Real Clear Politics
|Race/Topic (Click to Sort)||Poll||Results||Spread|
|Iowa Republican Presidential Caucus||DMR/Bloomberg||Cruz 31, Trump 21, Carson 13, Rubio 10, Bush 6, Paul 3, Christie 3, Huckabee 3, Fiorina 1, Kasich 2, Santorum 1, Graham 0, Pataki 0||Cruz +10|
|President Obama Job Approval||Gallup||Approve 44, Disapprove 51||Disapprove +7|
|Friday, December 11|
|Race/Topic (Click to Sort)||Poll||Results||Spread|
|New Hampshire Republican Presidential Primary||WBUR/MassINC||Trump 27, Rubio 11, Christie 12, Cruz 10, Kasich 7, Bush 8, Carson 6, Fiorina 3, Paul 2, Huckabee 1, Graham 0, Santorum 0, Pataki 0||Trump +15|
|Georgia Republican Presidential Primary||WSB/Landmark||Trump 43, Carson 7, Cruz 16, Rubio 11, Bush 5, Fiorina 2, Christie, Huckabee 2, Kasich 2, Paul 1, Graham, Jindal, Santorum, Pataki||Trump +27|
|President Obama Job Approval||Rasmussen Reports||Approve 47, Disapprove 52||Disapprove +5|
|Thursday, December 10|
|Race/Topic (Click to Sort)||Poll||Results||Spread|
|2016 Republican Presidential Nomination||CBS/NY Times||Trump 35, Cruz 16, Carson 13, Rubio 9, Bush 3, Christie 3, Paul 4, Kasich 3, Fiorina 1, Huckabee 3, Santorum 0, Pataki 0, Graham 0||Trump +19|
|2016 Democratic Presidential Nomination||CBS/NY Times||Clinton 52, Sanders 32, O’Malley 2||Clinton +20|
|Public Approval of Health Care Law||CBS/NY Times||For/Favor 40, Against/Oppose 52||Against/Oppose +12|
|President Obama Job Approval||CBS/NY Times||Approve 44, Disapprove 48||Disapprove +4|
|South Carolina Republican Presidential Primary||Winthrop||Trump 24, Carson 14, Cruz 16, Rubio 11, Bush 9, Fiorina 2, Graham 2, Huckabee 2, Kasich 1, Paul 1, Christie 1, Santorum 0, Pataki 0||Trump +8|
|President Obama Job Approval||Reuters/Ipsos||Approve 41, Disapprove 53||Disapprove +12|
|Congressional Job Approval||CBS/NY Times||Approve 15, Disapprove 74||Disapprove +59|
|Direction of Country||CBS/NY Times||Right Direction 24, Wrong Track 68||Wrong Track +44|
|Direction of Country||Reuters/Ipsos||Right Direction 24, Wrong Track 66||Wrong Track +42|
|Wednesday, December 9|
|Race/Topic (Click to Sort)||Poll||Results||Spread|
|New Hampshire 2016 Democratic Primary||CNN/WMUR||Sanders 50, Clinton 40, O’Malley 1||Sanders +10|
|South Carolina Democratic Presidential Primary||FOX News||Clinton 65, Sanders 21, O’Malley 3||Clinton +44|
|South Carolina Republican Presidential Primary||FOX News||Trump 35, Carson 15, Cruz 14, Rubio 14, Bush 5, Fiorina 1, Graham 2, Huckabee 1, Kasich 1, Paul 2, Christie 2, Santorum 1, Pataki 0||Trump +20|
|North Carolina Senate – Burr vs. Ross||PPP (D)||Burr 46, Ross 35||Burr +11|
|North Carolina Governor – McCrory vs. Cooper||PPP (D)||McCrory 44, Cooper 42||McCrory +2|
|President Obama Job Approval||The Economist/YouGov||Approve 42, Disapprove 56||Disapprove +14|
|Congressional Job Approval||The Economist/YouGov||Approve 10, Disapprove 67||Disapprove +57|
