Finding Common Ground on Our Fiscal Future

Diverse Group of 3,500 Americans Across 57 Sites Weigh In on Nation’s Fiscal Challenges

3,500 People Across 57 Sites

19 Town Meeting Sites

Albuquerque Augusta Casper Chicago Columbia Dallas Des Moines Detroit East Palo Alto Grand Forks Jackson Louisville Missoula Overland Park, KS Pasadena Philadelphia Portland, OR Portsmouth Richmond

38 Additional Community Conversations Across the

Country including an Online Conversation in Second Life

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

How Did the National Discussion Work?

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

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

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

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

Participating in person or via video: Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND) Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) Fmr Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM) Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH)

Rep. Leonard Boswell (D-IA) Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-PA) Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA) Rep. John Spratt (D-SC) Dr. Alice Rivlin (Member of the National Fiscal Commission)

Who Participated Across the Nation?*

* Demographics represent participants across 19 town meeting sites

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

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

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

What Did People Have to Say?

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%

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.”

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.

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

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

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

Were Participants Representative? (focus on 6 largest sites)

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.”

Participants Began the Day Slightly More Polarized Than General Public

Raising Taxes on the Wealthy

Strongly Oppose

Somewhat Oppose

Neither Somewhat Support

Strongly Support

Shifting Positions After Deliberation

Liberal Neutral Conservative

Option to Reduce Military Spending

Shifting Positions After Deliberation

Liberal Neutral Conservative

Option to Reduce Entitlement Spending

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

“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.”

To download final report and evaluation:

www.usabudgetdiscussion.org

www.americaspeaks.org