6/30: Turning Tides … Half View Obama as Not Meeting Expectations

For the first time since taking office, more registered voters in the United States think President Barack Obama is falling below their expectations than those who say he is either meeting or exceeding them.  Half of voters — 50% — believe Mr. Obama has fallen short.  44%, on the other hand, report Mr. Obama has met or exceeded their expectations.  6% are unsure.

Click Here for Complete June 30, 2010 USA Poll Release and Tables

Public opinion has turned on this question.  In March, a slim majority — 51% — said the president either reached their level of expectation or went above and beyond it.  45%, however, reported he missed the mark.  4% were unsure.

“As President Obama enters a critical time in his presidency, the national electorate has greater doubt over whether he is living up to their expectations of him,” says Dr. Lee M. Miringoff, Director of The Marist College Institute for Public Opinion.

While there has been little change among Democrats and Republicans here, dissatisfaction has grown among independent voters.  Nearly six in ten — 58% — report the president has disappointed them, and 34% view the president as meeting their expectations or going above and beyond them.  8% are unsure.

In Marist’s March survey, 48% within this key voting block thought the president was not living up to their standards while 45% reported he either met or surpassed them.

Table: Obama Meeting Expectations
Table: Obama Meeting Expectations Over Time

Mr. Obama can’t even look to his approval rating for a silver lining.  Voters divide about the job the president is doing in office.  Currently, 45% of registered voters nationwide disapprove of the president’s job performance while 44% approve.  11% are unsure.  Mr. Obama’s approval rating equals his lowest rating — 44% — which he received in Marist’s February survey.

The president continues to have a tough time winning over independent voters.  In fact, there is a 12 percentage point spread between independents who disapprove and those who approve of the job Mr. Obama is doing in office.  Nearly half — 49% — disapprove of the president’s performance while 37% approve.  15% are unsure how to rate him.  Three months ago, just 6 percentage points separated independents who praised and those who berated the president’s job performance.  45% disapproved, and 39% approved.  16% were unsure.

Looking at Democrats across the country, there has been little change.  75% applaud the president while 14% disapprove.  11% are unsure.  In March, 77% of Democrats gave Mr. Obama high marks while 15% thought he was falling short.  8%, at that time, were unsure how to rate him.

Fewer members of the GOP, compared with Marist’s March survey, disapprove of President Obama’s job performance.  78% now hold this view while 85% did so three months ago.  However, the proportion of those who approve of the job Mr. Obama is doing is relatively unchanged.  14% of the national GOP currently give the president high marks while 11% did the same three months ago.  More Republicans are unsure how to rate the president.  8% cannot currently weigh in compared with 4% in March.

Table: Obama Approval Rating
Table: Obama Approval Rating Over Time

Fewer View Obama as Improving the Nation … More Say Towing the Status Quo

To make matters worse for the president, fewer voters view him as changing the United States for the better.  Currently, 38% describe the direction in which the president is moving the country as an improvement.  This approximates the lowest rating the president has received on this question — 37% — which was reached in February.  In Marist’s March survey, 43% thought the president was changing the nation for the better.

However, the proportion of those who believe Mr. Obama is negatively impacting the nation has not grown.  In fact, it has remained relatively flat.  38% report the president is changing the nation for the worse while 41% thought that way in March.  Rather, more voters now say the president has not changed the country at all.  More than one in five — 21% — believe this is true while 13% held this view in March.

Once again, independents make the difference.  More than a quarter of these voters — 27% — believe Mr. Obama is doing the same ole political song and dance.  This is a 12 percentage point increase from March when 15% thought the president was not bringing about change.  39% currently believe the president is changing the country for the worse, and 29% report he is changing the nation for the better.  5% are unsure.  In March, 44% said the president was having a negative impact on the country, 35% thought he was making positive inroads, and 6% were unsure.

Table: Direction President is Moving the Country
Table: Direction President is Moving the Country Over Time

Obama’s Favorability Hovers at 50%

President Obama still remains likeable in the eyes of voters, but there may be a crack in his armor.  50% view the president favorably while 43% have an unfavorable impression of him.  7% are unsure.

In Marist’s March survey, a majority — 53% — thought well of him, 41% had less than a positive impression of him, and 6% were unsure.

Independents are the cause of the president’s slight dip in favorability.  They divide with 45% having a positive view of the president and 47% having a negative view of him.  In March, there was a more positive opinion among these voters — 49% to 43%, respectively.

Although nearly three-quarters of Republican voters — 73% — have an unfavorable view of Mr. Obama, 20% have a favorable view of him.  That’s a six percentage point increase in his favorability among the GOP since Marist’s March survey.

80% of Democrats have a high opinion of the president compared with 85% in March.

Table: Obama Favorability
Table: Obama Favorability Over Time

Split Decision in Handling of the Economy

The national electorate is fractured when it comes to President Obama’s handling of the economy.  46% of the electorate approve of how the president is addressing the issue while 48% disapprove.  6% are unsure.

Similar proportions of voters shared this view in March. At that time, 46% approved of Mr. Obama’s economic management, 49% disapproved, and 5% were unsure.

And, voters still don’t blame the president for the state of the economy.  More than six in ten voters — 62% — think the president inherited the current economic conditions while 28% believe they are a result of his own policies.  10% are unsure.

In March, 64% thought the economic conditions were passed on to the president, 27% said they were Mr. Obama’s doing, and 9% were unsure.

Table: Handling the Economy
Table: Handling the Economy Over Time

Table: Current Economic Conditions Inherited

Table: Current Economic Conditions Inherited Over Time

Marist Poll Methodology

Related Stories:

6/30: 57% Say Obama’s Handling of Gulf Spill No Better Than Bush’s Katrina

6/30: The U.S. Economy

6/30: Spill in the Gulf — On the Ground

6/30: 57% Say Obama’s Handling of Gulf Spill No Better Than Bush’s Katrina

President George Bush’s handling of Hurricane Katrina was a black mark on his administration, and now, there’s bad news for his successor.  Nearly six in ten voters nationwide — 57% — say President Barack Obama’s handling of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is either the same or worse than Bush’s handling of Katrina.  This includes 34% who report Obama’s management of the disaster is comparable and 23% who view it as worse.  37%, however, say he is handling the crisis better than Bush managed Katrina.  6% are unsure.

Click Here for Complete June 30, 2010 USA Poll Release and Tables

While nearly six in ten Democrats — 59% — believe the president is handling the crisis better than how his predecessor dealt with Hurricane Katrina, one-third of Democrats say Mr. Obama is dealing with it only about the same or worse.  This includes 28% who say the president’s management is on par with Mr. Bush’s and 5% who report it is worse.  Not surprisingly, most Republicans — 80% — believe President Obama has demonstrated equal or worse crisis management skills than President Bush.  44% think they are comparable, and 36% believe they are worse.  14% say he is handling it better.  Independents align more with Republicans.  63% rank Obama’s management as either on the same level as Bush or below the former president.  This includes 34% who say he is on par with Bush and 29% who believe his handling is even worse.  One-third of independent voters rate Mr. Obama’s performance as better.

