributor to Senator Dodd, who chairs the Senate Banking Committee, giving him a total of $281,038 in campaign bonuses over his career. Senator Max Baucus (D-MT), who chairs the Senate Finance Committee, has received more money from AIG over his career ($91,000) than he has from any other company. The Center also reports that stimulus bill supporter Senator John Kerry (D-MA) "was by far the biggest investor in AIG, with stock valued around $2 million."
Congress may be undecided on how best to recoup AIG's taxpayer-funded bonuses, however, a clear majority of American voters want members of Congress to return the campaign bonuses they received from AIG.
According to a breaking poll conducted by The O'Leary Report and Zogby International, 73 percent of Americans think any members of Congress who received campaign contributions from AIG over the last two years should return the money.
This might go double for President Obama and Senator Dodd, who were by far the largest recipients of AIG campaign cash in the last election cycle. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Obama received $104,332 from AIG and Dodd raked in $103,900. Obama and Dodd far outpaced the rest of Congress, as the next largest beneficiary received about $45,000 less than each of them. All told, AIG gave a total of $644,218 to federal candidates over the last election cycle.
The O'Leary Report/Zogby poll, which was conducted March 20-23 and has a margin of error of plus-or-minus 1.5 percentage points, asked 4,523 likely voters: "Should members of Congress who received campaign donations over the past two years from the troubled financial giant AIG return the contributions?"
Seventy-three percent of all respondents say "yes," these members of Congress should return their AIG bonuses. Among self-described Democrats, 61 percent say yes, as do 83 percent of Republicans and 78 percent of Independents.
Sixty-four percent of young voters aged 18-29 years old, one of the President's most enthusiastic support groups, think that Obama and congressional recipients of AIG donations should return them. Seventy-four percent of taxpayers and 70 percent of Americans who have no federal income tax liability also think the money should be returned.
The Center for Responsive Politics lists AIG as the fourth largest contributor to Senator Dodd, who chairs the Senate Banking Committee, giving him a total of $281,038 in campaign bonuses over his career. Senator Max Baucus (D-MT), who chairs the Senate Finance Committee, has received more money from AIG over his career ($91,000) than he has from any other company. The Center also reports that stimulus bill supporter Senator John Kerry (D-MA) "was by far the biggest investor in AIG, with stock valued around $2 million."
Congress may be undecided on how best to recoup AIG's taxpayer-funded bonuses, however, a clear majority of American voters want members of Congress to return the campaign bonuses they received from AIG.
Monday, March 16, 2009
CDW: Hoffa's Card Check Gaffe Coincides With 20th Anniversary of Justice Department Requiring Teamsters to Hold Secret Ballot Elections
/PRNewswire -- The Coalition for a Democratic Workplace (CDW) is launching an advertising campaign on the card check issue this week that coincides with the 20th anniversary of the United States Justice Department ordering the Teamsters to allow its members to vote for their leaders by secret ballot. The Teamsters agreed to a landmark consent decree with the federal government on March 13, 1989 to avoid prosecution on mob-related corruption.
On March 10, 2009, James P. Hoffa, the current president of the Teamsters, mocked the importance of the secret ballot in a press release that commended Democratic congressional leaders for pushing forward with legislation to eliminate the secret ballot for union organizing elections.
In a desperate attempt to shift attention away from the fact that the card check scheme pushed by Big Labor and its allies on Capitol Hill would strip away worker privacy and make workers vulnerable to threats of intimidation and coercion, Mr. Hoffa, who has been elected by the Teamsters' secret ballot system three times, asked "since when is the secret ballot a basic tenet of democracy?"
The CDW ad campaign juxtaposes Hoffa's comments on the card check debate with the American people's overwhelming support of the secret ballot. A poll conducted in January for CDW found that 82 percent of likely voters believe a worker's vote in a union organizing election should be kept private; 86 percent believe a secret ballot election is the best way to protect the individual rights of workers. Only 11 percent support the card check scheme that would make the votes of workers public to their employers, co-workers and union organizers.
"The Teamsters were right to agree to use the secret ballot in 1989," said Brian Worth, with the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace. "It cleaned up mob-related corruption and made the union more accountable to rank and file workers. I'm assuming Mr. Hoffa is not in favor of taking away the secret ballot from his members. I just don't understand how he can justify stripping it away from the millions of American workers who don't belong to his union."
On March 10, 2009, James P. Hoffa, the current president of the Teamsters, mocked the importance of the secret ballot in a press release that commended Democratic congressional leaders for pushing forward with legislation to eliminate the secret ballot for union organizing elections.
