Gallup: Americans Oppose Income Redistribution to Fix Economy

Through the blog of an online acquaintance (thanks, Monk!) I saw a poll conducted by Gallup on the question of income redistribution as a fix for the U.S. economy. I thought I'd share it, plus my thoughts, and point out some interesting things about people who believe in wealth redistribution and where I think it may all be headed in November.

But before I begin, here's the survey and results as posted by Gallup.

So, the first question: Which approach should government focus on to fix economy?

Possible responses:

1. Take steps to distribute wealth more evenly among Americans
2. Take steps to improve overall economic conditions and the jobs situation

Nationally, all adults, an overwhelming majority - 84% - went for option two: improve overall economic conditions and let people get their own jobs. Only 13% went for the redistribution option.

Interestingly enough, by party ID, Republicans went for option 2 90% of the time, followed by independents at 85%, and Democrats at 77%. Not quite what one might expect out of DNC voters!

Across income levels, this lopsided support for the second option also remains. From lower incomes to higher incomes, people overwhelmingly want government out of the way...

...sort of.

Where things start to go off the rails a bit comes up in the next question: Some people think the government is trying to do too many things that should be left to individuals and businesses. Others think that government should do more to solve our country's problems. Which comes closer to your own view?"

Possible responses:

1. Government is doing too much
2. Government should do more

Nationally, across all party lines, 50% of adults surveyed think the government is doing too much, and 43% think it should do even more. Who is who, here, exactly?

Republicans: 72% too much, 24% too little.
Independents: 47% too much, 44% too little.
Democrats: 36% too much, 58% too little.

There they are! I knew there was something fishy about Democrats being on-board with free market capitalism. It seems that when they were answering the very first question, when you ask them to choose between wealth redistribution and having government "improve the overall economic and jobs situation" they either a) don't know what "wealth redistribution" in this context means (or at all), or b) they shrug and go, "six of one, half dozen of the other." (Then there's option c: Democrat voters live in a fairy tale fantasy land where government is not fueled by tax dollars, it doesn't cost a dime, and it is never responsible for poor economic conditions, only good ones.)

When this same question is broken down by income, a very interesting result emerges:

People making $30,000 per year or less think government needs to do more and not less, 55% to 36%.

People making $30,000 to $75,000 per year: 54% say government should do less, 40% say more.

People making $75,000 per year or more: 57% say government should do less, 38% say government should do more.

Thus, it turns out that the lopsided flip from being against wealth redistribution to being for larger government amongst DNC voters comes largely from people of lower incomes.

As incomes rise, views move back into coherency with the first question on the preference of wealth redistribution over work.

I draw two conclusions from this:

1. Most people who support big government under DNC auspices don't make a lot of money; people of lower incomes tend to be younger.

2. As people grow older, gain more experience, and grow their incomes, they begin to realize how much of it is due to their efforts and how very little government has helped them (or they realize how much it has impeded them).

Therefore, putting these together, I suspect that it tells a story of something else that is not the focus of this poll:

Barack Hussein Obama's rhetoric and social/economic promises do not enjoy the widespread appeal the mainstream media constantly portrays them as having.

It will appeal to young, inexperienced people who are starting out in their careers, but not much beyond that.

The "youth vote," when it comes down to it is not very large.

This is why, I think, Obama's campaign is so packed with fluff: "hope," "change," the notion that voting in a black man as the President of the U.S. is desirable because it would be "historic," electing the first black President would demonstrate that we're not a racist country, etc. Style over substance.

It certainly sells better than a notion of how our economy and government should interact that the majority of Americans do not want.

But that's exactly what Barack Hussein Obama will give us if he gets into office.