“Despite President Obama’s frequent attempts to plug the hole in his public opinion, Republicans and independent voters have not taken heed,” says Dr. Lee M. Miringoff, Director of The Marist College Institute for Public Opinion.

In fact, when it comes to Mr. Obama’s overall handling of this environmental crisis, a majority of voters — 53% — disapprove of his approach.  This includes 34% who strongly oppose it and 19% who just disapprove.  On the other hand, 46% think the president’s response is on the mark.  Included here are 33% who approve and 13% who strongly approve.  Just 1% are unsure.

Not surprisingly, Democrats and Republicans are on opposite sides of the spectrum here.  70% of Democrats agree with the way the president has managed the disaster while 70% of Republicans do not.  Again, independent voters are more in agreement with members of the GOP.  62% report they either strongly disapprove or disapprove of Mr. Obama’s response to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Table: Comparison of Oil Spill to Hurricane Katrina
Table: Obama’s Handling of the Gulf Oil Spill

Most Disapprove of BP’s Handling of Oil Spill

President Obama isn’t the only one under fire.  British Petroleum (BP), whose rig exploded in late April, is also facing intense criticism.  83% of registered voters nationally either strongly disapprove or disapprove of how the oil company is handling the crisis in the Gulf of Mexico.  This includes 60% who are strongly against their methods and 23% who merely disapprove.  17%, though, strongly approve or approve of their procedures.  Included here are just 3% who strongly agree and 14% who like their approach.  When it comes to BP’s handling of the disaster, there is consensus among voters, regardless of party.

Table: BP’s Handling of Oil Spill

The Great Divide: Offshore Drilling Moratorium

A federal judge has overturned a moratorium placed on offshore drilling by the Obama Administration, but do voters want the moratorium in place?  They divide.  46% support a temporary ban while 45% do not.  9% are unsure.

Democrats and Republicans have opposing views.  57% of Democrats support a moratorium while the same proportion of Republicans — 57% — opposes it.  Nearly half of independent voters — 49% — are against the temporary ban.

Table: Moratorium on Offshore Drilling

Marist Poll Methodology

Related Stories:

6/30: Turning Tides … Half View Obama as Not Meeting Expectations

6/30: The U.S. Economy

6/30: Spill in the Gulf — On the Ground

6/30: Spill in the Gulf — On the Ground

How well are President Obama and the federal government responding to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico?  Tom Bancroft is the Chief Scientist for the National Audubon Society which is extremely concerned about restoring the ecosystems damaged by the oil.  While on the Gulf Coast to assess the damage and to train volunteers in efforts to preserve the wildlife, he spoke with the Marist Poll’s John Sparks.  Listen to the interview or read the transcript below.

Listen to Part 1:

John Sparks
The Marist Poll asked the American public whether they approved or disapproved how the President is handling the BP oil spill. I’m just curious, what does the Audubon Society or Tom Bancroft feel about how it’s being handled?
Tom Bancroft
Well, I think in a lot of ways it’s being handled very well. The Fish and Wildlife Service has really responded in a major way to the oil spill, and they’ve put … I was talking to a person in Washington D.C. several weeks ago, and he said they’ve moved almost 400 staff to work full-time on the oil spill trying to respond to what it’s doing for wildlife.  So, I think that’s really putting a lot of effort into it and really trying to get their resources focused on wildlife and the oil spill, and that’s just one section of what the federal government is doing around it. Of course that’s what we’re worried a lot about — what it’s doing to the ecosystem — and the Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA have major responsibilities around that.  So, we’re very supportive of what they’re doing and think they’re doing a lot of really good stuff, so we don’t — I don’t have a lot complaints about what they’re doing.  I’m sure they could use a lot more resources, and we’re trying to help make sure that in the supplemental appropriations in Congress is giving support to the federal government so that they can respond to this in the proper way.

John Sparks
Clearly we have to do more than play the “ain’t it awful” game.  What can our government do in the way of policy to clean up this mess?  You mentioned, of course, funding initiatives. Any other thoughts?

Tom Bancroft
Well, there’s both the short-term effects, and then there’s the long-term effects of this oil spill.  So, we were very pleased to hear the president announce that he’s asking his agencies to really look into long-term restoration of the ecosystem down here, and that’s a lot of what we’re focused on is: what can we do to prevent additional damage from happening?  And, then when damage does happen, what do you need to do to restore those ecosystems and make them healthy again and help the ecosystems is critical for people, too, as well as wildlife, and I think one of the messages I’m trying to present when I’m talking about this is: We’ve got to get back to a healthy ecosystem because that’s what’s critical for people as well as for wildlife, and I think investing in that kind of long-term restoration and thinking about how do we sustainably live within the environment is really critical. So, I think a second real piece of that is really to increase the education around how important the environment is to people and wildlife and our way of life here in the United States and that we really need to invest in protecting that and we can’t just take it for granted.

Listen to Part 2:

John Sparks
What are some suggestions that you might have that I, as an individual, can do?

Tom Bancroft
We’ve got a website, an Audubon website, it’s a place where you can sign up to volunteer there.  We now have 27,000 volunteers that signed up, and then that has a lot of things that people can do to help out.  If you can’t come down here, and there’s not a lot for people to do down here along the Coast where I am today, but we do have volunteers helping survey for birds trying to figure out what are the bird populations down here, so that’s one of the things that’s going on.  But, you can also do that in your local neighborhood.  I think there’s a lot of things that you can do to protect the ecosystem, and investing in the ecosystem anywhere in the country is important to think about how that’s maintaining the environment that is important to all of us, so I think doing that, contacting your Congressional representatives and letting them know how important you think dealing with this issue is and invested in repairing and the ecological damage, but also in passing better environmental safeguards so this kind of thing doesn’t happen in the future. I think one of the things that’s come out clear in this is that there weren’t enough environmental safeguards in place, so they didn’t have the backup systems that they needed to have. They didn’t have the well-tested system down there at the bottom of the ocean so they could shut this thing off in case something went wrong, and it did get wrong — go wrong and they couldn’t shut it off, so I think really getting much better environmental safeguards is really critical.

Listen to Part 3:

John Sparks
Now you’re at the site, can you tell me geographically perhaps where you are and what your day was like today?  What things were you involved in?

Tom Bancroft
I’m in Fair Point, Alabama, right now, which is on the east side of Mobile Bay, and we did a workshop for volunteers today.  We had about 35 people come to the workshop, and we trained them on how to go out and do surveys along a mile stretch of beach, and we’re setting up seven areas along beaches in Alabama here, and we’ve put together teams of volunteers and go to — ask them to go out and survey for birds along those beaches about once a month to once every other week for the next year to try to record the movement of birds in and out of this part of Alabama. We’re trying to do that in all the states from Texas around to Florida so that we get a good handle on the use of these areas by birds, if the areas have been damaged by oil, what does that do to bird populations. That information on birds will help us in pressuring the governments to invest in cleanup and pressure BP into investing cleanup in the right places so that we get maximum return for the money.  So, I spent most of the day doing that. And then late this afternoon, we went down to Weeks Bay, which is on the southern part of Mobile Bay, and went to see where they’re putting some of the booms out to protect the shoreline in case the oil gets here, and so I went and saw several of those places where they’ve got some preliminary booms up in case oil comes ashore, and we just kind of went around and saw some of that area and what was going on there.