In a desperate attempt to shift attention away from the fact that the card check scheme pushed by Big Labor and its allies on Capitol Hill would strip away worker privacy and make workers vulnerable to threats of intimidation and coercion, Mr. Hoffa, who has been elected by the Teamsters' secret ballot system three times, asked "since when is the secret ballot a basic tenet of democracy?"
The CDW ad campaign juxtaposes Hoffa's comments on the card check debate with the American people's overwhelming support of the secret ballot. A poll conducted in January for CDW found that 82 percent of likely voters believe a worker's vote in a union organizing election should be kept private; 86 percent believe a secret ballot election is the best way to protect the individual rights of workers. Only 11 percent support the card check scheme that would make the votes of workers public to their employers, co-workers and union organizers.
"The Teamsters were right to agree to use the secret ballot in 1989," said Brian Worth, with the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace. "It cleaned up mob-related corruption and made the union more accountable to rank and file workers. I'm assuming Mr. Hoffa is not in favor of taking away the secret ballot from his members. I just don't understand how he can justify stripping it away from the millions of American workers who don't belong to his union."
Monday, January 26, 2009
New Poll: Union Members Oppose Big Labor's Card Check
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A new national survey of voters released today by the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace (CDW) shows opposition coming from an unlikely source - union households. A special polling oversample of 400 union households shows both union members and all voters strongly opposing The Employee Free Choice Act, often called the "card check" bill.
The findings indicate widespread concern among both voters and union households about this legislation that threatens secret ballots, worker privacy and job growth. Both voters and union members tell pollsters that Congress should focus on other more important issues and put Big Labor's agenda aside.
"The strong opposition from current union members to the Employee Free Choice Act should send a clear signal to President Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress that the EFCA lacks popular support, both among a key Democratic constituency and voters as a whole," said Brian Worth with the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace. "The only support card check has is among the leaders of Big Labor."
The poll was conducted by nationally respected polling firm of McLaughlin & Associates. It surveyed 1,000 likely voters with a sub-sample of 400 union households. The poll was conducted from January 7 to 11, 2009.
Key findings of the poll include:
-- Three out of four voters (74%) oppose the "The Employee Free Choice
Act." Union households also strongly oppose the Employee Free Choice
Act, 74% oppose to only 20% support.
-- When given a more detailed description of the Employee Free Choice
Act, nearly 9 out of 10 voters, 86%, feel the process should remain
private and only 8% feel it should be public information. Again, even
union workers feel strongly that the process should be kept private,
as 88% said private and only 8% said public.
-- Four out of five voters, or 82%, favor having a federally supervised
election as a means to "protect the individual rights of workers."
The voters clearly see this as a basic right, especially given that
only 11% of voters feel the card check would be the best way to
protect the individual rights of workers. Support increases to 85%
among union households.
-- The majority (52% to 26%) of American voters believe that the Employee
Free Choice Act is not good for job creation. Even among union
households, the plurality (48%) believes that the Employee Free Choice
Act will cost America jobs.
-- In the current economic climate, 52% of voters are particularly
opposed to any measure that would risk jobs or job growth.
-- Further exemplifying the electorates' distaste for the Employee Free
Choice Act, 71% agreed that this legislation would be "unwise" and
"risky." In today's economic climate, the electorate has little
confidence in the federal government's ability to make such major
business decisions.
Despite opposition from their own rank and file workers, labor bosses have made support for the EFCA, or "card check" bill, a top priority this year and are pressuring Congress to act quickly to pass it. Unfortunately for Big Labor, 79% of union workers and voters want Congress to focus on other issues like jobs and healthcare.
"Workers aren't fooled by Big Labor's attempt to increase their power at the expense of worker privacy," said Worth.
More information about the poll and CDW's efforts to protect secret ballots and worker privacy can be found at www.MyPrivateBallot.com.
Methodology: This poll of 1,000 likely general election voters in the United States was conducted from January 7th - 11th, 2009 by McLaughlin & Associates. An oversample of 193 union households was conducted, which brings the combined total of union households to 400. All interviews were conducted via telephone by professional interviewers. Interview selection was random within predetermined election units - in this case, the fifty states. These units were structured to correlate with actual voter turnout in a general election. This poll of 1,000 likely general election voters has an accuracy of +/- 3.1% at a 95% confidence interval. The 400 sample of union households has an accuracy of +/- 4.9% at a 95% confidence interval.