|Direction of Country||The Economist/YouGov||Right Direction 25, Wrong Track 67||Wrong Track +42|
|Tuesday, December 8|
|Race/Topic (Click to Sort)||Poll||Results||Spread|
|New Hampshire Republican Presidential Primary||CNN/WMUR||Trump 32, Rubio 14, Christie 9, Cruz 6, Kasich 7, Bush 8, Carson 5, Fiorina 5, Paul 2, Huckabee 1, Graham 1, Santorum 0, Pataki 0||Trump +18|
|2016 Republican Presidential Nomination||USA Today/Suffolk||Trump 27, Cruz 17, Carson 10, Rubio 16, Bush 4, Christie 2, Paul 2, Kasich 2, Fiorina 1, Huckabee 1, Santorum 1, Pataki 0, Graham 0||Trump +10|
|2016 Democratic Presidential Nomination||USA Today/Suffolk||Clinton 56, Sanders 29, O’Malley 4||Clinton +27|
|Iowa Democratic Presidential Caucus||Monmouth||Clinton 55, Sanders 33, O’Malley 6||Clinton +22|
|North Carolina Republican Presidential Primary||PPP (D)||Trump 33, Carson 14, Cruz 16, Rubio 14, Bush 5, Christie 4, Fiorina 2, Huckabee 2, Kasich 3, Paul 2, Graham 1, Santorum 1||Trump +17|
|North Carolina Democratic Presidential Primary||PPP (D)||Clinton 60, Sanders 21, O’Malley 10||Clinton +39|
|General Election: Trump vs. Clinton||USA Today/Suffolk||Clinton 48, Trump 44||Clinton +4|
|General Election: Cruz vs. Clinton||USA Today/Suffolk||Clinton 47, Cruz 45||Clinton +2|
|General Election: Rubio vs. Clinton||USA Today/Suffolk||Rubio 48, Clinton 45||Rubio +3|
|General Election: Carson vs. Clinton||USA Today/Suffolk||Carson 45, Clinton 46||Clinton +1|
|North Carolina: Trump vs. Clinton||PPP (D)||Clinton 43, Trump 47||Trump +4|
|North Carolina: Cruz vs. Clinton||PPP (D)||Clinton 43, Cruz 47||Cruz +4|
|North Carolina: Rubio vs. Clinton||PPP (D)||Rubio 46, Clinton 42||Rubio +4|
|North Carolina: Carson vs. Clinton||PPP (D)||Carson 47, Clinton 41||Carson +6|
|North Carolina: Bush vs. Clinton||PPP (D)||Clinton 43, Bush 43||Tie|
|North Carolina: Trump vs. Sanders||PPP (D)||Trump 46, Sanders 44||Trump +2|
|North Carolina: Cruz vs. Sanders||PPP (D)||Cruz 44, Sanders 42||Cruz +2|
|North Carolina: Carson vs. Sanders||PPP (D)||Carson 46, Sanders 37||Carson +9|
|North Carolina: Bush vs. Sanders||PPP (D)||Bush 42, Sanders 39||Bush +3|
|Monday, December 7|
|Race/Topic (Click to Sort)||Poll||Results||Spread|
|Iowa Republican Presidential Caucus||Monmouth||Cruz 24, Trump 19, Carson 13, Rubio 17, Bush 6, Paul 4, Christie 2, Huckabee 2, Fiorina 3, Kasich 3, Santorum 1, Graham 0, Pataki 0||Cruz +5|
|Iowa Republican Presidential Caucus||CNN/ORC||Cruz 20, Trump 33, Carson 16, Rubio 11, Bush 4, Paul 3, Christie 2, Huckabee 2, Fiorina 3, Kasich 1, Santorum 1, Graham 0, Pataki 0||Trump +13|
|Iowa Democratic Presidential Caucus||CNN/ORC||Clinton 54, Sanders 36, O’Malley 4||Clinton +18|
|2016 Republican Presidential Nomination||IBD/TIPP||Trump 27, Cruz 13, Carson 15, Rubio 14, Bush 3, Christie 2, Paul 2, Kasich 2, Fiorina 3, Huckabee 2, Santorum 0, Pataki, Graham 0||Trump +12|