Listen to Part 4:

John Sparks
It’s interesting, you mentioned about birds. I’m in Dallas, Texas, believe it or not, and I’m a little bit more than 400 miles inland from the Texas Gulf Coast.

Tom Bancroft
Right.

John Sparks
Now I was sitting in my backyard the other day, I saw what I swore was a white seagull flying north, and I saw what appeared to me to be a pelican flying north.  Will we see things like this do you suppose as birds that populate the seashore areas, if they can’t get food, will they come north or other places looking for food?

Tom Bancroft
The Gulf Coast is an important breeding area for lots of birds.  So, we’ve got a lot of pelicans breeding here now, and this could really affect them.  And in early July, we start to get migrant shore birds that are breeding up in the Arctic now starting to come back and move through this area, so it’s good — it’s likely to affect birds from all over the country as they move south in their migration and then next spring move back north.  A lot of ducks and geese that are breeding farther north in the United States and Canada come down and spend the winter all the way Texas Coast all the way around here.  So, the oil spill could have a really major ramification for bird populations that occur all over the country.  Now there are some gulls that move inland, so you may well have been seeing one that that was a natural place for it to be.  I would think that is kind of unusual to see a pelican that far inland. That does occasionally happen.  And, that’s what may happen here as food supply starts to go down, birds are likely to follow the food, and so it moves to other places. The person I had dinner with tonight was talking about some of the things that he’s heard in more of rumors, rumors about how offshore they’re starting to get some affects on populations of fish, which are causing the fish to move, and there may be things responding to that movement like sharks following them into areas where normally there aren’t sharks, because some of the fish populations are being moved around because of the oil underneath the surface that’s out there, and that’s one of the things we just don’t know a lot of what’s going on. They used a lot of dispersants to try to cause the oil to break up and get much more diluted into the water column, which seems like that that would be a good thing, but we really don’t know what the effects of that are, and there’s all this oil that is now floating around in the water column out there, which is where there’s lots of plankton and larva for a lot of fish and larva for a lot of the crustaceans and shrimp that are important, and so what’s this going to do to the whole environment and the food chain?  We just don’t know at this point.

Listen to Part 5:

John Sparks
This brings up the whole issue about offshore drilling and can we really afford to stop drilling.  Is there some middle ground that we can all co-exist do you think, or do you think that we just can’t afford to take any more hits like this, that this is a long overdue wakeup call?

Tom Bancroft
Well, I think it’s definitely a wakeup call, and what we hope is this will help us, as a nation, think about our long-term energy needs and really invest in how are we going to get to a more sustainable energy use here in the country, invest a lot more in renewable energies, start to figure out how we need to use less fossil fuels for our energy use.  It’s clear we need fossil fuels, and it’s going to continue that way, and so drilling needs to go forward, we just need to do it in an environmentally sensitive way, and, maybe, we don’t have the right things in the place for doing deep well — deep water drilling at this point, and we need to get better environmental safeguards put in place so that we have less of a chance of this happening in the future.

John Sparks
Is there anything else about this spill and its effects that’s you’d like to add that we haven’t discussed?

Tom Bancroft
Well you mentioned what it’s done to a lot of jobs. It’s affected the fishing industry. It’s affected the workers on offshore oil wells. It’s affecting a lot of the people that are dependent upon the coastal system for their livelihood, and I think the message here, the kind of long-term message is just how important a healthy environment is to maintain our economy, to maintain our lifestyle in that I hope that one of the lessons learned from this is just we need to pay attention to the environment a lot more than maybe we have in this country and consider that as — at a critically important thing for our well-being and our quality of life.

Listen to Part 6:

John Sparks
You mentioned your work with the Society and working with the volunteers, is there anything else that the Audubon Society’s involved with that you would want to share with our listeners so that they might be pro-active and become involved?

Tom Bancroft
Sure.  Well, we’re very…  we’ve been along the Gulf Coast for a hundred years now.  We’ve help manage colonies over in Texas and Florida and all along the Coast, and one of our big efforts along the Coast is restoration of the marsh system in the southern part of the Mississippi, all along the Louisiana Coast and over into Mississippi here, and really investing in that restoration is a really critical piece to do.  Part of what you can also get involved through Audubon with is we have an online activist system in which you can sign up on audubon.org, and that will get you information on what’s happening on a national level around conservation issues, around passing energy legislation or land protection legislation or bird legislation through Congress, and it also will connect you into a lot of work that’s going on in individual states across the country.  So people can learn a lot more about what Audubon’s doing on our website at audubon.org,  and they can sign up to engage in activities at the national level. We also have a whole network of education centers all across the country.  Those are often places that families can come and participate in activities and get to learn more about the outside, and I think that’s an important role that we play.  We also have 450 chapters spread across the country so every state in the United States has chapters in it.  Some states only have a few, some have a lot, but you can find out about those chapters, and those also places that people can get involved in conservation, get involved in education and the outdoors, but maybe most important, get a chance to get out and see the out of doors with other people.

Related Stories:

6/30: Turning Tides … Half View Obama as Not Meeting Expectations

6/30: 57% Say Obama’s Handling of Gulf Spill No Better Than Bush’s Katrina

6/30: The U.S. Economy

6/30: The U.S. Economy

What is the current state of the economy?  Who’s to blame, and what is the possible impact of unemployment on long-term earning potential?  Phil Izzo is a reporter for the Wall Street Journal, and he recently discussed these issues and more with the Marist Poll’s John Sparks.  Listen to the interview or read the transcript below.

Listen to Part 1:

John Sparks
The Marist Poll questioned Americans on how they felt the President was performing in the area of the economy.  President Obama has been in office 18 months now.  Have we reached a point where he must shoulder the blame for the current economic state instead of his predecessor, George W. Bush?

Phil Izzo
Well, I think that’s a difficult question, because it’s hard to shoulder — it’s hard to put blame for any economic issue too much on the shoulders of a president.  Did the President — President Bush get too much of the blame when the economy tanked?  Probably.  He took a lot — took more of a beating than it was probably warranted.  A lot of these things are beyond a president’s control. I mean they can do what they can, but we have an economy that’s run primarily by the private sector, and there’s only so much that the government can do one way or another to either promote growth or to institute policies that subtract from growth.

Listen to Part 2:

John Sparks
Some might say that a free market economy driven by the greed of investors on Wall Street got us into the mess.  Others say that huge government bailouts aren’t pulling us out of the problem and, in fact, may be part of the problem. Is there some middle ground that we need to be looking at to turn things around?