The findings indicate widespread concern among both voters and union households about this legislation that threatens secret ballots, worker privacy and job growth. Both voters and union members tell pollsters that Congress should focus on other more important issues and put Big Labor's agenda aside.
"The strong opposition from current union members to the Employee Free Choice Act should send a clear signal to President Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress that the EFCA lacks popular support, both among a key Democratic constituency and voters as a whole," said Brian Worth with the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace. "The only support card check has is among the leaders of Big Labor."
The poll was conducted by nationally respected polling firm of McLaughlin & Associates. It surveyed 1,000 likely voters with a sub-sample of 400 union households. The poll was conducted from January 7 to 11, 2009.
Key findings of the poll include:
-- Three out of four voters (74%) oppose the "The Employee Free Choice
Act." Union households also strongly oppose the Employee Free Choice
Act, 74% oppose to only 20% support.
-- When given a more detailed description of the Employee Free Choice
Act, nearly 9 out of 10 voters, 86%, feel the process should remain
private and only 8% feel it should be public information. Again, even
union workers feel strongly that the process should be kept private,
as 88% said private and only 8% said public.
-- Four out of five voters, or 82%, favor having a federally supervised
election as a means to "protect the individual rights of workers."
The voters clearly see this as a basic right, especially given that
only 11% of voters feel the card check would be the best way to
protect the individual rights of workers. Support increases to 85%
among union households.
-- The majority (52% to 26%) of American voters believe that the Employee
Free Choice Act is not good for job creation. Even among union
households, the plurality (48%) believes that the Employee Free Choice
Act will cost America jobs.
-- In the current economic climate, 52% of voters are particularly
opposed to any measure that would risk jobs or job growth.
-- Further exemplifying the electorates' distaste for the Employee Free
Choice Act, 71% agreed that this legislation would be "unwise" and
"risky." In today's economic climate, the electorate has little
confidence in the federal government's ability to make such major
business decisions.
Despite opposition from their own rank and file workers, labor bosses have made support for the EFCA, or "card check" bill, a top priority this year and are pressuring Congress to act quickly to pass it. Unfortunately for Big Labor, 79% of union workers and voters want Congress to focus on other issues like jobs and healthcare.
"Workers aren't fooled by Big Labor's attempt to increase their power at the expense of worker privacy," said Worth.
More information about the poll and CDW's efforts to protect secret ballots and worker privacy can be found at www.MyPrivateBallot.com.
Methodology: This poll of 1,000 likely general election voters in the United States was conducted from January 7th - 11th, 2009 by McLaughlin & Associates. An oversample of 193 union households was conducted, which brings the combined total of union households to 400. All interviews were conducted via telephone by professional interviewers. Interview selection was random within predetermined election units - in this case, the fifty states. These units were structured to correlate with actual voter turnout in a general election. This poll of 1,000 likely general election voters has an accuracy of +/- 3.1% at a 95% confidence interval. The 400 sample of union households has an accuracy of +/- 4.9% at a 95% confidence interval.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Growing Optimism That Obama Will Improve US Relations: Global Poll
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- As Barack Obama prepares to be sworn in as the 44th president of the United States, a new 17-nation poll conducted for the BBC World Service finds widespread and growing optimism that his presidency will lead to improved relations between the United States and the rest of the world.
The poll also shows people around the world are looking to President Obama to put highest priority on dealing with the current global financial crisis.
In 15 of the 17 countries polled, majorities think that the election of Barack Obama will lead to improved relations with the rest of the world. On average 67 percent express this upbeat view, while 19 percent think relations will stay the same and just 5 percent that relations will worsen. This is up sharply - by 21 points among tracking countries - from polling done for the BBC World Service six months ago, before Obama was elected
Asked to rate six possible priorities for the Obama Administration, the top priority in all 17 countries polled was the global financial crisis. On average 72 percent said that it should be a top priority.
This was followed by withdrawing US troops from Iraq - with 50 percent saying this should be a top priority - then addressing climate change (46%), improving America's relationship with the respondent's country (46%), brokering peace between Israel and the Palestinians (43%), and supporting the government of Afghanistan against the Taliban (29%).
The results are drawn from a survey of 17,356 adult citizens across 17 countries conducted for the BBC World Service by the international polling firm GlobeScan together with the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland. GlobeScan coordinated fieldwork between November 24, 2008 and January 5, 2009.
