• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
What the End of the Year Fiscal Train Wreck Means for the Great Lakes-White, 2012
 

What the End of the Year Fiscal Train Wreck Means for the Great Lakes-White, 2012

on

  • 324 views

This panel will examine what sorts of decisions the President and Congress – new or old – will have to make following this year’s November elections. Panelists will examine the political ...

This panel will examine what sorts of decisions the President and Congress – new or old – will have to make following this year’s November elections. Panelists will examine the political landscape and describe the major decisions that have to be made, including on government funding, sequestration, and tax cuts. Special emphasis will be given to the impacts various budget proposals will have on Great Lakes restoration funding.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
324
Views on SlideShare
324
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    What the End of the Year Fiscal Train Wreck Means for the Great Lakes-White, 2012 What the End of the Year Fiscal Train Wreck Means for the Great Lakes-White, 2012 Presentation Transcript

    • Producing Results in the GreatLakesPublic Support for Great Lakes Funding andProtectionSeptember 2012 Opinion Research ■ Strategic Communication
    • Methods Regional Survey: N=1511 adults in eight states surrounding the Great Lakes, February 2011, margin of sampling error 2.5 percentage points Ohio Survey: N=804 general election voters in Ohio, May 2012, margin of sampling error 3.5 percentage pointsGreat Lakes 2012 2
    • Key Findings  Broad and bipartisan support for continued funding both regionally and in Ohio  Examples of restoration projects seen as good use of money  Need to cut for deficit reduction less compelling than need to protect for our healthGreat Lakes 2012  Some negative reaction against member of Congress who votes to cut funding 3
    • Regional Support for Continued Great Lakes Funding Strongly Somewhat D: 79% Continue funding 52% 23% 75% R: 70% I: 75% Reduce funding 11% 13% 24% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%Q. Over the last three years, the U.S. federal government has spent over 400 million dollars a year to improvethe condition of the Great Lakes by cleaning up toxic waste and bacteria, protecting and rebuilding wetlands, andpreventing and managing invasive species such as Asian carp. In your opinion, should the federal governmentcontinue that funding for Great Lakes restoration, or should it reduce the funding? Do you feel that way stronglyor somewhat? 4
    • Ohio Support for Continued Great Lakes Funding Strongly Somewhat D: 79% Continue funding 47% 25% 72% R: 63% I: 72% Reduce funding 9% 14% 23% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%Q. Over the last three years, the U.S. federal government has spent over $300 million dollars a year to improvethe condition of the Great Lakes by cleaning up toxic waste and bacteria, reducing run-off pollution from citiesand farms, and protecting and rebuilding wetlands. In your opinion, should the federal government continue thatfunding for Great Lakes restoration, or should it reduce the funding? Follow-up: Do you feel that way strongly orsomewhat? 5
    • Ohio: Majority Rejects Idea Lakes Should be Cut with Everything Else Maintain Spending 54% Cut Along with Everything Else 37% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%Q. Which point of view do you agree with more? The government should focus on creating jobs and reducing thefederal budget deficit and the Great Lakes should take a budget cut along with everything else…OR…thegovernment should maintain spending to keep the Great Lakes healthy and protect the health of the millions ofpeople who rely on them for drinking water? 6
    • Region: Examples of Success Seen as Good Use of Money Excellent Good Cleaned PCBs from Oswego River, now safe for 43% 43% 86% fishing, swimming Fix sewers in Duluth to keep 44% 40% 84% sewage out of Lake Superior Restored Detroit River 30% 43% 73% wetlands, fish returned 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%Here are some examples of how federal tax dollars have been spent on improving the Great Lakes. Please tellme if you think each one is an excellent, good, fair, poor, or very poor use of federal tax dollars. Q. Cleaned upcontamination such as PCBs and dioxin from the mouth of the Oswego River near Lake Ontario so that now thearea is safe for fishing and swimming again. Q. Fixed outdated sewer systems in Duluth Minnesota to keepmillions of gallons of sewage from entering Lake Superior every year. Q. Removed concrete and steel from thebanks of the Detroit River and rebuilt wetlands, so that now mayflies, yellow perch and lake sturgeon have 7returned to the river
    • Region: Need to Protect Drinking Water Is More Compelling Than Need to Reduce Deficit Very persuasive (10 out of 10) The Great Lakes are the source of drinking water for 30 millionpeople and we need to protect the 52% Lakes to protect the health of the people in the region from threats posed by pollution With a record federal budgetdeficit, we need to cut government spending across the 14% board, including for the Great Lakes. 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%Please tell me how persuasive each of the following statements is …on a one to ten scale where one means notat all persuasive and ten means very persuasive. Q. The Great Lakes are the source of drinking water for 30million people and we need to protect the Lakes to protect the health of the people in the region from threatsposed by pollution. Q. With a record federal budget deficit, we need to cut government spending across the 8board, including for the Great Lakes.
    • Region: Impact on Member of Congress Who Cuts Funds Less likely to support 44% No difference 42% More likely to support 13% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Q. If your member of Congress voted to cut the funding for Great Lakes restoration, would it make you more likely to support his re-election, less likely to support his re-election, or would it make no difference to you? 9
    • Contact InformationEmma Whiteemmawhite@brspoll.com1320 - 19th Street, Suite 620Washington, DC 20036202.822.6090 Opinion Research ■ Strategic Communication