Phil Izzo
It’s sort of an over simplification to say that we — greed got us into this, and now we’re at a point where the government is making it worse or the government is the solution.  There sort of has to be… At this point we’re in a position where the economy suffered so badly that the private sector couldn’t pull itself out, so we had programs like the TARP, which is universally considered to have been a positive thing for propping up the financial system, for the most part.  There was a significant fear in 2008 if we didn’t do anything, the entire economic system could collapse.  Through the TARP program, we were able to at least stabilize things.  And then since then, there’s been a lot of different programs to move through.  Now there’s…  Take the stimulus, for example.  There’s a lot of arguments on both sides about what’s wrong with the stimulus.  Some people are saying straight out that stimulus failed, but that doesn’t seem to be — that… economists don’t really back that idea. There are debates about how much stimulus you should pump into the economy.  There’s debates about how the stimulus should be distributed.  Should it be directly given to states?  Should it be given to citizens through tax cuts?  Should it be given to the poor through the food stamps or unemployment benefits or something like that?  But for the most part, economists agree that some level of government support when the economy is so low, is so — is — was so — suffering so badly was necessary, and now, we’re at a point where it’s difficult to make that determination.  When we first passed the stimulus, it was much clearer that the economy needed some level of government support.  At this point, it’s much harder to…  There’s more room on either side of the debate where some are arguing — well, the private sector is starting to recover, and we have to sort of let that happen.  But on the other side, we’re still in a pretty deep hole, especially when you look at the unemployment situation.  There’s people… the amount of people who’ve been out of work for more than 27 weeks is at about six-million people. That’s more than double the highest it’s ever been in — since 1948.  So, there’s this debate about can the private sector completely take over now or should the government be injecting more money and trying to promote jobs?  But again, both of those issues are difficult to address at this point when we see some growth, but we just haven’t seen that blockbuster growth yet.

Listen to Part 3:

John Sparks
Well I want to explore two things that you said:  one about jobs and the lack of them.  That is, of course, still a problem.  Part of the problem is that technology has done away with tasks that have kept several folks earning a paycheck.  How can you put people back in jobs when machines or computers are doing the work that people are no longer needed for?

Phil Izzo
Well, that’s obviously a big issue, and we’ve seen over the last couple of years productivity has really soared in this country, and a lot of that is through the technology, and there are some jobs that you just have to accept are not coming back.  And the best way to do that is to have new jobs.  And, there’s a question about how much the private sector can do and how much the government can do and what the government’s role in that is.  I mean if people have to transition from one career to another, they need to be re-trained.  Now should that be handled by government or should that be handled by private sector or can — is there some way to do those things together?  But the problem is that training, just throwing money at training doesn’t really do anything unless there’s jobs for those people to train into.  You sort of have to hope that the economy creates new types of jobs that those people who have lost their position through technology or other major impacts like the construction industry for example, the people have lost a lot of jobs in construction over the last couple of years after the housing boom essentially busted.  At this point, you have a problem where those jobs, the number of jobs that were in that sector, they’re just not going to come back.  We… we’re building residences at a much too quick rate, so there’s some of those people are just not going to be able to find jobs in construction, so what do they do?  Now there’s been pushes for green jobs and things like that, but the problem is that there’s not necessarily enough.  There’s only so much the government can do if the private sector doesn’t have a job for that person to fill.

Listen to Part 4:

John Sparks
For those people looking for jobs, is this a case where many people must lower their standards and expectations, perhaps working for lower wages and not being afraid to do jobs that they feel are beneath them in order to get back to work?

Phil Izzo
Well, it is always positive to be working.  It’s a good thing to be for the most part.  What happens when someone is unemployed for a long-term — a long time, it can have really negative effects on their long-term earning potential.  The longer you’re out of a job, the harder it is to get back to a job.  So I… there’s debate about whether there are people out there who want a job but are just unwilling to take a certain job.  I’m not sure how large that number of people is, but it is generally a good thing to be working instead of to be unemployed. But at the same time, there — you have to find something to support your family, so does working a lower level job make it harder for you to find a higher level job? That’s another debate.

Listen to Part 5:

John Sparks
I want to get back to the stimulus for a moment, specifically about the stimulus to get — turn companies around.  I’ve heard some say that when you allow a company to get so big that you cannot afford to let it fail that you’re asking for the trouble that we’ve seen, and some have suggested to me that what we need is a trustbuster or someone to break up monopolies in the likeness of a Theodore Roosevelt.  Any thoughts on something like that?

Phil Izzo
Well, I mean, there is a big concern about too big to fail, especially with banks, but we’ve seen that it goes even beyond banks.  I mean if you look at the U.S. automakers, essentially the government bailed out GM and Chrysler because they felt that they didn’t want — that they were too big to fail, too big of an employer to fail, too big a part of America to fail.  I mean the bigger concern is with banks, and they’re working on that right now in the financial regulatory overhaul that they’re working on conference committee.  There seems to be a really strong drive to make it easier to unwind something like that so we don’t have the same situation we had when Lehman Brothers failed in 2008 and the whole system seemed to implode for a short while.  There needs to be some sort of process in place, and bankruptcy in fact does it for the most part for much of the private sector. But, there are those companies that get to be so ingrained and interconnected that their failure can affect a huge amount of the rest of the economy, and there needs to be some mechanism in place to wind those down.

Listen to Part 6:

John Sparks
Some people have talked to me about fiscal responsibility beginning with individuals — that financial solvency means living within our means, paying off credit card debt.  Many Americans are not doing this, and the truth is that governments aren’t doing it either.  Should the federal government take the lead with an austerity program if we expect to get out of debt and turn this thing around?

Phil Izzo
Well, I think that the government needs a plan.  Do I think, right now, the government should be making serious budget cuts?  It probably isn’t the best time to do that.  I mean, we’re still just have these tentative steps into recovery.  It’s not necessarily the best time to be hacking and slashing government spending. But at the same time, you can create credible plans that the markets can look at and that the country can look at, the citizens of the country can look at and see this is a serious step towards reducing government expenditures.  Maybe right now is not the best time to start hacking and slashing away at the budget. But in the long-term, if there’s a plan, people will understand that keeping your budget deficit under control is an important goal.  It’s just… the problem is when to do it, and the other problem is that Congress has gone back on itself so many times over the last 40 years that people don’t trust that when they make that plan they’re going to actually stick to it.  It’s really easy to say that you’re going to go on a diet tomorrow, but how many of us actually go out — how many of us actually do it?  What they need is… it’s difficult to have credibility with the American people, and it’s not this administration’s fault or this Congress’ fault necessarily. It’s something that you just seen happen for decades where they say when things are fat, they say, “Well, we’ll cut eventually,” and then it just never happens.

Listen to Part 7:

John Sparks
Phil, is the problem that we want to easy answers for tough problems?  We have no fault divorce.  We don’t want to sacrifice.  We want it all, but the truth is we cannot have it all, can we?  And because of that, folks will have to suffer, and we’re trying to delay or prevent that from happening?

