MEMORANDUM
TO: Interested Parties
FROM: Geoff Garin
DATE: June 15, 2015
RE: Voters Strongly Oppose Rauner’s Home-care and Child-care Cuts
Overview
Our recent survey of 1,051 voters in Illinois shows that there is an overwhelmingly negative reaction to Bruce Rauner’s proposed cuts to state home-care and child- care programs. Opposition to Rauner’s cuts crosses party lines, suggesting that legislators who back his cuts would be put in significant jeopardy regardless of the party composition of their districts.
Rauner already has deep vulnerabilities with Illinois voters because he is perceived to be more interested in doing what’s best for the wealthy and big corporations than in doing what’s best for average people in the state. Rauner’s proposed cuts to home care and child care exacerbate these vulnerabilities, as do his efforts to undercut the workers who provide these services. The survey results show that by a lopsided margin Illinois voters are more likely to side with home-care and child- care providers than with Governor Rauner in a major policy disagreement.
Key Findings
1. There is strong opposition across party lines when voters hear about Bruce Rauner’s proposed cuts to state home-care and child-care programs.
Fully 73% of all voters in Illinois say they would have an unfavorable reaction if they heard that Governor Rauner wants to make large cuts in state government funding for in-home assistance for seniors and people with disabilities, including 53% who are very unfavorable. Similarly, 68% react unfavorably upon hearing that Governor Rauner wants to make major cuts in government support for child care, including 47% who are very unfavorable.
Large pluralities of Democrats, independents, and Republicans react unfavorably to Rauner’s proposed cuts to home-care and child-care programs.
Rauner’s proposed cuts to home care and child care are unpopular even among those who recall voting for him last year. Rauner voters are unfavorable to his home-care cuts by 51% to 20%, and are unfavorable to his child-care cuts by 46% to 26%.
Negative reactions to Governor Rauner’s policies extend to his contract proposals for home-care and child-care providers.
-
74% are unfavorable to his proposal to cut or totally eliminate health insurance for home-care and child-care providers.
74% are unfavorable to his proposal to eliminate reimbursement for equipment, protective garments, and supplies (including latex gloves) for home-care providers.
73% are unfavorable to his proposal to eliminate training and professional development for home-care and child-care providers.
62% are unfavorable to his proposals to freeze the pay for home-care and child-care workers.
2. Illinois voters already are skeptical about Bruce Rauner when it comes to caring about people like them or understanding the challenges of working-class families, and the plurality say he is more interested in the wealthy and big corporations than in what’s best for average people. These negative perceptions create a significant vulnerability for Rauner in the debate on home care and child care.
Just 40% of voters in Illinois have confidence in Bruce Rauner when it comes to looking out for the middle class, while 50% have doubts about him.
Similarly, by 50% to 41%, voters express doubts about him on “caring about people like you.” Rauner especially lacks credibility with voters on understanding the challenges faced by low-wage workers and working-class families, with 58% expressing doubts about him.
When asked which matters more to Bruce Rauner, only 31% say his priority is doing what’s best for average people in Illinois, while 46% say he is more interested in doing what’s best for the wealthy and big corporations.
3. Voters in Illinois have positive feelings about home-care and child-care providers. In a fight between these providers and Governor Rauner, voters in Illinois side with home-care and child-care providers by a margin of close to three to one. Voters support the right of home-care and child-care workers to have a union, and they react unfavorably to aspects of Rauner’s contract proposals that would weaken the union.
Fully 75% of Illinois voters report having a positive opinion of child-care providers, and 72% are similarly positive to home-care providers. In a dispute between Governor Rauner and home-care and child-care providers, only 21% of voters say they would side with Rauner, while 61% say they would side with the home-care and child-care workers.
By 60% to 29%, voters support home-care and child-care providers being represented by a union to negotiate with the state on issues involving pay, benefits, working conditions, and training. Sixty percent (60%) of voters react unfavorably (including 45% who are very unfavorable) when they hear that Governor Rauner wants to weaken the union that represents home-care and child-care providers, and 66% are unfavorable when they hear that he wants to stop home-care and child- care providers from joining together to have a voice at work.
Voters are not persuaded by a defense that Rauner’s proposals are necessary because the state budget is “out of control” and that average taxpayers will end up paying the price “if we don’t take action now to hold the line on excessive union contracts.” Surprisingly, 60% say this line of argument makes them no more likely at all to support Governor Rauner’s proposals.
Given these results, it is safe to assume that voters across Illinois want their state legislators to stand with home-care and child-care providers instead of Bruce Rauner, and that those legislators who instead align themselves with Rauner’s unpopular policies would be creating significant political jeopardy for themselves.
The results in this memo are based on telephone interviews with 1,051 likely voters in the 2016 elections in Illinois. The interviews were conducted from June 2 to 7, 2015, and the statewide sample provides a representative cross section of the Illinois electorate.
He is ownin it. All my Republican friends still think Rauner’s goal is to cut not swap increased taxes for legislation that helps him gain power.