"Familiarity with Obama seems to be breeding hope," commented Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes. "But then again," he added, "he is starting from a low baseline, following eight years of an unpopular US president. Maintaining this enthusiasm will be a challenge given the complexities he now faces."
The poll also shows people around the world are looking to President Obama to put highest priority on dealing with the current global financial crisis.
In 15 of the 17 countries polled, majorities think that the election of Barack Obama will lead to improved relations with the rest of the world. On average 67 percent express this upbeat view, while 19 percent think relations will stay the same and just 5 percent that relations will worsen. This is up sharply - by 21 points among tracking countries - from polling done for the BBC World Service six months ago, before Obama was elected
Asked to rate six possible priorities for the Obama Administration, the top priority in all 17 countries polled was the global financial crisis. On average 72 percent said that it should be a top priority.
This was followed by withdrawing US troops from Iraq - with 50 percent saying this should be a top priority - then addressing climate change (46%), improving America's relationship with the respondent's country (46%), brokering peace between Israel and the Palestinians (43%), and supporting the government of Afghanistan against the Taliban (29%).
The results are drawn from a survey of 17,356 adult citizens across 17 countries conducted for the BBC World Service by the international polling firm GlobeScan together with the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland. GlobeScan coordinated fieldwork between November 24, 2008 and January 5, 2009.
"Familiarity with Obama seems to be breeding hope," commented Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes. "But then again," he added, "he is starting from a low baseline, following eight years of an unpopular US president. Maintaining this enthusiasm will be a challenge given the complexities he now faces."
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Caregivers Need a Bailout Too! (or 1% for Families)
/PRNewswire/ -- There are more than 50 million Americans today providing unpaid care for family members and loved ones: an aging or ailing parent, a friend with a chronic health condition, a spouse with Alzheimer's, a sibling with a traumatic war injury, a child with physical or mental challenges. Family caregivers represent a huge but invisible "silent workforce" over 150 times larger than Wall Street's workforce and over 176 times larger than the automobile industry workforce.
While the deteriorating economy has hit all Americans hard, it has hit these Americans even harder. Family caregivers are struggling to pay their own bills and, increasingly, those of their loved ones as well; expenses continue to rise and the hours of care they provide each day continue to go uncompensated. The average caregiver spends $5,534 per year out-of-pocket for caregiving expenses. Like Wall Street, the auto industry, and homeowners, family caregivers need help from Congress to make it through 2009.
Caring.com and the National Alliance for Caregiving, are calling on President Obama and the 111th Congress to target up to 1% of the upcoming economic stimulus package toward supporting family caregivers. They have jointly developed five priority initiatives to help family caregivers that are posted on the Caring.com website, and are asking caregivers to add their voices and vote on which initiatives would help the most. Caring.com and the National Alliance for Caregiving will present the list, votes, and recommendations to President-Elect Obama's transition team for Long-Term Care and key members of the 111th Congress.
"These five initiatives could provide essential relief to family caregivers," said Gail Gibson Hunt, President & CEO of the National Alliance for Caregiving. "President-Elect Obama cared for his mother and grandmother and knows how difficult it is to provide caregiving on top of other family responsibilities."
The five recommended priorities to support family caregivers are:
1. Provide Adequate Funding for the National Family Caregiver Support
Program. The National Family Caregiver Support Program (NFCSP) is the
only federal program that recognizes family caregivers; it helps
individuals who serve as unpaid caregivers for persons sixty or older.
The program provides respite services, counseling, support groups and
other community services to relieve the emotional, physical, and
financial hardships of providing care. For many of the nation's family
caregivers of aging parents, the NFCSP is the only program to sustain
and support them in their caregiving role. It's also an incredible
value. If services provided by informal caregivers had to be replaced
with paid services, the price tag would be in excess of $375 billion.
Yet the NFCSP has experienced level or only modest increases in
funding since its inception in 2001, with current funding at $158M.
Funding for the NFCSP should be doubled, from $158M to $320M, to
address the current under-funding of this vital program.
2. Expand Medicare and Medicaid Benefits to Better Support Family
Caregivers. Medicaid and Medicare must do more help to ease the burden
on family caregivers. Family caregivers are the backbone of the US
long-term care system. Four out of every five adults receiving long-
term care at home rely exclusively on family and friends to provide
assistance. With the annual cost of nursing home care averaging over
$75,000 per person, the ability to keep our aging loved ones at home
longer adds up to huge savings for the government, private insurance,
and families. Medicaid and Medicare are vital to supporting the needs
of family caregivers, and we recommend two essential first steps.
o Under Medicaid, family caregivers should receive a comprehensive
Caregiver Assessment to help identify and support their own needs in
providing care to a friend or loved one.
o Under Medicare, healthcare professionals, including doctors, will
promote educational resources for caregivers and referrals to local
caregiver support organizations.