|2016 Democratic Presidential Nomination||IBD/TIPP||Clinton 51, Sanders 33, O’Malley 1||Clinton +18|
|General Election: Trump vs. Clinton||MSNBC/Telemundo/Marist||Clinton 52, Trump 41||Clinton +11|
|General Election: Cruz vs. Clinton||MSNBC/Telemundo/Marist||Clinton 51, Cruz 44||Clinton +7|
|General Election: Rubio vs. Clinton||MSNBC/Telemundo/Marist||Rubio 45, Clinton 48||Clinton +3|
|General Election: Carson vs. Clinton||MSNBC/Telemundo/Marist||Carson 47, Clinton 48||Clinton +1|
|General Election: Bush vs. Clinton||MSNBC/Telemundo/Marist||Clinton 49, Bush 45||Clinton +4|
|New Hampshire: Trump vs. Clinton||PPP (D)||Clinton 47, Trump 41||Clinton +6|
|New Hampshire: Cruz vs. Clinton||PPP (D)||Clinton 47, Cruz 39||Clinton +8|
|New Hampshire: Rubio vs. Clinton||PPP (D)||Rubio 43, Clinton 44||Clinton +1|
|New Hampshire: Carson vs. Clinton||PPP (D)||Clinton 45, Carson 43||Clinton +2|
|New Hampshire: Bush vs. Clinton||PPP (D)||Bush 41, Clinton 43||Clinton +2|
|New Hampshire: Trump vs. Sanders||PPP (D)||Sanders 49, Trump 40||Sanders +9|
|New Hampshire: Cruz vs. Sanders||PPP (D)||Sanders 48, Cruz 38||Sanders +10|
|New Hampshire: Rubio vs. Sanders||PPP (D)||Sanders 45, Rubio 41||Sanders +4|
|New Hampshire: Carson vs. Sanders||PPP (D)||Sanders 46, Carson 41||Sanders +5|
|New Hampshire: Bush vs. Sanders||PPP (D)||Sanders 47, Bush 38||Sanders +9|
|New Hampshire Senate – Ayotte vs. Hassan||PPP (D)||Ayotte 42, Hassan 42||Tie|
|Direction of Country||Rasmussen Reports||Right Direction 25, Wrong Track 68||Wrong Track +43|
The facts speak for themselves.
A full understanding of the steps the Romney-led establishment took to punish the grassroots in 2012 is necessary to understand what has happened this cycle. Conservative Review’s Steve Deace took a look at how the 2012 rules, the ones campaigns are now operating under, were adopted.
“Look closer at the rules and you’ll see this is tailor-made for Jeb Bush 2016,” he told me. “Under the new rules, which were driven down our throats by Bush family loyalist Ben Ginsberg and the establishment at the 2012 convention, states aren’t allowed to have ‘winner-take-all’ primaries until after March 15th. That means all those southern states that go prior to that will have to proportionally-allocate their delegates”
The rules were a direct result of the grassroots activism of the Liberty Movement, a small band of Ron Paul loyalists who ran for and won a significant portion of the delegates – bound by the rules to Romney – for the 2012 convention. The Bushtablishment, lead by Ben Ginsberg, worked to have many of these Liberty Delegates deemed unqualified to be delegates, mainly due to the rule fight.
The rules, adopted at the 2012 convention, were what Ginsberg and Reince Priebus – who was the Party Chair at the time – wanted for gaining more control of the debates. Rule 10(h), as adopted, governs the debate process.