Phil Izzo
Well, I think that I mean, if you’re talking about government, that is definitely the truth. I think people expect a lot but don’t realize that it has to be paid for necessarily. I mean, if you look at the federal budget, I mean, the biggest problem by far is paying for Medicare. But at the same time, it’s — no one ever wants to cut anything in Medicare.  No one ever wants to seriously take… it’s politically unpalatable to make those cuts because people expect certain things from the government.  But, the problem is there’s — you have to… if you’re going to provide services like that, you’re going to have to some money coming into the government.  So, it’s great to cut taxes. It’s a good thing for the economy. It promotes investment and things like that.  But if the government’s going to provide services, it needs to get that money from somewhere. So, if you’re going to cut taxes, then you’re probably going to have to cut spending because you can’t take more — you can’t send out more than you’re getting in.

Listen to Part 8:

John Sparks
Phil, there’s certainly greater minds than mine that have put some thought into this, and we could certainly talk all day. I wanted to kind of close things off and ask you is there anything else that you might want to share with our listeners about the problem of the economy that we haven’t touched on… something that you might want to add?

Phil Izzo
Well, I mean I think we’ve hit the big points. I mean, the biggest struggles going forward is:  Is this real?  I mean we were just talking about the balance between jobs and deficit.  I mean, we know that in the long-term we have to deal with the amount of debt that the U.S. government has.  And at the same time, we’re facing this issue where –I mean, the jobs picture is really, really bad right now. I mean the amount of people who are unemployed, the amount of people who have been unemployed for a long time… and when we had situations like this in the past in the 1980’s and the 1970’s where we had a huge number of people unemployed, we — the economy grew very strongly afterwards because it was a different type of recession than we are — than we’re in right now.  So those jobs came back relatively quickly. In the last two recessions, in the 1990’s and in early in this decade, early in 2000’s, it took a much a longer time.  We didn’t the same level of job losses, but when the jobs started to come back, they came back at a much slower rate. And we seem to have the worst of both worlds right now where we saw this huge spike in unemployment like we saw in the 1980’s and 1970’s, but we’re seeing that really slow return back to employment. When you’re in an environment like that, that’s — there’s — something has to be done because you can’t have this long-term problem with your citizenry.  But at the same time, we are facing this — severe issues with our budget where we’re going to be in a position where it’s going to be difficult to pay things off.

John Sparks
Well, Phil, I thank you so much for your time.  We’ll continue to look forward to your reports for the Wall Street Journal.  And again, thank you for taking time for Marist today.

Related Stories:

6/30: Turning Tides … Half View Obama as Not Meeting Expectations

6/30: 57% Say Obama’s Handling of Gulf Spill No Better Than Bush’s Katrina

6/30: Spill in the Gulf — On the Ground

American Millennials

Director of Media Relations for The Knights of Columbus, Andrew Walther, speaks with The Marist Poll’s John Sparks about the survey, American Millennials: Generations Apart.  The survey, undertaken by The Knights of Columbus in partnership with The Marist College Institute for Public Opinion, was released in January and aimed at identifying the views of America’s youth in the wake of the nation’s economic crisis and at uncovering the priorities of these young adults.

In their discussion, Sparks and Walther touch upon business ethics in the workplace, the similarities and differences between the Greatest Generation and Millennials on the economy and their expectations on the recovery.

Listen to the interview or read the transcript below.

Listen to Part 1:

John Sparks
Andrew, we’re talking about the survey the Knights of Columbus commissioned on American Millennials: Generations Apart. I’m curious, what did the Knights hope to learn from this survey?

Andrew Walther
Well, the Knights hoped to learn what the moral attitudes of Millennials were, both on an individual basis as a group, but also in terms of the comparison to the other generations of Americans to sort of figure out where the up and coming generation, if you will, how they stack up to Americans historically from the Greatest Generation to Baby Boomers to Gen X-ers.

John Sparks
Let’s talk about how you would define Millennials for the purpose of the survey?

Andrew Walther
Sure. For the purpose of the survey, we define Millennials as those between the ages of 18 and 29 years old, and that’s a pretty standard characterization for that generation.

John Sparks
Sure. Now I’m just curious, what did you find distinguishes the so-called greatest generation from their grandchildren?

Andrew Walther
Well, you know, there were some areas of similarity and some areas of difference really. In some ways, the greatest generation was more what we would call I think generally conservative. But at the same time, there were areas of significant overlap with Millennials. Marriage was very important to both groups. Marriage and family were rated very highly by both. The attitudes of Millennials on certain social issues, including abortion and euthanasia were quite traditional. And so I think that Millennials are, really I think in looking at the survey, you can see that they follow the tradition of the American ethic, if you will.

John Sparks
You asked everyone, if they were more inclined to approve of President Obama’s job performance and especially in handling the economy. I believe that it indicated that the Millennials were more inclined to approve of the President’s performance. I’m just curious why you thought they answered that way.

Andrew Walther
Well, the Millennials were in a way the most optimistic to some degree. I mean they were a little more likely to approve of the performance specifically. But when it came to issues of the government’s ability to handle the economic crisis, they were just marginally more positive. 59% of Americans were not confident that the government could handle the crisis, and 55% of Millennials felt the same way, so very, very close. In terms of the country heading in the wrong direction, it was 67% of Americans, 60% of Millennials. And in terms of increased regulation, Millennials were very much in line with the rest of the American population. 55% of Americans and 53% of Millennials wanted a more free market, less government regulation approach to business. So I think, while maybe a little bit more cautiously optimistic, they were definitely in line with the rest of the American population and their outlook. And in terms of believing that their personal career would be negatively impacted long-term by the economic situation, the numbers for Millennials were exactly the same as for the rest of Americans, 55% and 55%.

John Sparks
Now I’m both intrigued and concerned about the finding that both groups had lost confidence in the government’s ability to handle the economic crisis. What do you think it’ll take to restore people’s confidence? Can it be restored?

Andrew Walther
Well it’s interesting to see from the numbers what people are liking or disliking, but I think you have a twofold problem that’s brought to light by the survey. On the one hand, Millennials and Americans in general are concerned that the government may not have a good handle on this. On the other hand, they’re equally or more concerned, frankly, that business is getting this wrong as well. So you have 75% of Americans and two-thirds of Millennials wanting the same set of moral standards in business and personal life, 74% of Americans and 77% of Millennials, an even greater number, seeing decisions and business based on greed as morally wrong. So you have a situation where on the one hand, they don’t have a lot of confidence in the government to fix this problem. But on the other hand, they’re really looking at the problems in the business community in terms of ethical behavior and saying that they want solutions to that.

John Sparks
I would like to ask you about the finding that the Millennials were optimistic that they would be financially better off than their parents.

Listen to Part 2:

Andrew Walther
Sure.

John Sparks
I know that the Generation X and the Baby Boomers did not quite share that optimism. Are the Millennials just living in a dream world? After all, we are in pretty tough economic times.

Andrew Walther
Well I think that could be part of it. I mean as things are bad now and for their parents especially, I think that they see long-term prospects as being a little better. Interestingly, the Greatest Generation also thought they would be better off than their parents, and they were the generation that grew up during or shortly after the Depression. So I think in a way you have people whose parents have had careers and tough economic times seeing the future as a little brighter, and I think that’s consistent with the Greatest Generation and the Millennials.