Comment by Liberty Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 9:30 am
Yes, I’m certain the questions in a poll commissioned by SEIU were completely neutral and in no way slanted to push a desired outcome…
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 9:30 am
Wow. An SEIU poll of the “public” that supports SEIU’s position.
Will wonders never cease.
Comment by Cassiopeia Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 9:33 am
The Rauner Cuts, the Rauner Cuts… the Rauner Cuts.
Governors own.
The only way to have effective blowback on Bruce Rauner is making Rauner wear the jacket that is tailored for governors.
There is a specific reason Rauner and @StatehouseChick and the Trib continually make a case that Rauner isn’t at fault. It’s because they can’t have Rauner owning his decisions, and Rauner can’t handle the job and the blowback.
If I were a Union, a Democratic operative, a mayor, village president, county board member, social service leader or spokesperson for a social service organization… the most impactful way to get this governor’s attention is to just have him take ownership like every single governor before him, and those after him.
They aren’t. It’s on them. They are missing the best angle.
Polls like this, they reinforce that narrative; we don’t support the Rauner Cuts.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 9:36 am
It doesn’t matter who does the poll. The outcome would be the same. Poll after poll shows voters don’t generally favor cuts if you ask them.
Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 9:37 am
Besides, any person with half a heart would oppose these sorts of cuts. This is an emotional issue. Only those who somehow lack any sort of feelings at all would find these cuts acceptable.
Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 9:38 am
With this or any other poll, it’s how you phrase the questions. Nobody is going to favor cuts to children, seniors, and the poor. But they might also say we can’t keep spending more than we take in.
Comment by One of the 35 Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 9:39 am
==Yes, I’m certain the questions in a poll commissioned by SEIU were completely neutral and in no way slanted to push a desired outcome…==
Okay, but the Governor’s own actions confirm this. He’s not out there *touting* these cuts, he’s trying to change the subject to what a mean old guy that Mike Madigan is, and when he’s forced to talk about cuts, they’re Madigan’s fault. He knows that these are terribly unpopular.
Comment by Arsenal Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 9:40 am
C’mon. I’m not sure why this even merits space on the blog without the questions included.
“Do you want services to vulnerable people cut? No? Governor Bruce Rauner wants to cut services to vulnerable people, leaving them sick and dying in the streets. Would you say you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Bruce Rauner?
Please.
Comment by Anon Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 9:41 am
It’s not wrong-most folks are in favor of these programs in the abstract. The question is, would you support a tax increase to avoid cuts. How much of a tax increase and what kind? Income, sales, or other, such as “millionaire’s” tax. I think we know how that poll would come out. The millionaires should pay for it all. So, why did that bill fail? Are we confused, or not?
Comment by Cassandra Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 9:43 am
What it comes down to…
How much are you willing to take away from others before the government asks more of you.
Comment by OneMan Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 9:47 am
===I’m not sure why this even merits space===
Hart is a pretty good pollster, that’s why.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 9:47 am
Questions asked? Cross-tabs? Who likes “cuts” and “slashing of funding” in polls?
Comment by Louis G Atsaves Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 9:58 am
Studies show that people trust news reports more than paid messages. All the Dems have to do is make sure nightly news reports show regular folks being hurt by Rauner cuts and I imagine (personal opinion) that the Gov could spend 20 million on TV spots and not sway the public. At some point it will only serve to show that Rauner is using his millions to influence politics and get his way for the rich. I think a massive ad buy will backfire if only because the nightly news will show people hurting.
Comment by Honeybear Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 9:58 am
keep in mind that the actual polling questions aren’t included in this summary…
Nuf said
Comment by really? Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 9:59 am
51% of Rauner voters don’t like his cuts? Question: what did they think he was gonna do?
As stated above though, it’s pretty clearly a biased push poll.
Comment by Snucka Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 10:00 am
Key words from pr above: “if they heard”. Loaded poll.
Comment by The obvious Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 10:03 am
Of course folks generally want to help the vulnerable. And they generally want somebody else to pay for most of it.
Not much here, except that since we all will face old age and caring for loved ones, it might be an area that resonates more with the public, than areas which have fewer people personally involved.
Rauner blaming these cuts on not having an approved budget from the Dems, is a pretty tough argument to sustain, because he’s saying “they haven’t given me enough money to spend.”
Comment by walker Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 10:03 am
The outcome of the poll would be the same no matter how you asked the questions. You could be as benign as possible and get the same answers. Lets say you simply ask these questions:
Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion to a proposal to cut or totally eliminate health insurance for home-care and child-care providers.
Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion on a proposal to eliminate reimbursement for equipment, protective garments, and supplies (including latex gloves) for home-care providers.
Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion on a proposal to eliminate training and professional development for home-care and child-care providers.
Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion on a proposal to freeze the pay for home-care and child-care workers.
The whining about the poll “bias” is laughable.
Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 10:05 am
== Who likes “cuts” and “slashing of funding” in polls? ==
That’s the point: Actually, lots of people like “cuts” in polls. Opinions change sharply when folks are provided with flesh-and-blood examples of what will be cut and who will be affected … and folks often see themselves, their families, their friends in the crosshairs.
