1. Finding Common Ground on
Our Fiscal Future
Diverse Group of 3,500 Americans Across 57
Sites Weigh In on Nation’s Fiscal Challenges

2. 19 Town Meeting Sites
Albuquerque
3,500 People
Augusta
Casper
Across 57 Sites
Chicago
Columbia
Dallas
Des Moines
Detroit
East Palo Alto
Grand Forks
Jackson
Louisville
Missoula
Overland Park, KS
Pasadena
Philadelphia
Portland, OR 38 Additional Community
Portsmouth Conversations Across the
Richmond Country including an Online
Conversation in Second Life

3. Key Outcomes
1. Two-thirds of our table groups developed packages that
reduced the deficit by more than $1 trillion in 2025
2. Participants moderated their views over the course of the
discussion
3. Those who described themselves as “somewhat liberal”,
“somewhat conservative” and “moderate” supported
significant reforms from across the political spectrum
4. While participants were highly dissatisfied with the tone and
quality of today’s political discourse. They were highly
satisfied with the tone and quality of the national discussion

4. How Did the National Discussion Work?

5. Participants spent the day working in randomly assigned
small groups with volunteer table facilitators.

6. Sites were linked by video, allowing participants to share ideas with
others across the nation during periodic national reports.

7. Individuals expressed preferences using keypads and table
groups submitted ideas into laptop computers at each table

8. A “theme team” analyzed ideas coming in from across the
country and reported back themes.

9. Participating in person or via video:
Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND) Rep. Leonard Boswell (D-IA)
Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-PA)
Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX)
Fmr Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM) Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA)
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) Rep. John Spratt (D-SC)
Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) Dr. Alice Rivlin (Member of the
National Fiscal Commission)

10. Who Participated Across the Nation?*
Race
• 16% African American (Census: 12%)
• 3% Asian (Census: 4%)
• 5% Latino (Census: 15%)
Household Income
• 17% Less than $25k (Census: 23%)
• 20% Between $50k and $75k (Census 19%)
• 26% More than $100k (Census: 21%)
Views on Economic/Fiscal Issues
• 26% Liberal, 18% Somewhat Liberal, 23% Moderate,
13% Somewhat Conservative, 20% Conservative
* Demographics represent participants across 19 town meeting sites

11. National Advisory Committee
Examples of Participating Liberal Groups
• AARP, Center for American Progress, Center on Budget
and Policy Priorities, Economic Policy Institute, National
Academy of Social Insurance, National Committee to
Preserve and Protect Social Security and Medicare
Examples of Participating Conservative Groups
• AEI, Business Roundtable, Heritage Foundation, Hudson
Institute, National Taxpayers Union, Tax Foundation, US
Chamber of Commerce
Examples of Participating Budget Groups
• Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, Concerned
Youth of America, Concord Coalition,
Economy.com

12. 7 Hour Agenda
• Discussion of values and
economic recovery
• 42 spending and revenue
options presented
• Challenges to cut deficit by $1.2
trillion in 2025
• Tables spent several hours
weighing options and developing
packages
• Participants were able to vote on
their individual preferences

13. What Did People Have to Say?

14. Reductions Made by Tables
Reductions Reached by Tables # of Tables % of Tables
More than $1.2 trillion 163 47%
More than $1.1 trillion 202 58%
More than $1 trillion 226 65%
More than $900 billion 249 71%
More than $800 billion 265 76%
More than $700 billion 292 83%
More than $600 billion 314 90%
Total Tables 350 100%

15. Top Messages to Leaders
“Please find the political will to use this input
as if it were coming from a powerful lobbying
group – because we are!”
“Abandon the failed politics of partisanship.”
“You can’t demonize each other and expect
us to trust you.”

16. Spending Preferences
• 85% of participants expressed support for reducing
defense spending by at least 5%, which included 51% of
participants who expressed support for a 15% cut.
• 68% of participants expressed support for reducing All
Other Non-Defense spending by at least 5%.
• 62% of participants expressed support for reducing
health care spending by at least 5%.
• No options for reducing Social Security benefits received
a majority of support.
• Rather, 60% of participants expressed support for raising
the cap on payroll taxes to 90% and 50% supported
raising payroll taxes by at least 1 percentage point.

17. Revenue Preferences
• 54% of participants expressed support for raising income
taxes on those earning more than $1 million by five
percent and 52% of participants expressed support for
raising personal tax rates for the top two income
brackets by at least 10%.
• 54% of participants expressed support for establishing a
carbon tax and 50% of participants supported the
establishment of a securities-transaction tax.
• Participants were divided about options presented to
reform the tax code. However, majorities can be seen
when combined with votes to eliminate individual
deductions and credits

18. Examples of Finding Common
Ground on Polarized Reforms
83% of those who are “somewhat conservative” and
89% of those are “moderate” joined liberal participants in
supporting cuts to defense spending as part of deficit
reduction package
62% of those who are “somewhat liberal” and 70% of
those who are “moderate” joined conservative
participants in supporting reductions in non-defense
discretionary spending as part of deficit reduction package

19. Evaluation
Findings
Conducted by experts
from Harvard and
University of California
Compared pre and post
surveys of participants
with surveys of four
control groups to
understand quality and
individual impact of
national discussion

20. Were Participants Representative?
(focus on 6 largest sites)

21. Were Participants Representative?
“Participants of the OBOE discussions were in
most instances representative of the
populations of the six cities where these
deliberations occurred. The distribution of OBOE
participants in terms of income, age, and
ethnicity/race is roughly comparable with a few
exceptions ... The biggest contrast between
OBOE participants and the general populations
of these cities is in educational background.”

22. Participants Began the Day Slightly
More Polarized Than General Public
Raising Taxes on the Wealthy
Strongly Somewhat Neither Somewhat Strongly
Oppose Oppose Support Support

23. Shifting Positions After Deliberation
Option to
Reduce
Military
Spending
Liberal Neutral Conservative

24. Shifting Positions After Deliberation
Option to
Reduce
Entitlement
Spending
Liberal Neutral Conservative

25. Positive Evaluations of Experience
• 85% felt more informed about challenges and
options for cutting budget deficit
• 97% believed all participants listened to one
another respectfully and courteously
• 93% felt other participants seemed to hear and
understand their views
• 93% said everyone had a real opportunity to
speak and no one was shut out of the
discussions
• 92% said they would participate in an
event like this again

26. “The most important thing I learned from this process is that
ordinary citizens could tackle a complex issue, filter it civilly
through their own perspective, and come up with consensus. I
literally did not think this was possible.”
“We had a very diverse group that ranged from recent high
school grads to retired and from inner city Chicago to high end
suburbs. I learned that while our perspectives may be
different our problems are the same … I also learned that we
are all in this together.”
“It was so refreshing to have civil discourse among people of
different ages, persuasions, and backgrounds. Congress
could learn a lot from our experience. The tone of our
discussions was polite, respectful, and everyone contributed.”

27. To download final report and evaluation:
www.usabudgetdiscussion.org
www.americaspeaks.org