John Sparks
Most Americans, I think it’s safe to say, want to have it all. They want to have a career. They want to have family. You asked a question of the folks that you surveyed whether they believe that their career success would or would not come at the expense of their families, and I believe three-quarters of them believe that career success would not interfere with the families.

Andrew Walther
And, that goes very much in line with the heavy emphasis on marriage and family that we found among the Millennials generally and Americans in particular. I think that people are looking to have a good and healthy balance between their work life and their family life; and I think that there’s certainly a lot of optimism among Millennials, but also among the other groups that such a balance can be achieved.

John Sparks
Now, let’s talk about this topic of morals and ethics in the workplace. I recall about a year ago, the Knights did a survey about morals and ethics in the workplace, and I believe this latest survey, the Millennial survey, that I think about two-thirds or more believe that our moral values are headed down the wrong path. Am I correct?

Andrew Walther
Yes, that’s correct, and that number’s been pretty high over the past year whenever we’ve done surveys like this. I think people are a little concerned that the country, well more than a little concerned, that the country is headed in the wrong direction morally, and I think some of this is certainly the big scandals that we saw in Wall Street in the financial community over the last couple of years with the economic crisis and the causes of that being quite clearly attributable at least to some degree to, if not unethical, certainly less than ethical business practices. And I think people see that as a real problem, but also see that business in their opinion can be both ethical and successful. If you look at the numbers on that, I mean very, very high numbers. I think more than three-quarters of Americans believe that you can have an ethical and successful business and you see that many of the businesses that have continued to do well in this economy are exactly that, the businesses that are run with a higher standard in mind.

John Sparks
I thought that it was interesting that there seemed to be an indication that ethical standards are different in business than in people’s personal lives.

Andrew Walther
Yeah, I think that Millennials in the country in general see that a lot of people might treat their family and loved ones one way and treat their customers and consumers and stockholders a different way, and I think that there’s a growing dissatisfaction with that dichotomy. I think people want consistency. People want there to be morality and ethics, not morality and ethics here and morality and — not home ethics and business ethics. I think they just want ethics.

John Sparks
You mentioned greed a minute ago, and I gather that most everyone senses that greed is at the root of our economic dilemma, but do people just accept that as a way or is there — are there any inspiration or motivation to do something about it, to change that?

Listen to Part 3:

Andrew Walther
Well, I think there is a bit of motivation. I mean, I think the fact that you see these high numbers of people believing that you can be simultaneously ethical and successful says a lot for the fact that people believe that they you can in fact have both, and I think that that’s a good step in the right direction because if you can’t have both ethics and success, then there’s frankly little reason not to do it. And, with the economic crisis on everybody’s mind, we’ve seen where the other path leads.

John Sparks
It seems that many Americans think that their religious beliefs and values if they’re a business executive certainly influence their business decisions, but the survey also with this separation seemed to indicate that Americans leave their morals and ethics outside the door on the hanger when they come to work. Why the separation?

Andrew Walther
Well, I think the people view business as different from their home life, and I think that, unfortunately, in various ways a culture has taken hold in, not everywhere but in enough places that it’s a problem, that says profits first and profit is the only thing that matters when you start down that road. When you start looking in I think the survey we did last year, last February, there was a series of questions about what people thought business decisions were motivated by. They thought they were motivated by personal career advancement. They through they were motivated by greed, but they didn’t think they were motivated by the common good. And I think when you completely exclude the common good from the calculation, and you’re looking to get as much as you personally can right now at the cost of everybody else, you end up with situations like we have now — it’s simply not sustainable. And, so I think it’s very easy for anyone probably to be dazzled by the promise of instantaneous riches and a quick buck. But at the same time, we’ve seen that that may work for one person today, but it hurts a lot of people tomorrow.

John Sparks
Sure. You know, Andrew, the results are all very interesting, but other than raising an awareness, I’m just curious what the Knights of Columbus might do with the information to effect a positive change in our country and the in the workplace.

Andrew Walther
Well, we’ve certainly done a fair amount of writing in various places, in our own magazine, and also our CEO Carl Anderson has done a fair number of columns in the media on the importance of ethics in the workplace and of having an ethical standard that really is taken from home to the workplace and not left at the nightstand, if you will. And, I think both in terms of our 1.8 million members and in terms of the public at large, we’ve been always very outspoken in terms of taking care of your neighbor, and this is something that we continue to do with these numbers, with these — with the release of these numbers and our various conversations with the media and various outlets and the writing and so on that’s been done by the Knights of Columbus in a variety of outlets. The message is pretty clear. An ethical approach to business is really the way forward and really the way to make sure that we don’t fix this crisis and end up with another one based on the same problem.

John Sparks
Certainly. I found the survey most interesting. Any other thoughts that you’d like to share about the survey?

Andrew Walther
Well I think it’s — I think it is a very good place for people to look to see that Americans are looking for a more effective response from the business community and also a less heavy-handed approach from the government. They don’t want to sleight of hand from the Wall Street community. They don’t want a heavy hand from the government, as Carl Anderson’s pointed out on several occasions. They’re looking for common sense solutions, and that begins with taking the ethics that this country shares and that makes our country the great place that it is and our families, the places that they are, and bringing these into the workplace, treating our neighbors in a way that really takes into account the common good and not looking to get an extra dollar today at the expense of everybody tomorrow.

6/14: Soda Tax in NYC

Do New York City residents favor or oppose Governor Paterson’s proposed tax on sugary drinks?  Will it impact their drinking habits?

Find out the answer in a Marist Poll conducted exclusively for the Wall Street Journal.  To read the full Wall Street Journal article, click here.

Tables for The Marist Poll Conducted Exclusively for the Wall Street Journal:

Favor or Oppose Tax on Sugary Drinks

Effect of Tax

Frequency of Non-diet Soda Drinking

Marist Poll Methodology

6/10: Alzheimer’s Disease: An Expert’s Perspective

Dr. Maria Carrillo is the Senior Director for Medical and Scientific Relations for the Alzheimer’s Association, a national group headquartered in Chicago. Its goal is a world without Alzheimer’s.

Dr. Carillo talks with The Marist Poll’s John Sparks about the prevalence of the disease, the costs of caring for Alzheimer’s patients, the signs of the disease, and the latest on the search for a cure.

Listen to the Interview, Part 1

John Sparks
Dr. Carrillo, you’re a Senior Director for Medical and Scientific Relations for the Alzheimer’s Association. Can you tell me that what entails?

Dr. Maria Carrillo
You know, my responsibilities vary from essentially really keeping an eye on our grant program, our international research grant program.  It’s a program that awards on average around $20 million per year to medical research and the field of Alzheimer’s disease, and my job is really to oversee all of the applications that come in and then to ensure that when we make our decisions, they – - the grants are awarded to the most meritorious of the applications that come in.

John Sparks
I know the Association does many things.  I think education is one of the primary areas.  Can you briefly describe some of the other services that the Alzheimer’s Association provides for people?