(h) There shall be a Standing Committee on Presidential Primary Debates, which shall be composed of thirteen (13) members of the Republican National Committee, five (5) of whom shall be appointed by the Chairman of the Republican National Committee, and each of the four (4) regions shall elect two (2) members, one man and one woman, at its regional caucus at the RNC Summer Meeting in each even-numbered year in which no Presidential election is held. The chairman of the Republican National Committee shall appoint the chairman of the Standing Committee on Presidential Primary Debates from among the members thereof. The Standing Committee on Presidential Primary Debates shall have the authority to sanction debates on behalf of the Republican National Committee based on input from presidential campaigns and criteria which may include but are not limited to considerations of timing, frequency, format, media outlet, and the best interests of the Republican Party. Each debate sanctioned by the Standing Committee on Presidential Primary Debates shall be known as a “Sanctioned Debate.” Any presidential candidate who participates in any debate that is not a Sanctioned Debate shall not be eligible to participate in any further Sanctioned Debates.
The stage was set for Preibus to put in place the debate process he wanted.
As many media outlets have reported, the purpose of the RNC taking control of the debates was to avoid debate saturation, and give the RNC more control over the process. The penalty was harsh. If a campaign goes rogue, the candidate loses access to all future “sanctioned debates.” The stage was set for Preibus to put in place the debate process he wanted.
At the 2013 Summer Meeting of the Republican National Committee, in Boston, Priebus sought and passed a resolution to ban CNN and NBC News from hosting any debates during the 2016 primary season. The Hill reported at the time:
The Republican National Committee (RNC) voted unanimously Friday to pull the group’s partnership with NBC and CNN for the 2016 GOP presidential primary debates unless the networks kill their planned films on Hillary Clinton.
“We don’t have time for the media’s games,” RNC Chairman Reince Priebus said before the vote at the RNC summer meeting in Boston. “We’re done putting up with this nonsense. There are plenty of other news outlets.”
There was no larger “media game” than the most recent CNBC debate.
If Priebus aimed to squelch liberal bias, his pick to chair the Standing Committee on Debates is a real head-scratcher. At the 2014 Summer Meeting of the Republican National Committee the members of the committee were elected by the four RNC regions and appointed by Chairman Priebus. The minutes of that meeting record who made up the committee.
Chairman Priebus announced the newly elected and appointed members of the Standing Committee on Presidential Primary Debates: Peggy Lambert (NCW Tennessee), Randy Evans NCM Georgia), Henry Barbour (NCM Mississippi), Mary Buestrin (NCW Wisconsin), Bob Bennett (NCM Ohio), Helen Van Etten (NCW Kansas), Solomon Yue (NCM Oregon), Jeff Kent (NCM Washington), Susan Hutchison (SC Washington), Juliana Bergeron (NCW New Hampshire), Ron Kaufman (NCM Massachusetts), Rob Gleason (SC Pennsylvania), and Committee Chairman Steve Duprey (NCM New Hampshire).
Priebus chose the Republican National Committeeman from New Hampshire, Steve Duprey, to chair the debate committee. To say that Duprey is not a conservative would be generous. Based on his affiliations, he is a full bore progressive. Duprey is a donor to Planned Parenthood Action – note: not Planned Parenthood, but their political arm.
One of New Hampshire’s most prominent Republican activists and the state’s current national committeeman, Duprey apologized yesterday for showing up – however briefly or accidentally – at a local Planned Parenthood fundraiser last week.
The Globe article had referenced Duprey as an example of a pro-abortion rights Republican and reported that he had recently “attended a Planned Parenthood fundraiser with the group’s national president.” That passing reference triggered criticism on social media and other local websites, including Granite Grok and Leaven For The Loaf, which focuses on anti-abortion issues.