Comment by Linus Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 10:07 am
I’m surprised SEIU hasn’t included the relevant questions. I’ve seen enough polls from Hart (and Geoff Garin specifically) that I’m sure this is no push poll.
Also, is the result surprising? This is the flaw in the Rauner/Tribune narrative - they spent a year (or years) telling us there is all this waste in state government. Unsurprisingly people expect him to cut the waste, not child care.
Comment by Century Club Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 10:10 am
=== Unsurprisingly people expect him to cut the waste, not child care. ===
We have a winner.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 10:11 am
It ain’t “man bites dog”. The source is not unbiased. But, the results are confirming what would be a naturally predictable response. That adds credibility to a group in great need of some.
It’s a manhole to be very weary of as things move forward. It’s on the radar screen.
Comment by A guy Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 10:15 am
“State cuts to child care programs are now turning the logic of welfare reform upside down, say social welfare advocates. Child care programs were supposed to allow single mothers to transition off welfare and onto paychecks. But in many states, the only way for a family to secure child care is to go on welfare.”
From a Huffington Post blog: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/04/child-care-cuts-california_n_1402819.html
*****
There is far too much cynicism when it comes to “classifying” people these days. While some do “use” the “system”, the vast majority want something better for their kids, and their future generations. If we as a society, as a community, keep cutting them down and cutting them off, then we’ll never see a “turnaround” of any kind. Will there ever be a time when we, as humans, get past this “survival of the richest” mindset?
Comment by Anon221 Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 10:22 am
Hart is a solid pollster.
If you doubt the results, ask Mrs. Rauner.
And don’t doubt the ability of the child care providers to get the message out. They have email lists of thousands and thousands of parents. And they are much more credible than Rauner.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 10:37 am
His home care cuts are nuts. In most cases it’s members of the family members who are taking care of loved ones. Plus this costs a lot less than a nursing home.
Comment by Mokenavince Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 10:37 am
—
Unsurprisingly people expect him to cut the waste, not child care.
—
But isn’t the idea that child care *is* the waste with Rauner’s Friday cuts?
I’m sure he’ll have another round of cuts announced this Friday. Or a set of contingency plans. In those cuts and those place will be significant cuts to social services.
You can’t cut and then claim what you’re not cutting *isn’t* waste, can you? If it’s being cut, it’s not needed — or there’s no push for preserving it. It seems to me that Rauner’s cuts are the waste. Maybe I’m missing something.
Comment by Frenchie Mendoza Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 10:41 am
I don’t believe a poll is needed to tell us that some of this administration’s budget cuts have not been prudently determined. Some conservative friends of mine believe this to be true. It is not good for the governor when some members of the choir disagree with his actions.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 10:46 am
==But isn’t the idea that child care *is* the waste with Rauner’s Friday cuts?==
Frenchie, that may be Rauner’s idea, but people clearly don’t agree with him. Actually, I don’t even think he believes it is “waste.” If he did, he’d be out promoting this all over Illinois. And his press releases about the cuts don’t claim he is reducing waste, they claim that he is making forced cuts to “manage” the Democrats irresponsible budget.
Comment by Century Club Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 11:10 am
Be nice if there was a cut in $750,000.00 in welfare (or $14,000.00 a week) that some Individuals are getting this year.
You know People who made $50,000,000.00 last year.
Cue Fortunate Son by Creedence…..
Comment by Jack Stephens Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 11:19 am
As someone who has a friend who works as a home-for her mother-in-law with Alzheimer’s, I can clearly see why so many people support home-care workers.
We love our social services but don’t to pay a little more for them, the same old story. It’s very hard if not impossible to have both, a very low state income tax and acceptable levels of social services. Texas and Florida, two states with no state income tax and very high uninsured rates, have healthcare crises.
I am grateful I live in a state where there is strong support for social services.
Comment by Grandson of Man Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 11:22 am
==Who likes “cuts” and “slashing of funding” in polls?==
No one ever.
Comment by Formerly Known As... Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 11:28 am
http://www.news-gazette.com/opinion/guest-commentary/2015-06-15/guest-commentary-why-i-stopped-paying-seiu.html
Comment by Barry Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 11:51 am
The State should get out of the child care and senior care business entirely. Go private, especially if the State workforce is unionized.
Comment by Note from a taxpayer Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 12:00 pm
===Go private===
It is.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 12:01 pm
Ooops, I can’t figure-out how the State can entertain freezing the salaries of workers who aren’t employed by the State.
Comment by Note from a taxpayer Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 12:32 pm
So home health care workers are anti-union and anti-anti-union governor as well….. Does this make them tje green party?
Comment by Ghost Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 1:36 pm
@Barry
I shouldn’t have to turn away people who like crashing the stock market.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 1:59 pm
Well the poll results were encouraging for those of us who want to see these home care services maintained. But I am afraid if the question posed was - do you support a restoration of the state income tax to its prior level to prevent large cuts in state government funding for in-home assistance for seniors and people with disabilities the results would look different.
As we all know the mass of the “people” want public services provided to those that need them in the abstract. When you start talking taxes, that is another question. I think it is fair to say the Governor is counting on the “people” not being willing to pay for these services.
Comment by Rod Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 3:48 pm