Poll: Nobody knows anything about sequestration
posted at 6:01 pm on February 26, 2013 by Mary Katharine Ham
Americans aren’t really sure what’s going on, but they’re pretty sure it’s a big deal.
Not only are most people paying very little attention to the sequester, they also have only the faintest sense of what it would do. Less than one in five (18 percent) in the Post-Pew poll say they understand “very well” what would happen if the sequester went into effect.
Those remarkably low numbers come despite the fact that the debate over the sequester has dominated Washington for much of the last month and, in the past week or so, President Obama has cranked up the direness of his warnings about what it could do to the economy.
The lack of interest and knowledge about the sequester stands in contrast to the level of engagement the public showed in the last crisis — the fiscal cliff. In Pew polling done in the run-up to the cliff, 40 percent of people said they were following the negotiations “very” closely, while roughly three in 10 said they had a very strong understanding of what it would mean for themselves and the country if we went off the cliff.
The Washington Post opines that the gap between the sequestration and the cliff is all in a name, which means Washington monikers have devolved to such a state that the dismal “fiscal cliff” is now deemed one of the colorful ones. If only Obama could have foreseen this when he created sequestration and called it the Fiscal Gorge of Eternal Peril, he might be in better shape.
Not that he’s not in plenty good shape. As with most things, Americans seem happy to blame half of one House of Republicans for every problem even though the man who said he’d change the very level of the seas sits atop the federal government he constantly preaches will solve your every problem. Read the rest of the Post-Pew poll for an idea of how perennially bad things are for Republicans, and how bad the media has been at actually informing anyone about the nature of the sequester. I wonder what kind of insane answers pollsters would get if they did a multiple choice on what percentage of the budget sequestration cuts represent— 15 percent? more than 30 percent? Um, at least 50 percent, right?
But the fact that a very low percentage of Americans is deeply engaged in the President’s daily Armageddon briefings improves the chances that sequestration may just become a blip on the exhausted “crisis” radar of everyday Americans. Like that one co-worker who never got into “Downton Abbey,” but knows it’s important to maintain a facade of outrage over the fate of someone named “Matthew” around the water cooler, Americans are very concerned about the sequester but how much do they really care?
What explains the difference between sequester and the cliff? At first glance, it appears to be the fact that, without tax increases included in the sequester, most people don’t think it will really affect them. Just 30 percent of those tested say sequestration would have a “major effect” on their own financial situation — a contrast to 43 percent who said the same about the fiscal cliff…
The sea of numbers above should serve as a reminder that, for most Americans, the sequester doesn’t exist. All of the talk about it coming out of Washington about whom to blame is lost on these people — another fight in the nation’s capital that they don’t believe will have any actual impact in their lives.
Of, course we should never underestimate the ability of the president to foist blame for whatever negative economic sign that appears in the future upon this minuscule decrease in the rate of federal spending after escaping blame for the past four years. If he’s able to do that, good luck ever cutting or reforming anything because the American people have just signed on to the notion that whatever size of government Obama wishes to preside over is the exact size which prevents America from just ending, basically.
The National Journal looks ahead as we move onto the next fake crisis:
Against this backdrop, both parties will be gauging the public reaction to the sequester cuts set to begin on Friday. Groups on all sides of the debate plan to highlight the effects of the cuts once they are officially in place, in an effort to sway public opinion. Obama and Democrats may be evaluating the reaction with an eye on whether a significant public outcry might work to their benefit as they press to replace some cuts with revenue from sources such as levying higher taxes on millionaires, reducing farm subsidies, and closing tax loopholes for oil and gas companies.
If the sequester is met with a shrug, Republicans could use a lack of significant public anger to press Obama and Democrats for still more concessions on the spending they see as a driver of the federal debt. Whichever way it goes, the sequester is set to start soon, and the public’s reaction to the cuts will likely set the stage for what lies ahead.
We better hope Americans don’t really care about Matthew. They’ll soon find Mary will do fine without him.
A closing thought from Ron Swanson:
Related Posts:
Breaking on Hot Air

Menendez – Looks like we don’t have the votes for that immigration bill after all

America in decline – Bars selling rubbing alcohol as “scotch”







Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
More Agenda 21. Grabbing up as much land as possible.
katy on May 1, 2013 at 5:23 PM
Washington, DC aside, why does the federal government own any land..?
affenhauer on May 1, 2013 at 5:27 PM
Ya know, I think the GOP has stumbled upon a brilliant way to force some budget cuts. First we had it at the FAA, now at Interior:
1) Cut everything by XX%
2) People start screeching
3) You point out that “well, here’s where you could have saved that money”
4) Pass legislation reallocating the would-have-been-wasted funds to actual good stuff
5) Obama signs it.
If Step 2 doesn’t happen, we’ve won. If step 4 doesn’t happen, point out that “the democrats wouldn’t let us reopen the parks!”. If step 5 doesn’t happen, scream and shout that “Obama wouldn’t let us reopen the parks!”
Mohonri on May 1, 2013 at 5:37 PM
Le bravo, Erika!
Yup. Filthy sob’s.
petefrt on May 1, 2013 at 5:38 PM
So they can hire people to manage it.
WryTrvllr on May 1, 2013 at 5:41 PM
And the really sad thing (and if you’re a liberal you would be intellectually dishonest to admit it) the properties would have been LESS developed and LESS crowded and BETTER managed if the gubmint had just kept their grubby paws off….
WryTrvllr on May 1, 2013 at 5:45 PM
deny it…sorry
WryTrvllr on May 1, 2013 at 5:46 PM
Katy got it on comment number one.
tom daschle concerned on May 1, 2013 at 5:47 PM
I suggest either:
1. The US Government sells all its lands back to the states in which the land is located, or
2. The US Government turns over operations to private, competitively bid contractors. Present US park employees would have first dibs on jobs, now private, assuming they are qualified. A small staff of government employees would remain to handle oversight of private companies.
#2 would shift the burden of federal employees from the government to the private secor. This would increase tax revenue because now the government would not have to pay these employees and the private contractor would pay taxes on profits. I expect that the private sector would be more efficient, being profit oriented, than the employees that have now no or little accountability.
If #1 goes ahead, I suggest the sale be contingent on the states adopting #2 making park operations private.
I’d like to see this across the board with as many agencies as possible.
billrowe on May 1, 2013 at 5:52 PM
That would be giving up power. Not gonna happen. They can’t even get rid of empty buildings that we are paying for, or empty bank accounts with monthly fees. How could this clown troupe ever actually get rid of LAND?
iurockhead on May 1, 2013 at 5:54 PM
And you wonder why “tin hats” believe government is buying up ammunition in order to drive prices sky high.
GarandFan on May 1, 2013 at 5:55 PM
They own most of the West. Why don’t we give it back to the Native Americans? At least they are savvy businessmen and would let energy companies lease it back!
PattyJ on May 1, 2013 at 6:04 PM
Since I cancelled satellite I’m getting reaquinted with OTA TV. Been watching PBS distort history and embellish socialism via a retelling of Ken Burns’ old dust bowl documentary. They are pulling out all the stops to make it as current to events and policy initiatives as possible. Fascinating in a “we need to defund this crap” kind of way.
Having read “The Roosevelt Myth” and seeing how dems are operating right now it confirms what we know about them. Fcae it, they are communists that won’t let us define them as such. Progressive, European socialists, whatever. They want to control people by any means necessary.
DanMan on May 1, 2013 at 6:12 PM
LOVELY picture of the Tetons :)
Jackalope on May 1, 2013 at 6:25 PM
National Park lands sure do make GREAT COLLATERAL for our debt!
Wouldn’t the Chinese love to get hold of some of the natural resources under the ground?
PappyD61 on May 1, 2013 at 6:28 PM
Why can’t I post links on here????
katy on May 1, 2013 at 6:39 PM
the Federal government should sell at least 90% of the land it holds. States hold too much land as well.
forest on May 1, 2013 at 7:08 PM
If you are trying to post CNN or CNBC links, HA has judged those sources unreliable and the whole post will be blocked.
slickwillie2001 on May 1, 2013 at 7:49 PM
New Mexico …..dopes are going for a land grab in Taos Co. . Believe me
they can’t manage any of the land they now ” own ” . But call it a National
Monument and the morons cheer . The locals don’t care ( they foul their
turf with trash galore ) not realizing that there are no tax $s for the county
in this grab . These are the good folks that write about how they can hear
their lettuce scream when cut it in their gardens .
Susanna Martinez R Gov. has injected a good bit of sanity in an otherwise
nuts state .
If only they could get the idea that cocktail hour doesn’t start at 11am !
Lucano on May 1, 2013 at 8:27 PM
That’s an interesting photo shot on the home page.
Cleombrotus on May 1, 2013 at 9:25 PM
I live just over the hill to the left of that cover photo. Just love it in the summer. Especially if summer comes on a weekend!
IdahoAl on May 1, 2013 at 10:35 PM
Thanks. It was a cbnc link
katy on May 1, 2013 at 11:09 PM
cnbc duh
katy on May 1, 2013 at 11:09 PM
FIFY, Erika.
There are *some* legitimate reasons, including military bases and ranges. And, I don’t mind a few national parks. One third of the land area of the US, though? Wow.
BINGO!
GWB on May 2, 2013 at 10:20 AM
The whole idea of these land grabs really frosts me !
Great piece Erika , wish it got more attention .
Lucano on May 2, 2013 at 10:53 AM