| EARLIER ON THE FIX: Scott Walker: GOP 'would be wise' to nominate governor in 2016 RESOLVED: President Obama doesn't (really) care about campaign finance reform Why is the pope always so old? (Video) Why Stuart Stevens is (mostly) right We read the New Yorker's Eric Cantor profile so you don't have to The sequester and the value of a good lobbyist — in one chart The American electorate: Partisan and super predictable Everything you need to know about what Congress is (and isn't) doing this week Jay Leno on Jesse Jackson Jr. and the weather (Video) Why we need the sequester The sequester? Never heard of it. Just one in four Americans are following the debate over the $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts set to kick in on Friday very closely, according to a new Washington Post-Pew poll, numbers that serve as a reminder that although talk of the sequester is dominating the nation's capitol, it has yet to permeate into the public at large. Not only are most people paying very little attention to the sequester, they also have only the faintest sense of what it would do. Less than one in five (18 percent) say they understand "very well" what would happen if the sequester went into effect in the Post-Pew poll. Those remarkably low numbers come despite the fact that the debate over the sequester has dominated Washington for much of the last month and, in the past week or so, President Obama has cranked up the direness of his warning about what it could do to the economy. The lack of interest and knowledge about the sequester stands in contrast to the level of engagement the public showed in the last crisis — the fiscal cliff. In Pew polling done in the run-up to the cliff, 40 percent of people said they were following the negotiations "very" closely while roughly three in ten said they had a very strong understanding of what it would mean for themselves and the country if we went off the cliff. What explains the difference between sequester and the cliff? At first glance, it appears to be the fact that, without tax increases included in the sequester, most people don't think it will really affect them. Just 30 percent of those tested say sequestration would have a "major effect" on their own financial situation — a contrast to 43 percent who said the same about the fiscal cliff. The lack of a tax increase component in sequestration (Democrats do want some increases in revenue, but mostly through closing loopholes) is see most clearly among Republicans — with just one in five following news about the automatic cuts "very closely." Twice as many Republicans followed the fiscal cliff battle in December very closely. (While impossible to document via polling, we believe strongly that people have less of a sense for sequestration than they did for the fiscal cliff because it lacks a catchy name. Never underestimate the shallowness of the American public's news consumption habits.) The sea of numbers above should serve as a reminder that, for most Americans, the sequester doesn't exist. All of the talk about it coming out of Washington about who to blame is lost on these people — another fight in the nation's capitol that they don't believe will have any actual impact in their lives. (For what it's worth, the poll shows that 45 percent say Republicans in Congress should be blamed for the sequester, while 32 percent blame President Obama; that's a far less sizable edge than the 26-point blame game advantage that Obama enjoyed over congressional GOPers on the fiscal cliff.) Whether the lack of interest and knowledge regarding the sequester will change once it actually hits later this week remains to be seen, although these numbers suggest it's got a long way to go to even be a relevant issue for most people in the country. A very long way. Fixbits: The Supreme Court has decided not to overturn a ban on corporations making contributions to federal candidates. Janet Napolitano becomes the latest Cabinet secretary to warn about the sequester, saying it will hurt border security. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) says Obama is trying to "scare" Americans on the sequester. Jack Lew could be confirmed as the next treasury secretary by Wednesday. The assault weapons ban could get voted in by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday. Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) will meet with Obama on Tuesday to discuss immigration. But Graham says he also wants to talk about a big deal on the sequester. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R), who has angered some conservatives, will not be invited to the Conservative Political Action Conference. The GOP's effort to change how some blue and swing states award electoral votes is still alive — at least somewhat — in Michigan and Pennsylvania.
Nebraska state Auditor Mike Foley (R) says he is weighing runs for a number of offices, including governor, Senate and Congress. Rep. David McKinley (R-W.Va.) won't challenge fellow Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) in a Senate primary. A new poll in Arkansas shows former congressman Asa Hutchinson (R) favored in the state's governor's race, leading Lt. Gov. Bill Halter (D) by 16 points and former congressman Mike Ross (D) by five. Must-reads: "What if the Republicans Had Won the Senate?" — Carl Hulse, New York Times "As sequester nears, no signs of progress" — David A. Fahrenthold and Sean Sullivan, Washington Post | 
Comments
Post a Comment