3. Encourage States to Adopt Paid Family Medical Leave Programs. The
concept of paid family leave is here to stay, with several states and
growing bipartisan support helping the U.S. to catch up with many other
industrialized nations that have long offered such programs. The issue
also became a topic in the presidential election, with President-Elect
Obama proposing a "50-state strategy to adopt paid-leave systems,"
stating, "You shouldn't be punished for getting sick or dealing with a
family crisis." In California, the nation's first state to adopt a paid
family medical leave program in 2004, employees are entitled to up to
six weeks of partial pay each year while taking time off from work to
care for a seriously ill parent, child, and spouse or registered
domestic partner. Most workers receive approximately 55% of their pre-
taxed weekly wage, up to a maximum of $917, while on leave. Using
successful state models already underway in California, Washington, and
New Jersey as prototypes, Congress should provide incentives for
additional states to develop paid family leave policies.
4. Fund the Lifespan Respite Act. In 2006, the Lifespan Respite Care Act
was signed into law to make respite more accessible and affordable to
family caregivers, regardless of age or disability. To date, Congress
has provided no funding. This is unacceptable. The economic value that
accrues from respite is exceptional. Respite has been shown to help
avoid or delay more costly nursing home or foster care placements.
Delaying nursing home or institutional placement of just one individual
with a chronic condition for several months can save Medicaid, private
insurance, or the family thousands of dollars. Congress should fully
fund Lifespan Respite (PL 109-442) at $53.3 million for FY 09, $71.1
million for FY 2010 and $94.8 for FY 2011 to help the nation's 50
million family caregivers regardless of age or disability.
5. Tax Relief for Family Caregivers and Employers. A number of bills with
bipartisan support have been introduced in Congress in recent years to
provide caregiver tax incentives to help offset the thousands of
dollars in lost wages and other expenses that family and informal
caregivers at all income levels incur. Among the approaches currently
under consideration: an annual refundable tax credit for persons with
long-term care needs or their family caregivers, credits for specified
caregiving expenses (such as home care services, respite, food, and
transportation), a tax deduction to help consumers pay long-term care
insurance premiums for policies that meet consumer protections, and
inclusion of long-term care coverage in employer cafeteria plans.
There's no shortage of good ideas for providing tax report for family
caregivers. There has been a shortage of results. We encourage the
111th Congress to act.
"Funding these five initiatives would cost less than 1% of the proposed stimulus package, yet would provide material relief to millions of families struggling with caregiving today," said Andy Cohen, co-founder and CEO of Caring.com.
Family caregivers are asked to visit Caring.com to add their voices to these recommendations, vote on which initiatives would be most helpful to them, and share their experiences with other individuals caring for family members and loved ones. The results of the vote will be presented to the Obama Transition Team for Long-Term Care.
To access the poll on Caring.com, visit:
http://www.caring.com/polls/message-to-president-obama-dont-forget-family- caregivers.
While the deteriorating economy has hit all Americans hard, it has hit these Americans even harder. Family caregivers are struggling to pay their own bills and, increasingly, those of their loved ones as well; expenses continue to rise and the hours of care they provide each day continue to go uncompensated. The average caregiver spends $5,534 per year out-of-pocket for caregiving expenses. Like Wall Street, the auto industry, and homeowners, family caregivers need help from Congress to make it through 2009.
Caring.com and the National Alliance for Caregiving, are calling on President Obama and the 111th Congress to target up to 1% of the upcoming economic stimulus package toward supporting family caregivers. They have jointly developed five priority initiatives to help family caregivers that are posted on the Caring.com website, and are asking caregivers to add their voices and vote on which initiatives would help the most. Caring.com and the National Alliance for Caregiving will present the list, votes, and recommendations to President-Elect Obama's transition team for Long-Term Care and key members of the 111th Congress.
"These five initiatives could provide essential relief to family caregivers," said Gail Gibson Hunt, President & CEO of the National Alliance for Caregiving. "President-Elect Obama cared for his mother and grandmother and knows how difficult it is to provide caregiving on top of other family responsibilities."
