Does the Public Read? Sadly, No. . .

A recent CBS-New York Times poll finds that only 6% of Americans believe that the $787 billion stimulus package actually created new jobs. Of course, the poll, echoing other recent surveys, also indicates deep disapproval of Congress, disapproval of President Obama (much less than Congress, however), and widespread anger about the direction of the country.

The low number of Americans who believe in the effectiveness of the stimulus shows that skepticism does not correlate with party affiliation. A wide cross-section of Americans doubt that the stimulus has created jobs.

The public's deep skepticism regarding the success of the stimulus, however, conflicts with most of the published reports by analysts who have studied the effectiveness of the spending package. According to a New York Times article, prestigious economic research firms such IHS Global Insight, Macroeconomic Advisers and Moody’s Economy.com estimate that the stimulus package has added 1.6 million to 1.8 million jobs to the economy and that it could ultimately create up to 2.5 million jobs. In addition, the NYT reports that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office "considers these estimates to be conservative."

What Explains the Disconnect?
A number of factors could explain the disconnect between public perception and reality. Although the stimulus has created jobs, unemployment remains very high at 10%. Also, many families are still struggling to pay their expenses.

But these factors, as significant as they are, cannot possibly account for the absolute inaccuracy of public opinion. Unfortunately, I suspect that a lot of the public does not take the time to research issues before forming opinions. Furthermore, while the news media happily report the anger and skepticism of Tea Party participants and other "angry" segments of society, they rarely critically engage the ill-founded claims of these groups.

The blog Outside the Beltway has an even less generous view of voters, contending that:

These sorts of polls are annoying. Most people simply have no basis for making judgments on technical matters like this; indeed, economists can only take a very educated guess. So, asking Joe Public about such matters is not very helpful.

I agree that the public, as the data demonstrate, lacks knowledge about basic facts related to the stimulus. Nevertheless, I believe that the public can and should educate itself on important social issues. At the same time, however, the news media has the solemn responsibility to inform voters rather than simply creating and reporting political division. Both camps have failed miserably in terms of public education.

Savvy Americans Love "Gay Men" and "Lesbians" More Than "Homosexuals"

Framing matters in public opinion polls, but a new CBS/New York Times survey related to Don't Ask, Don't Tell has some interesting results. Apparently, while the public favors ending Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the level of support for discarding the policy depends upon whether the military will admit "homosexuals" or "gay men" and "lesbians." The poll finds that:

[T]he wording of the question is key when it comes to determining whether Americans support allowing gays to serve in the military.

In the poll, 59 percent say they now support allowing "homosexuals" to serve in the U.S. military, including 34 percent who say they strongly favor that. Ten percent say they somewhat oppose it and 19 percent say they strongly oppose it.

But the numbers differ when the question is changed to whether Americans support "gay men and lesbians" serving in the military. . .70 percent of Americans say they support gay men and lesbians serving in the military, including 19 percent who say they somewhat favor it. Seven percent somewhat oppose it, and 12 percent strongly oppose it.

Also, when asked whether the groups should serve "openly," 44 percent (versus 42 percent) said yes for homosexuals, but 58 percent (versus just 28 percent) said yes for gay men and lesbians.

Opponents and proponents of DADT could learn from these polling results. Proponents will likely continue to endorse including "gay men and lesbians" in the military. Opponents, however, will decry the horrors of "open homosexuals" serving in the military. If this does not work, perhaps opponents will argue that sexually deviant immoral pedophile terrorist rapist queers have no place in the armed forces. Stay tuned!