Voter Support for Progressive Agenda

OnPoint Polling and Research has released the results of a poll showing strong support for a progressive agenda.

Thanks to The Progressive Pulse for the heads-up.

North Carolina Voters Strongly Support Agenda for Education, the Environment and, Working

Raleigh, N.C. – Likely voters in North Carolina are overwhelmingly in favor of several public policy proposals regarding education, the environment, and working families, according to an OnPoint Polling and Research survey conducted February 8. The survey was commissioned by AARP North Carolina, the NC Academy of Trial Lawyers, the Conservation Council of NC, Equality NC, the Planned Parenthood Action Fund of Central NC, and the North Carolina AFL-CIO.

87% of likely Tar Heel voters favor requiring chemical plants to publicize lists of the dangerous products they contain.

69% support giving counties the authority to charge impact fees on developers to help pay for new school construction.

64% support a children’s health insurance program to help cover uninsured children.

64% want the state income tax deduction for people who save money through the North Carolina college savings plan to be made permanent.

62% of likely voters support requiring hog farmers to use new technology to replace hog lagoons.

61% of North Carolina voters favor an annual cost-of-living adjustment for the minimum wage.

61% favor a plan to provide health insurance for all North Carolinians where the costs are shared by all parties.

These are not partisan issues, either. Five of the seven issues have majority support from both Democrats and Republicans, and all of them have significant support across party lines.

Comments

Very nice

Great news.

61% of North Carolina voters favor an annual cost-of-living adjustment for the minimum wage.

Wouldn't it be nice to not have this debate again? Of course, we still need to address the living wage. Do you think if this were to happen that people would be satisfied to stop there and not address a living wage?

Robin Hayes lied. Nobody died, but thousands of folks lost their jobs.



***************************
Vote Democratic, the ass you save may be your own.

Living V Minimum ?

That's a danger. A COL adjusted minimum would let some air out of the tires but I don't think it would stop it because a living wage would also require COL adjustment to be realistic.

I guess I should feel a bit of hope

that I'm hearing "living wage" bandied about more frequently now.

Robin Hayes lied. Nobody died, but thousands of folks lost their jobs.



***************************
Vote Democratic, the ass you save may be your own.

Dirty Liberals

Just look at all those dirty liberals saying yes to things like a children's health insurance program and saving for college. It's a wonder our state hasn't fallen apart. Someone needs to tell the notable majority of NC's citizens just how crazy they are to believe such things.

Liberal vs. "Progressive"

64% want the state income tax deduction for people who save money through the North Carolina college savings plan to be made permanent.

That's the difference between Liberals and "Progressives" - "Progressives" aren't completely against tax reductions.

Is that the only difference?

You've got it all wrong Justin.

I think we would all be happy with reversing the trend of the poor and working class paying more taxes, Progressive and Liberal alike.

Where are the candidates?

Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me

Why are the means of reversing taxation trends...

...limited to college savings accounts? In an earlier post, you said that expanding the amount of money that families could put in a Health Savings Account was proof the Republicans hate babies. Putting aside the assertion that any registered Republican truly hates babies (According to your assertion, I have to get around to punishing my 7-month-old more since I'm incapable of showing him love) - there's the issue of consistency in the liberal/progressive/whatever-else-the-Left-will-call-itself-next agenda towards tax shelters for working folks.

With one modest income, my family is in the center of the middle-class. We've chosen a high-deductible plan so that we can make use of lower premiums and an HSA instead of a low-deductible plan with a Flex Spending account that keeps us on a treadmill. In a couple of years, we should be able to shop for an even better plan, because of money saved in the HSA will allow us to carry a bigger deductable. According to your earlier post, my being able to put more money in that plan was greed. And that using such a tax-advantage to help position my family for better healthcare comes from my greed and hatred of babies.

However, we also put a small monthly sum in a 529 account with the idea that we'll use the money to help our son offset college expenses in the future. Just like the HSA, we're using tax-deductible dollars to grow in a tax-sheltered account that won't be taxed when it's used. According to the report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities that you quoted in your "Republicans Hate Babies" post use of these accounts have no precedent (actually, for the line they used to be true - 529s couldn't exist) and were only of an advantage to high-income individuals. However, maintaining tax deductibility of the educational plans is a "progressive" idea that both liberals and progressives support - even though they opposed the 2001 tax legislation that made them exist in the first place.

And here's where we get to conundrum. When can an account whose contributions are tax-deductible, that grow tax-free, and, when used in a prescribed manner, whose proceeds aren't taxed be considered a basis for determining that someone hates babies or a "progressive" idea? I'd like to know where that line exists for no other reason than to help mitigate my hatred for babies.

Justin

Your first comment made little sense to me. The poll was of likely voters. It was not a poll of progressives.

This comment makes even less sense. HSAs are not comparable to 529s. Contributions to 529s are governed by existing gift tax limitations. Distributions are intended to cover up to the full cost of college. HSAs require a high deductible plan and are intended to fill the a gap, not cover an entire expense.

Robert did not say that HSAs = hating babies. He said

Congress refused to provide funds needed to ensure that up to 600,000 low-income children keep their health insurance through the State Children's Health Insurance Program in 2007.

At the same time HSAs were expanded in such a way that they provide wealthy with tax avoidance strategies that can use HSAs to park money without actually being used to pay healthcare expenses.

HSAs obviously work great for you and your healthcare needs. They are of little use to people without health insurance and of little use to the wealthy other than as another tax shelter. especially at the expense of the S-CHIP.

I don't know WTF you're talking about.

I wasn't saying anything about the random poll point you blockquoted, but instead the idea that Democrats "hate" all tax cuts. We don't hate all tax cuts, just those that Republicans support, those that focus on the upper class and ignore the middle and lower class. As for my earlier post, for those who haven't read it, here is the choice Republicans were faced with:

1. Saving S-CHIP funding for children.
2. Making Health Savings Accounts MORE of a tax shelter for the wealthy.

Guess which they picked.

And, to repeat to what I said in the previous post:

I have an HSA...
Submitted by JustinThibault on Mon, 12/11/2006 - 12:58pm.

...does that make me wealthy?

Maybe I should be shopping for a Gulfstream instead of a set of tires for my 7-year-old station wagon.


Is that what I said? No.

Submitted by Robert P. on Mon, 12/11/2006 - 1:08pm.

I have an HSA as well, since i spend a lot on health care. What I said was...

Making Health Savings Accounts MORE of a tax shelter for the wealthy.

You can read the analysis yourself.

Again, I didn't bring this up, you did, but when faced with a choice your party chose to extend this tax break for those who can afford HUGE amounts as a tax deduction. See, it sounds to me like you are using them for what they are meant.

Want to know what is interesting about you bringing this up today?

We're doing an Action day for One Corps and we were going to help sign uninsured kids up for S-CHIP in public locations. What did we find out?

...one of my group members did, that seems to indicate there is a freeze on accepting SCHIP apps. Of course, I'll need to call DHHS to see if this is actually the case or not, during business hours.

Imagine that, they've stopped accepting kids into S-CHIP. I wonder why? Why don't they have the funds? I'll tell you why, because when the time came to choose between funding S-CHIP and giving tax breaks to the wealthy...

It is stunning that as one of its final acts, Congress chose to attach to the tax extenders bill a provision making Health Savings Accounts more lucrative as tax shelters for wealthy individuals even as Congress refused to provide funds needed to ensure that up to 600,000 low-income children keep their health insurance through the State Children's Health Insurance Program in 2007.

Where are the candidates?

Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me