The five recommended priorities to support family caregivers are:
1. Provide Adequate Funding for the National Family Caregiver Support
Program. The National Family Caregiver Support Program (NFCSP) is the
only federal program that recognizes family caregivers; it helps
individuals who serve as unpaid caregivers for persons sixty or older.
The program provides respite services, counseling, support groups and
other community services to relieve the emotional, physical, and
financial hardships of providing care. For many of the nation's family
caregivers of aging parents, the NFCSP is the only program to sustain
and support them in their caregiving role. It's also an incredible
value. If services provided by informal caregivers had to be replaced
with paid services, the price tag would be in excess of $375 billion.
Yet the NFCSP has experienced level or only modest increases in
funding since its inception in 2001, with current funding at $158M.
Funding for the NFCSP should be doubled, from $158M to $320M, to
address the current under-funding of this vital program.
2. Expand Medicare and Medicaid Benefits to Better Support Family
Caregivers. Medicaid and Medicare must do more help to ease the burden
on family caregivers. Family caregivers are the backbone of the US
long-term care system. Four out of every five adults receiving long-
term care at home rely exclusively on family and friends to provide
assistance. With the annual cost of nursing home care averaging over
$75,000 per person, the ability to keep our aging loved ones at home
longer adds up to huge savings for the government, private insurance,
and families. Medicaid and Medicare are vital to supporting the needs
of family caregivers, and we recommend two essential first steps.
o Under Medicaid, family caregivers should receive a comprehensive
Caregiver Assessment to help identify and support their own needs in
providing care to a friend or loved one.
o Under Medicare, healthcare professionals, including doctors, will
promote educational resources for caregivers and referrals to local
caregiver support organizations.
3. Encourage States to Adopt Paid Family Medical Leave Programs. The
concept of paid family leave is here to stay, with several states and
growing bipartisan support helping the U.S. to catch up with many other
industrialized nations that have long offered such programs. The issue
also became a topic in the presidential election, with President-Elect
Obama proposing a "50-state strategy to adopt paid-leave systems,"
stating, "You shouldn't be punished for getting sick or dealing with a
family crisis." In California, the nation's first state to adopt a paid
family medical leave program in 2004, employees are entitled to up to
six weeks of partial pay each year while taking time off from work to
care for a seriously ill parent, child, and spouse or registered
domestic partner. Most workers receive approximately 55% of their pre-
taxed weekly wage, up to a maximum of $917, while on leave. Using
successful state models already underway in California, Washington, and
New Jersey as prototypes, Congress should provide incentives for
additional states to develop paid family leave policies.
4. Fund the Lifespan Respite Act. In 2006, the Lifespan Respite Care Act
was signed into law to make respite more accessible and affordable to
family caregivers, regardless of age or disability. To date, Congress
has provided no funding. This is unacceptable. The economic value that
accrues from respite is exceptional. Respite has been shown to help
avoid or delay more costly nursing home or foster care placements.
Delaying nursing home or institutional placement of just one individual
with a chronic condition for several months can save Medicaid, private
insurance, or the family thousands of dollars. Congress should fully
fund Lifespan Respite (PL 109-442) at $53.3 million for FY 09, $71.1
million for FY 2010 and $94.8 for FY 2011 to help the nation's 50
million family caregivers regardless of age or disability.
5. Tax Relief for Family Caregivers and Employers. A number of bills with
bipartisan support have been introduced in Congress in recent years to
provide caregiver tax incentives to help offset the thousands of
dollars in lost wages and other expenses that family and informal
caregivers at all income levels incur. Among the approaches currently
under consideration: an annual refundable tax credit for persons with
long-term care needs or their family caregivers, credits for specified
caregiving expenses (such as home care services, respite, food, and
transportation), a tax deduction to help consumers pay long-term care
insurance premiums for policies that meet consumer protections, and
inclusion of long-term care coverage in employer cafeteria plans.
There's no shortage of good ideas for providing tax report for family
caregivers. There has been a shortage of results. We encourage the
111th Congress to act.
"Funding these five initiatives would cost less than 1% of the proposed stimulus package, yet would provide material relief to millions of families struggling with caregiving today," said Andy Cohen, co-founder and CEO of Caring.com.
Family caregivers are asked to visit Caring.com to add their voices to these recommendations, vote on which initiatives would be most helpful to them, and share their experiences with other individuals caring for family members and loved ones. The results of the vote will be presented to the Obama Transition Team for Long-Term Care.
To access the poll on Caring.com, visit:
http://www.caring.com/polls/message-to-president-obama-dont-forget-family- caregivers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
