Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Bringing the public to the table on reconciliation

A sign that says, "What do you think?"
sigoisette/Getty Images

Kull is founder and president of Voice of the People and serves as director of the Program for Public Consultation at University of Maryland. Thomas is director of external relations at Voice of the People.


By punting the debt ceiling issue to December and setting a Halloween deadline to pass the bipartisan infrastructure bill, Democrats have given themselves a short window of opportunity to hammer out the final shape of the reconciliation bill, which aims to increase federal spending on health care, the environment and clean energy, education, and other safety net programs.

But how will they decide what stays and what goes from the original $3.5 trillion package? Instead of relying on lobbyists in Washington and campaign donors to dictate policy and spending priorities, congressional leaders should bring the voice of the people to the table.

As it becomes clearer that President Biden and most Democrats will not get everything they desire in the package due to the demands of Sens. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, an analysis of public opinion on which provisions have the broadest support from voters could be a helpful roadmap for finalizing the final contours of the bill.

In a comprehensive analysis conducted by the University of Maryland's Program for Public Consultation, all 33 of the major policy proposals from the reconciliation bill garner support from large majorities of American voters. For every proposal, this includes majorities of Democrats and independents.

Among Republicans, majorities support 18 of the 33 proposals and pluralities support another three: lowering the Medicare eligibility age to 60, increasing investment in affordable housing and adopting a minimum corporate tax rate of 15 percent.

Clearly, there is far more common ground in the public than there is in Congress.

Nine out of the 18 proposals with Republican majority backing earn more than 60 percent support from voters of both parties. The proposals with the most bipartisan support are allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices directly with pharmaceutical companies, expanding home health care, extending energy-efficiency improvement tax credits, creating federal environmental jobs programs, funding to fix and build public school buildings, taxing corporations' foreign earnings, supporting sector-based job training specifically in cybersecurity and the energy industry, and bolstering apprenticeships through tax credits. In terms of public support, these proposals are the lowest hanging fruit for inclusion in the reconciliation bill.

Nine other proposals garner between 51 and 60 percent support among Republicans as well as robust support among Democrats and independents: providing health insurance to low-income families in states that haven't expanded Medicaid, raising the income cut-off for Affordable Care Act subsidies, establishing energy requirements for all electric companies, tax credits for clean energy equipment and production, increasing the number of electric buses, providing financial assistance for first-time homebuyers, funding the repair of public housing, increasing the size of collegiate Pell Grants, and providing most undocumented immigrants with lawful permanent status and a path to citizenship. In regards to the final proposal, the path to citizenship for DACA-eligible immigrants garners even more support among Republicans (69 percent).

On five proposals, a majority of Republicans are fully opposed: increasing the IRS' budget for tax enforcement, providing additional SNAP benefits to families with children during the summer, making community college tuition-free, providing tax credits for the purchase of electric cars, and increasing funding for minority-serving higher education institutions. Furthermore, a plurality of Republicans are opposed to increasing ACA subsidies for low-income people.

On two proposals, raising taxes on corporations and extending the child tax credits, Republicans' views are divided. Republican views vary according to the presentation of four proposals: increasing taxes on income over $400,000, guaranteeing paid family and medical leave for all, subsidizing child care for low- and middle-income families, and free universal preschool programs.

More than half of the provisions included in the report were tested using the Program for Public Consultation's in-depth survey method that provides thousands of respondents with briefings on policy proposals and expert-reviewed pro and con arguments before recommendations are made. Standard polls included in the analysis were conducted by Morning Consult, Pew, Ipsos and others.

The common ground of the American people demonstrated in the Program for Public Consultation's report can be a foundation on which elected officials can build compromise, without having to abandon their bases. Research shows that elected officials and staffers misread the attitudes of their constituents. As policymakers finalize the reconciliation package, they could benefit by putting policies that lack broad support onto the cutting block.

If our leaders turn to the American people, they will find common ground with the people acting as an arbiter to help break the impasse among factions within the parties and across the aisle.


Read More

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Crowd of people walking on a street.

Andy Andrews//Getty Images

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Biologist and author Paul Ehrlich, the most influential Chicken Little of the last century, died at the age of 93 this week. His 1968 book, “The Population Bomb,” launched decades of institutional panic in government, entertainment and journalism.

Ehrlich’s core neo-Malthusian argument was that overpopulation would exhaust the supply of food and natural resources, leading to a cascade of catastrophes around the world. “The Population Bomb” opens with a bold prediction, “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

People clear rubble in a house in the Beryanak District after it was damaged by missile attacks two days before, on March 15, 2026 in Tehran, Iran. The United States and Israel continued their joint attack on Iran that began on February 28. Iran retaliated by firing waves of missiles and drones at Israel, and targeting U.S. allies in the region.

Getty Images, Majid Saeedi

Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

Most of what we have heard from the administration as it pertains to the Iran War is swagger and bro-talk. A few days into the war, the White House released a social media video that combined footage of the bombardment with clips from video games. Not long after, it released a second video, titled “Justice the American Way,” that mixed images of the U.S. military with scenes from movies like Gladiator and Top Gun Maverick.

Speaking to reporters at the Pentagon, War Secretary Pete Hegseth boasted of “death and destruction from the sky all day long.” “They are toast, and they know it,” he said. “This was never meant to be a fair fight... we are punching them while they’re down.”

Keep ReadingShow less
A student in uniform walking through a campus.

A Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) cadet walks through campus November 7, 2003 in Princeton, New Jersey.

Getty Images, Spencer Platt

Hegseth is Dumbing Down the Military (on Purpose)

One day before the United States began an ill-defined and illegal war of indefinite length with Iran, Pete Hegseth angrily attacked a different enemy: the Ivy League. The Secretary of War denounced Ivy League universities as "woke breeding grounds of toxic indoctrination” and then eliminated long-standing college fellowship programs with more than a dozen elite colleges, which had historically served as a pipeline for service members to the upper ranks of military leadership. Of the schools now on Hegseth’s "no-fly list," four sit in the top ten of the World’s Top Universities for 2026. So, why does the Secretary of War not want his armed forces to have the best education available? Because he wants a military without a brain.

For a guy obsessed with being the strongest and most lethal force in the world, cutting access to world-class schools is a bizarre gambit. It does reveal Hegseth doesn’t consider intelligence a factor–let alone an asset–in strength or lethality. That tracks. Hegseth alleges the Ivies infect officers with “globalist and radical ideologies that do not improve our fighting ranks…” God forbid the tip of the sword of our foreign policy has knowledge of international cooperation and global interconnectedness. The Ivy League has its own issues, but the Pentagon’s claim that they "fail to deliver rigorous education grounded in realism” is almost laughable. I’m a veteran Lieutenant Commander with two Ivy League degrees, both paid for with military tuition assistance, and I promise: it was rigorous. Meanwhile, are Hegseth’s performative politics grounded in reality? Attacking Harvard on social media the eve of initiating a new war with a foreign adversary is disgraceful, and even delusional.

Keep ReadingShow less
Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?
Person working at a desk with a laptop and books.

Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?

Draft an important email without using AI. Write it from scratch — no suggestions, no autocomplete, and no prompt to ChatGPT to compose or revise the email.

Now ask yourself: Did it feel slower? Harder? Slightly uncomfortable?

Keep ReadingShow less