Dr. Maria Carrillo
Certainly.  We have a 24-hour call center, that’s very important part of our mission, and that is to  make sure that we are there to serve people suffering from the disease and their families 24 hours/7 days a week, just to make sure also they have information in times of crises, but also information on how to talk about the future of Alzheimer’s disease in their family, how to plan for the future, how to talk to social workers or have family counseling sessions at our offices across the country.  We also have several informational and educational sessions that can be had through the Alzheimer’s Association services at our national chapter offices across the country.  All of them have libraries; support groups; certainly, again, family counseling opportunities, all of them free to the public.

John Sparks
Now we hear a lot about Alzheimer’s disease and dementia.  Can you tell me what the difference is between the two?

Dr. Maria Carrillo
Certainly. And I think that is a very common misconception.  Dementia’s actually an umbrella term.  It’s like  – - I liken it to saying, for example, cancer, and then you really have to follow-up that up with saying, “What type?”  And when you say that, then when you ask me what type, you have Alzheimer’s disease, which is the most common.  You have vascular disease, which is the second most common type of dementia, and then you have other types like frontal temper lobe dementia, Lewy body dementia, et cetera.  So really dementia is the overarching term.

Listen to Part 2:

John Sparks
Okay. Now we can conducted a national survey and we found that a majority of Americans personally know someone with Alzheimer’s. How prevalent is Alzheimer’s in the United States?

Dr. Maria Carrillo
There about 5.3 million Americans living with Alzheimer’s disease today and there are over 12 million Americans actually caring for those individuals, family members, other professional cares, et cetera, and so it is quite a lot of people affected by the disease.  But we certainly also know that in the future, we are facing a really large increase in that number because the baby boomer of our population is starting to turn 65 and older, and that actually starts happening next year in 2011.

John Sparks
Is it increasing, or are we just becoming more aware of it?

Dr. Maria Carrillo
That’s a very good question and we hear that question quite a bit. I think it’s a combination of the two, so we’re living longer. I think on our website at alz.org, we have a lot of information about a report called Facts and Figures and it actually tells the story that we have been very successful in terms of biomedical research investments in lowering the incidents of many other diseases, like cancer, specifically breast cancer, prostate cancer.  We’ve lowered the risk of heart disease – - of death rates for heart disease, for…  And so with that, we have been able to really allow the American public to live longer.  By being so successful in research and other areas, we have been a little bit negligent in research in Alzheimer’s disease because the death rate for Alzheimer’s disease over the course of the same years that other diseases went down, actually went up by 46%, a little bit higher than 46%.  So, we are living longer.  We’ve bought ourselves fairly healthy lives from the neck down, and now, I think it’s really time to turn that investment to the brain and to Alzheimer’s disease, because we need the stop this disease so that we can live longer in healthy fashion and actually know that we’re living longer.

John Sparks
Absolutely. Now many of those that we polled told us they had a relative or friend with Alzheimer’s, so we asked them if the cost for caring for that person created a strain on their family finances.  What kind of cost does one incur when caring for someone with Alzheimer’s?

Dr. Maria Carrillo
Well, certainly we know that medical costs increased quite a tremendous amount and caring costs in general increased.  So, health care costs increased because when a person is hospitalized with Alzheimer’s disease, they don’t just need hospitalization that addresses that particular need, so for example diabetes or a heart disease or a broken hip or broken knee.  When a person has dementia, a lot of other things come into play. It’s hard to determine pain levels. They need many more services to come in.  Sometimes, they must be watched in a special unit, because they perhaps might wander or they don’t understand that they are plugged into, for example, an IV machine or a heart monitor, and they’ll take those things off.  Again, because they have memory loss, they’re not quite sure of their surroundings, so costs escalate just for regular issues.  However on top of that, you’ve got the issues that over time once  a person moves on from sort of the early stages of Alzheimer’s disease, they’re going to need 24-hour care.  They need to be watched, again, for the same reasons. They might wander because they don’t recognize their surroundings.  Even though it’s a home or a sibling or a child’s home, they don’t recognize the surroundings, or they might forget and leave something on the stove or many can actually burn themselves in the shower because they forget which is the hot and the cold or that the hot and the cold need to be adjusted. Many won’t make themselves food in the right way because they don’t remember how to make a sandwich, so many issues that really require 24-hour care.

Listen to Part 3:

John Sparks
I know this is a question you get asked all the time and that is: What are the signs of the disease? If a friend or family member have told you, for instance, that they’re being forgetful or had concerns about not remembering things, does that mean they’re getting Alzheimer’s?  What are the signs?

Dr. Maria Carrillo
You know, I… that doesn’t necessarily…  um, you know, certainly forgetting certain things is not a – - I guess something to be too worried about because we all forget things.  Especially under stressful situations, we forget where we put our keys or where we put our wallet.  But I will tell you that I have the Alzheimer’s disease in my family. My mother-in-law was diagnosed with the disease just six months ago. But maybe about two years ago, I started noticing some changes in her, so some of the early changes that one can notice and I would really recommend certainly looking at our website, and that is alz.org, and actually know the ten signs is something that we really stress in our website.  And then it’s some things that we stress is that memory loss that actually disrupts your daily life is really the key.  So, it’s important to think about: Does a memory loss, does losing your keys every single day, is that interrupting your daily life?  Are you experiencing challenges in perhaps planning or solving problem?  It’s hard for people who have Alzheimer’s disease and have the beginnings of Alzheimer’s disease to actually keep track of several things at the same time, so complex tasks. Another thing to look at is: Is it difficult to complete familiar tasks that you’re used to completing, especially when they’re a little bit more complicated, like how to follow a recipe that you used to be able to do or to how use the microwave oven that’s get a little complicated, how to program your coffee maker?  That’s a little more complicated than usual.  So these are some of the things we kind of look for.

John Sparks
Now I have family members on both sides of my family who have had the disease.  Do I need to be concerned about myself?  What can I do?

Dr. Maria Carrillo
You know, absolutely. If you have a first degree relative that has Alzheimer’s disease, I think anybody with – - in such a situation should be thinking about their own risk.  So, for example, my mother-in-law has Alzheimer’s disease.  She is one of… She’s actually the third of four siblings to be diagnosed at this point, and the fourth is the youngest of all, so we’re hopeful that the youngest won’t get it.  But that…  What does that mean?  That translates into me knowing that in my husband’s family, he’s one of the three, he – - they have most likely inherited some type of a risk, genetic risk for Alzheimer’s disease.  And so what are we thinking about now?  Well we’re thinking make sure that in his middle age, he stays as healthy as possible. He eats right. He eats antioxidants.  He makes sure that his diet is healthy. He makes sure to watch his weight, to make sure that he avoids diabetes, if possible, avoids the heart conditions if possible. If not, then make sure that they’re treated and make sure that they’re watched and make sure that they’re kept under control.

Listen to Part 4

John Sparks
Okay, so what about a cure or a vaccine? What’s new on the horizon in that area?