Duprey “apologized” for attending the event saying he did not know it was for the Action Fund in advance. The conservative New Hampshire blog succinctly summed the argument up, “one of New Hampshire’s National Republican Committeeman went to a Planned Parenthood Fundraiser to support abortions but didn’t know the event was actually for their political arm until after he got there?”
In addition to his support for Planned Parenthood, Duprey is on the board of a pro-Common Core coalition in New Hampshire. The Union Leader reported:
Several members of the group said education never used to be a political issue, but it has become one today.
“To the extent possible, we ought to avoid politicizing it (education) and instead make sure to maximize support for a great public education for all our kids,” said Concord developer and current Republican National Committeeman Steve Duprey.
Preibus chose for the debate committee, a pro-choice, pro-Common Core establishment Republican that donated to a group opposing Kelly Ayotte (F Liberty Score®) – for not being liberal enough.
This is the person that Priebus put in charge of approving a debate structure, that was supposed to counter the influence of biased liberal media. Preibus chose for the debate committee, a pro-choice, pro-Common Core establishment Republican that donated to a group opposing Kelly Ayotte (F Liberty Score®) – for not being liberal enough.
Duprey was not the only person on the committee who was problematic. Also on the committee is Ron Kaufman, a longtime Bushtablishment loyalist from Massachusetts. Kaufman was instrumental, as a member of the Romney campaign team, in working with Ginsberg to strip the grassroots of delegates to the National Committee. He engineered a tortuous process that required Massachusetts delegates to sign an affidavit, swearing under penalty of perjury to a Notary Public, that they would vote for Mitt Romney at the Convention. Kaufman is no friend of the grassroots.
A former member of the Republican National Committee – who still regularly attends meetings – told Conservative Review that the remaining members were a mix of conservatives and moderates, but just about all were loyal to Chairman Priebus.
This brings us to January of 2015, and the Winter RNC Meeting held in San Diego, California. At that meeting the standing committee on debates announced the debate schedule they had negotiated with media outlets. The same former member of the RNC told CR that grassroots conservatives were shocked that the schedule was not put up for a vote of the full Republican National Committee. It was just presented as is, and included – despite that 2013 vote – CNN and NBC News properties.
A current member of the RNC, who spoke to CR on the condition of anonymity, said that the entire process was conducted without the input of the full 168 member RNC.
The committee seemingly was just an approval arm for what Priebus, and Sean Spicer, a top level RNC staffer, wanted to have happen. They wanted total control, and they got it. All was seemingly going well for team RNC – until Colorado.
In the week leading up to the CNBC debate, conservatives warned the RNC that the debate moderators would be a problem. Most notably, Mollie Hemingway of The Federalist who made the case – pre-debate- that “John Harwood has no business moderating” a Republican debate. A case that CR Editor in Chief Mark Levin echoed.
The ensuing firestorm from the CNBC debate justified the concerns of many about the RNC’s internal debate process and how Preibus and his team engineered it.
Priebus immediately went into damage control mode after the debate. He said that CNBC “should be ashamed” of the way the debate was being conducted. He didn’t take any responsibility for the debacle himself.
Then the Republican campaigns decided to get together last weekend to discuss sidestepping the RNC completely for future debates. As a pre-emptive olive leaf towards the campaigns, Priebus last week suspended – not fired – NBC News from hosting a debate early next year.
The campaigns still met, and according to the Boston Globe have agreed on a series of demands of the RNC and its media allies before participating in future debates. The meeting took place in a ballroom signed “family meeting,” which would make Michael Corleone proud of the power play.
Politico has reported that the campaigns are working with Ben Ginsberg – the man who helped author the rules by which the RNC controls the debates – to negotiate with the RNC and media outlets on the rules of future debates. Ginsberg has circulated a draft letter which outlines areas campaigns want addressed before agreeing to any future debate after the November 10th Fox Business debate.
