He's right that we need honest communication to rebuild public dialog and public trust. He should have set an example by being honest himself.
Here is his commentary in total, with my comments in italics:
At a minimum, Mr. Davis, we should do whatever it takes to make people aware of the entire state budget and the dishonest rhetoric of those paid to defend the wasteful practices of the spending class. Yes, let's all try for less cynicism and more honesty. You could even try it yourself.
IN MY OPINION Adam Davis
Thursday, June 02, 2005 The OregonianConfronting our own budget ignorance
A s a public opinion researcher, I see time and again that voters are becoming less aware of how government works and the benefits government provides them. As a citizen, I'm deeply troubled by this.
Poor ignorant little voters just don't know all the wonderful, wonderful things that Big Daddy Government does for them. Let's pat them on the head.
Our firm recently completed a statewide survey for the advocacy group Citizens for Oregon's Future ("Voters lack awareness on budget," May 18). What we learned was expected but disturbing. Oregon voters as a whole are ill-informed about what choices the Legislature must actually make.
Or, you did a set-up job with loaded questions designed to "prove" that the voters are just unaware and out of touch. Great cover for big spending politicians - I wonder who paid for it... oh, Citizens for Oregon's Future! A special interest group dedicated to growing the size and power of government. How shocking that the people who paid for the survey got the answers they wanted.
Am I being fair in my depiction of COF? Well, the founder and Executive Director is Rhys Scholes, former aid to then-Multnomah County Chairwoman Beverly Stein and frequent apologist for big government. Their Communications Director is Steve Novick, onetime head of the "Center for Constructive Citizen Action" - apparently a Big Labor front organization, though now apparently defunct.
At least eight out of 10 Oregon voters oppose cutting services to seniors and funding for K-12 education to balance the state budget. And more than half think the state spends "too much" on services other than education, public safety, health care and services to seniors. But nearly two-thirds did not offer an estimate of the percentage of the state budget that goes to those "other" services. The average answer for those who did offer an estimate was 32 percent. But in fact, more than 90 percent of the state budget goes to the named services that voters clearly support and less than 10 percent goes to "other" services.
Oooh! More than 90% of "the budget" - but of course he doesn't say "the General Fund budget" because then he'd be admitting he's talking about 90% of 1/4 of the total state budget. Wouldn't want anybody to know that.
More than seven out of 10 likely voters did not even guess what percent of school district budgets go toward central administration. The average answer among those who did was 34 percent, which greatly exaggerates what are considered to be actual school administration costs.
"What are considered..." - people use the passive when they don't want to state who's doing the deed. Davis doesn't say that 45 cents of every education dollar fails to make it into the classroom to pay for the costs of instruction.
This poll is consistent with other research. The Progress Board has found that 85 percent of Oregonians do not know that the income tax is the primary source of state revenue
Maybe because it's not - less than one dollar of every four spent by the state comes from individual income tax revenue.and that education is the largest state expenditure.
Not even close. The biggest chunk is Human Services at $9.7 billion, then Administration at $7 billion, then Economic Development at $5.3 billion, then the State School Fund (for K-12) at $5 billion, then higher ed (colleges/universities) at $4.5 billion.
Oh, if you lump K-12 together with higher ed and "other education" you could challenge Human Services... but Davis isn't here to educate, but to obfuscate.
In the statewide Oregon Values and Beliefs poll that our firm conducted in 2002, only 59 percent of respondents mentioned education when we asked what services state and local government pays for -- which means that more than 40 percent of Oregonians did not think of education as something their tax dollars pay for.
Wow. And some 25% of Oregon households have kids in public schools. Your point?
And only 17 percent mentioned health care, which is, in fact, one of the largest items in the state budget.
Maybe because most Oregonians aren't the beneficiaries of the massive and wasteful spending of the Oregon Health Plan?
These findings represent part of the reason citizens are so negative about government. The information gap makes it easy -- indeed, almost irresistible -- for political candidates to make something-for-nothing promises that, when they go unfulfilled, only adds to public cynicism.
Once elected, politicians are stuck with the kind of choices the Oregon Legislature faces now: Do legislators reduce services for seniors or funding for schools? Since voters aren't prepared for the idea that such tough choices are necessary, they conclude that their legislators are just incompetent.
Clever! He insinuates without explictly saying it that his opponents are a pack of liars, and that budget savings are impossible.
This state of affairs poses a virtually insuperable barrier to any kind of major reform of our tax system or array of public services. Any effort to raise taxes for any purpose runs into the same problem: "Can't you just prioritize and cut out the unimportant stuff?"
I don't purport to know exactly how we can ensure a fully informed electorate.
There is a becoming level of modesty. But I suspect your definition of "informed" would actually mean "mis-informed" based on this article.People don't trust politicians or the news media, but that doesn't excuse them from at least trying to inform voters. The "balance-the-state-budget" project that Citizens for Oregon's Future has sponsored for high school students ("On a student budget," April 18) is an intriguing long-term strategy. And nonpartisan nonprofits that benefit from public dollars might try better educating their donors and clients.
At a minimum, we should do whatever it takes to make people more aware of how politicians spend our money. That might make people more sympathetic about the tough choices they are making -- and less receptive to "something-for-nothing" campaigns. A body politic with less cynicism and more honesty is itself a worthy goal and may ultimately lead to more effectively delivering the public's most desired services.
Adam Davis is a partner in the Portland opinion research firm of Davis, Hibbitts & Midghall.
1 comment:
I agree with you. Government officials at all levels seem to think that the will of the people must be circumvented when they don't support more government programs because obviously citizens are ignorant of the benefits of their programs. But it makes economic sense for me not to waste time on things over which I have little power to affect and which would bring me very little gain even if I was successful. So I generally oppose government trying to be a service provider in any form, and I think the weight of theory and research bear out the wisdom of less government yet the response by gov officials to rejection is usually to advocate educating us. On th otherr hand, it is often very difficult to find a forum or to gain the facts for seriously engaging government officials in honest discussion.
I have great respect for Tim Hibbett. I wonder what his reaction is to Davis' work.
Post a Comment