Dr. Maria Carrillo
You know we have a lot of hopes in terms of medications for Alzheimer’s disease in the near future.  There are a few vaccines that are actually in phase three testing, which is the phase that’s right before you would get approval to be used in a doctor’s office and in a pharmacy.  So, that’s exciting. And prevention’s probably a little bit further off. So, we’re very excited that not only vaccines, but a few other types of drugs are in the pipeline for hopefully slowing down the progression of the disease, and you really have to start there because experts today really understand that Alzheimer’s disease begins many, many years before the first clinical diagnosis is made. So, for example, I mentioned my mother-in-law, six months ago she was diagnosed, but we noticed, well I noticed that she was experiencing symptoms for two years and she may have experienced symptoms for many more than that, and so, we understand that we really don’t want to give a vaccine or any type of medication at the point where today we’re diagnosing Alzheimer’s disease.  We want to be able to give it 10 years before.  So, the movement of the future, of science and Alzheimer’s disease is really to a very early detection before there are clinical symptoms of the disease and then try to interfere then. Now, we’re moving towards that very slowly because, first, you have to prove some advantage in the current drugs we have with the population we have available today. But we’re making definite moves in the direction in terms of research to move that clinical diagnosis much earlier and be able to interfere with the disease much earlier, and that would be what we would call a secondary prevention, not a primary prevention because primary prevention involves avoiding the disease completely, and we still can’t prove that. But, secondary prevention means we’ve avoided the symptoms, and that would be an excellent place to be in the future.

John Sparks
Well, I certainly hope we get there.  The sooner the better.  Dr. Carrillo, I really thank you for your time.  Is there anything else that you wanted to add for our listeners?

Dr. Maria Carrillo
One last thing I would just leave all your listeners with and that is that Alzheimer’s disease research can never move forward unless we have more federal funding, and so the Alzheimer’s Association has – - is proposing through our Public Policy and Advocacy Office in Washington DC a new bill called the National – - The Alzheimer’s Breakthrough Act, and that calls for $2 billion for Alzheimer’s research. And, as I mentioned earlier, it’s only by investing in the research that we’re ever going to actually eradicate this disease, and we know we can do it, because we’ve done it in other diseases.  So, we really need to push for $2 billion for Alzheimer’s research and push forward on the research that we have today and accelerate progress, because we cannot afford to wait. I would just leave you with that.

** The views and opinions expressed in this and other interviews found on this site are expressly those of the speakers or authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Marist Poll.

6/9: Alzheimer’s Disease: Americans Knowledgeable About Early Signs, But …

More than three-quarters of U.S. residents are confident they can recognize the early signs of Alzheimer’s disease.  76% of Americans report they are informed or very informed about the disease’s early symptoms. This includes a majority — 51% — who say they are informed, and 25% who think they are very informed. One-fifth believes they are not very well informed, and 4% say they are not informed at all.

Despite the large proportion of residents who think they have a solid knowledge base about the disease, when the issue hits closer to home, fewer Americans are likely to recognize it as a problem. 57% of residents nationwide are more likely to believe a friend or family member’s forgetfulness is a part of the natural aging process while 33% say it’s a serious medical problem. 10% are unsure.

Here, women are somewhat more likely than are men to think a loved one’s memory problems are indicative of a bigger medical condition. 36% of women believe this is the case while 30% of men feel the same.

Table: Knowledge of Alzheimer’s Disease
Table: Forgetfulness as Serious Medical Condition

The Cost of Care

A majority of American residents — 51% — do know someone who suffers from Alzheimer’s disease. Of those, 56% say that person is a relative.  And, the effect of having a family member diagnosed with the disease goes well beyond the emotional impact.

44% of U.S. residents who have a relative living with Alzheimer’s disease say the cost of caring for this relative has strained their family finances a great deal or a good amount.  This includes 23% who say they have experienced a great deal of financial sacrifice, and about one-fifth — 21% — who report they have felt a good amount of financial strain.  On the other hand, 23% have felt little financial impact, and 25% say they have felt no economic stress at all.  8% reported they were not directly responsible for their relative’s care.

There is a gender divide.  Women are more likely than men to say they have felt a financial burden.  A majority — 51% — of women say they experienced an economic impact while 36% of men report the same.

Table: Know Someone with Alzheimer’s Disease
Table: Relative with Alzheimer’s Disease
Table: Financial Impact of Alzheimer’s Disease

Finding a Cure

Nearly half of Americans — 49% — are optimistic that a cure for Alzheimer’s disease will be found during their lifetime. 40% believe it is likely while 9% say it is very likely. Of those who are pessimistic, 37% think it is not very likely a cure will be discovered in their lifetime, and 14% say it is not likely at all.

Not surprisingly, the youngest Americans are the most positive while the oldest are the least.  56% of residents 18 to 29 years old say it is likely that a cure will be found during their lifetime while 42% of Americans aged 60 or older agree.

Table: Cure for Alzheimer’s

Marist Poll Methodology

6/4: From the Floor: The Democratic and Republican Conventions in New York

More than two centuries ago, George Washington warned us about the corrosive effects of political parties.  Having spent the better part of the past two weeks at the New York State Democratic and Republican conventions, I am pretty convinced that this cherry tree chopper was not telling a fib.

To begin with an oddity, the two political parties underwent a role reversal.  The Democrats, known for their rancor and gut-wrenching issue debates, had their house pretty much in order.  In a rare display of organization, the Democrats entered with a game plan and exited with their ticket largely intact.  Largely forgotten was their last convention which produced such headliners as Eliot Spitzer, David Paterson, and Alan Hevesi.

The Republicans, who typically run their gatherings with something akin to the political equivalent of Mr. Clean, were anything but that this time around.  They frequently referenced Ronald Reagan as they ignored his 11th commandment, “thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.”  They experienced unruly back and forth chanting over their gubernatorial nod.  “No primary” voiced by the Lazio forces was met with “let the people vote” from the Levy-ites.   It sounded like a tune taken from the Democrats’ “how not to run a political convention” songbook.

But the fun had just begun.  I apologize for not keeping an official count of the number of times the phrase “it’s an honor and a privilege” was uttered at both conventions.  The runner-up zinger for the GOP was the use of “Status Quo-mo” in reference to the back to the future candidate and the early favorite to be New York’s next governor.  (I can almost hear former Governor Mario Cuomo humming the George Harrison classic “Here Comes the Son.”)  As for the Democrats, the podium pontificators referenced their “new Democratic Party” to the point that it seemed to become the old Democratic Party before your very eyes.

Speaking of convention traditions, there was some clever head counting at both events.  The Democrats managed to create a delegate tally of 125% to get all five candidates for Attorney General to the 25% threshold to qualify for the primary ballot.  For their part, the Republicans required Democrat-turned-Republican Steve Levy to reach 50% to be authorized to run in a GOP primary …  this bar was set too high.

Both political parties tried to corner the market on change.  After all, it worked in 2008, and politicians like generals do nothing if not fight the last war.   Yet, the more things change, the more they seem to remain the same.  The early frontrunners remain the early frontrunners.  Candidates with momentum, money, and media remain the attention hogs.  And, despite all convention ”winners” predicting they will lead the voters and be elected this fall, I’m not sure this sentiment is shared by an increasingly frustrated electorate.