Another development from the weekend, is that Sean Spicer has been removed by Priebus from coordinating future debates. This seemingly helps to prove RNC member concerns that the standing committee was there as a defacto rubber stamp. The Washington Post reported:
Priebus has elevated Sean Cairncross, the chief operating officer of the RNC and its former chief counsel, to be the GOP’s new lead debate negotiator and organizer.
The move effectively gives the debate responsibilities currently held by Sean Spicer, the RNC’s chief strategist and spokesman, to Cairncross. Spicer, a confidant of Priebus, will remain in his role but will work in a supplementary position when it comes to arranging the debates.
Bowing to the concerns of the campaign, Priebus took decision making authority away from the person he made responsible for the debate process.
When Priebus tries to deflect blame for the debate process, it is helpful to remember that he engineered the current process and ultimately wanted more control. Given the results of recent debates, most particularly CNBC, the road to the CNBC disaster stops at Preibus.
Written by Robert Eno: Eno is the Director of Research for Conservative Review and also is a Contributor. He is a conservative from deep blue Massachusetts but now lives in Greenville, SC. He is also a fill in radio host and appears on television. Follow him @robeno and feel free to email him at firstname.lastname@example.org
– See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2015/11/how-reince-preibus-paved-the-way-for-the-cnbc-debate-disaster?utm_source=RMG+Main+List&utm_campaign=9a0ae3329e-Kaufman11_2_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_4adf49b94b-9a0ae3329e-26423673#sthash.fHiH5H4W.dpuf
You’ve probably seen the back-and-forth in the press about a possible government shutdown over Planned Parenthood funding. I deeply value your support, so I wanted to reach out directly with where I stand.
I am sickened by the recent videos that show Planned Parenthood callously discussing the harvesting of organs from unborn babies.
We need to hold Planned Parenthood accountable for their appalling disregard for the dignity of human life.
I fully support the Senate Judiciary Committee’s ongoing investigation into Planned Parenthood’s actions. I also recently voted to take federal money away from Planned Parenthood and transfer that money instead to community health centers that provide women with health care.
Sadly, that vote failed. And now we face a choice about how we move forward.
Some of my colleagues proposed that we move toward a government shutdown that would cost taxpayer money and cause uncertainty but would not actually stop federal funds from going to Planned Parenthood.
I share Right to Life’s concern that the fall-out from a damaging shutdown could end up letting Planned Parenthood off the hook for their despicable actions by distracting from the important issue of protecting life and instead focusing public attention on the impact of a shutdown. That’s why President Obama is spoiling for a shutdown—he knows the story will be all about the shutdown and not these videos that tell people the truth about Planned Parenthood’s sickening practices and that have shifted public support toward the pro-life cause.
We can’t let President Obama do this to the pro-life cause – it’s too important.
Rather than resting all our hopes on a strategy that will achieve no result and will be manipulated by Democrats and the media, I believe we should fund the government, fully investigate Planned Parenthood, and focus our efforts on electing pro-life leaders.
Again, I am fully behind the ongoing legal investigation and will continue to back legislation that protects life.
Thank you for your support,
Fourteen years have passed since the worst terror attack on our soil. Three thousand people, including hundreds of firefighters and police officers died on September 11, 2001. What have we, as a nation, learned from the sorrow and suffering of that day ?
We certainly haven’t learned anything about security! A fundamental principle is to secure your perimeter (e.g. protect your borders). After fourteen years nothing has been done to secure our southern border. Drugs, criminals and potential terrorist, hidden among a mass of poor and desperate migrants, pass undetected into our homeland every day. Another principle is access control. Instituting and adhering to measures that will ensure that only “suitable” persons enter our borders has also not materialized. Instead, our immigration regulations go unenforced, and despite the recommendations of the 9/11 commission, an adequately vetted “real identification” system for the nation has never been implemented.
