The Charlotte Business Journal thus
headlines a report today on a
Money magazine survey of the 'Investor Class' that Bush will supposedly be targeting in his next SOTU with psueodo-intellectual baloney about an "Ownership Society."
You may be surprised to learn that the investor class is not all that impressed with Bush's financial stewardship:
Although 73% of investors polled say they have gained from the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, 84% say they would have preferred a different approach to fiscal policy. More than 50% would have favored additional spending for Social Security, Medicare, job creation, health insurance or education.
Of the 'investors' surveyed, Forty-nine percent were Republican and 20% are Democrats. Fifty-two percent describe their political views as moderate and 38% are conservatives.
Money Managing Editor Bob Safian characterized his surprise about the survey results:
"It was surprising to us in particular that support for the President's tax cuts was so weak and, in general, that our subscribers don't seem nearly as worried about federal tax relief as they do a whole host of other issues -- from health care to education."
Money reports what it learned from this group:
While the vast majority of investors (73 percent) reported that they personally gained from the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, a whopping 84 percent would rather have had the money used for something else.
At least half would have preferred additional spending on Social Security, Medicare, job creation, health insurance or education.
"I think the tax cut was shortsighted," says Christopher Tankersly, 37, a drug researcher at Amgen in Thousand Oaks, Calif. and registered Democrat. "It was a good political move, and it sounded good on paper. But in the end I think all it did was stress the finances of the government."
Adds George Davis, 35, a Republican in The Woodlands, Texas who works as an emergency-room physician: "I think the tax cuts were too big, and I am worried about the deficit. You have to pay it back at some point."
As for their own tax burdens, more than half (53 percent) said their federal income tax burden was about right.
But the vast majority (81 percent) noted that their state and local taxes have gone up in the past 12 months.
"At least in my case, the increase in our local property taxes and our state taxes has offset any decrease in our federal taxes," says George Reilly, 64, a retired educator and political independent in Mystic, Conn.
Tax cuts didn't even make the top 10 when our panel was asked how important 18 issues were to them personally.
Instead, rising health-care costs topped the list (96 percent called that very or somewhat important to them), followed by putting Social Security on a sound footing (94 percent), enforcing securities laws to protect investors (93 percent), fixing Medicare (91 percent) and strengthening education (88 percent).
By contrast, making the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent was very or somewhat important to only 69 percent; fewer gave high priority to cutting the capital-gains tax (64 percent), eliminating the dividend tax (63 percent) or getting rid of estate taxes (61 percent).
"Personally, I'm happy to get a tax cut," says Republican Robert Parker, 49, an Atwater, Calif. computer consultant and retired Air Force officer. "But when I look at how much the war on terrorism is costing and the other large items out there, like changes to Medicare, I am watching it. Worried is too strong a word, but I am concerned."
The magazine also reported that
While investors were positive about the economy generally, they were not so sunny about a number of specific issues.
Asked to rank their level of concern about a dozen different issues, at least half of the investors said that they were very or somewhat concerned about all but one.
Heading the list was spiraling health-care costs (95 percent), followed by the solvency of the Social Security system (83 percent), rising state taxes (80 percent), the war in Iraq (80 percent), a declining stock market (79 percent) and escalating property taxes (79 percent).
You can't read too much into surveys, but these results nevertheless seem to challenge conventional wisdom that wealthier Americans are Bush's natural constituency.
Do the findings of this survey suggest that Bush's forthcoming Ownership Society platform is a dog that won't hunt? Or is the Ownership Society just a way to peel off working class Americans who imagine they'll be big investors some day to once again vote against their interests?
Some of us Democrats seem to think it is going to be really hard to beat George Bush because he's 'popular.' I disagree. I think Bush is a tough opponent because he and Karl Rove fight hard and fight dirty. Bush's support a lot softer than many realize, and I believe it's softest on domestic issues (which voters care more about), not national security issues. There's been tons of discussion here on dKos about how national security issues will shape the election. But which of our candidates is best positioned to hit that domestic soft spot in the general election?