Threat elimination is another fundamental concept. It means taking the fight to our enemies. We began to achieve this in Iraq and Afghanistan until 2009. President Obama pulled the pin on any initiatives by US troops to root out terrorist elements in those nations. Consequently, the Taliban has returned to Afghanistan, and a gang of cutthroats, known as ISIS, have emerged in the heart of the Middle East. Their stated goal is to destroy Israel first and then the United States. Their policy of terror is now destabilizing Europe as hundreds of thousands of refugees flee their brutality in Syria, and are now overwhelming Europe.
These failures can be attributed to a political school of thought, epitomized by President Obama, which views America as the problem not the solution for the world. Consequently, the Obama administration’s approach to the global threats we face is tentative and at times derelict. His approach has been inappropriate, ineffective and prone toward disaster. Obama caters to the “hard left’ , whose world view has been historically marked by its disregard of the realities of the military balance of power and its influence on both our national security and foreign policy.. The chaos playing out in the Middle east and around the Mediterranean is the end product of this. If this doesn’t change, we will find ourselves facing another September 11th and soon .
“It seems like this election has been a whole lot about a person who’s very high in the polls but doesn’t have a clue about how to govern, a person who has been filled with scandals, and who could not lead. And of course, I’m talking about Hillary Clinton.”
— Mike Huckabee
Robert Rector / September 15, 2015
This week, the U.S. Census Bureau will release its annual report on income and income inequality. Historically, the official Census figures on inequality are misleading because they fail to account for most government fiscal redistribution. The high taxes paid by affluent households are ignored, and most of the government benefits and services received by lower-income households are not counted.
But government fiscal redistribution in the U.S. is extensive: the transfer of resources from higher- to lower-income groups is a major governmental activity.
>>> Read the full report here.
The left constantly complains about inequality, calling for higher taxes and increased government spending. But before calling for even more government redistribution, it is important, at least, to understand how much redistribution currently occurs.
A new report from The Heritage Foundation analyzes total government fiscal redistribution. It follows the Census Bureau framework by ranking all households according to income and then dividing the households into five “quintiles,” each containing one fifth of households. The total federal, state, and local taxes paid and the total government benefits and services received by each quintile are then calculated.
The average household in the top quintile received 31 cents in benefits and services for every $1 in taxes paid.
The lower-income three quintiles (containing 60 percent of households) were found to be in fiscal deficit: they received more in government benefits and services than they pay in taxes.
By contrast, the top two quintiles were in fiscal surplus: they paid more in taxes than they received in government benefits.
The average household in the bottom-income quintile received $6.87 in government benefits and services for every $1 in taxes paid. On average, these households received $24,700 more per year in government benefits and services than they paid in taxes.
By contrast, the average household in the top quintile received 31 cents in benefits and services for every $1 in taxes paid. On average, these households paid $48,000 per year more in taxes than they received in benefits and services. The surplus taxes paid by these households represented around one-sixth of their overall pre-tax income.
In 2004, the top two quintiles paid about $1.3 trillion more in taxes than they received in government benefits. One trillion dollars of these surplus taxes were used to pay for the benefits and services for the individuals in the lower-income half of the population. This transfer of economic resources represented around 8 percent of the gross domestic product.
If a similar ratio of transfers occurred in 2014 (which is likely), then around $1.4 trillion in economic resources was transferred from high- to lower-income households in that year. That would be about $9,000 for every person in the lower-income half of the population.
The government benefits and services accounted for in this analysis included Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, means-tested welfare benefits and services, unemployment insurance and other cash transfers, and public education. The cost of routine government services such as police and fire protection, roads, and sewers was also included. Public goods such as scientific research, national defense, and interest on government debt were not included. All federal, state, and local taxes were counted, including federal and state income taxes, Social Security contributions, corporate profit taxes, sales and excise taxes, and property taxes.
The main problem with the social welfare system in the U.S. is not a lack of government spending. Instead, the main flaw is that most welfare programs discourage work and actively penalize marriage. This increases dependence and the apparent need for even greater spending, a self-perpetuating cycle with no end in sight.