Today the New York Times reports its new poll (3/1/11):

As labor battles erupt in state capitals around the nation, a majority of Americans say they oppose efforts to weaken the collective bargaining rights of public employee unions and are also against cutting the pay or benefits of public workers to reduce state budget deficits, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

 That's big enough news, and once again cuts against the People-Don't-Support-These-Overpaid-Union-Workers trope. 

 But there's more. When the poll asked about fixing the deficit, people had a message rarely heard in the media:  

Asked how they would choose to reduce their state's deficits, those polled preferred tax increases over benefit cuts for state workers by nearly two to one. Given a list of options to reduce the deficit, 40 percent said they would increase taxes, 22 percent chose decreasing the benefits of public employees, 20 percent said they would cut financing for roads and 3 percent said they would cut financing for education.

 Imagine if the corporate media conversation about deficits were driven more by what the public thinks we should do. Raising revenue is hardly even part of the discussion. 

And a bonus finding--which group of people is most supportive of cutting workers' pay? The Times explains:

Although cutting the pay or benefits of public workers was opposed by people in all income groups, it had the most support from people earning over $100,000 a year. In that income group, 45 percent said they favored cutting pay or benefits, while 49 percent opposed it.

The cut-their-pay pundits don't reflect public opinions, but they do a decent job of representing their class.

In journalistic parlance, a "beat sweetener" is a story that lavishes praise on a powerful figure the reporter is assigned to cover on a regular basis--a great way for that reporter to get in good with an important source. That may have been what was happening with Lori Montgomery's February 26 Washington Post piece touting the deficit-busting greatness of White House budget director Jacob Lew. Under the headline "Jacob Lew Returns to Work on Fixing Nation's Finances, Again," she begins:

At 27, Jacob J. Lew helped save Social Security. At 41, he helped cut a deal to balance the federal budget. During the Clinton administration, he became the only White House budget director in a generation to banish deficit spending.

In a city suddenly crawling with would-be deficit-busters, even some Republicans recognize Lew as the real deal.

About the only real criticism is reserved for Barack Obama, whose budget is called "deficit-ridden." Lew leads a team that is apparently universally loved:

As a group, they are viewed by people in both parties as pragmatists with a track record of inspiring trust on both sides of the aisle. Lew, in particular, seems to have few enemies, not much ego and a reputation for focusing on the demands of the deal.

Readers also learn that Lew is "tall and dark" and "exudes a calm geniality." As Dean Baker titled his post at his Beat the Press blog, "Doesn't Anyone Have Anything Bad to Say About Jacob Lew?" Apparently not.

This is how ABC This Week host Christiane Amanpour introduced the roundtable pundit line-up on Sunday's show:

With pitched battles going on right now here in Washington and in statehouses from Florida to Wisconsin to California, with me now, our roundtable: George Will, Congressman Steve Southerland, a Republican freshman from Florida-- he was elected to public office for the very first time last November and sent here to Washington on a mission to cut spending. Also with us, ABC senior political correspondent Jonathan Karl and political strategist Donna Brazile, who calls herself a labor Democrat.

So the right wing Will, a right wing Congressman, an ABC journalist who came to Beltway journalism after participating in a right-wing journalism training institute... and from the left, Donna Brazile.

On Sunday (2/13/11), the Washington Post had an odd piece about Obama's budget proposal--starting with the odd headline, "Obama to Propose Spending Cuts in Budget Plan Aimed at Countering Conservatives." Republicans have been stressing spending cuts, so Obama is "countering" that with... spending cuts? Huh.

The piece tries to argue that these calls for austerity are merely the political system reacting to the will of the voters, particularly self-described independents:

Obama is sending a similar message, but to a different constituency: the independent voters who abandoned Democrats in droves last year and who are crucial to the president's 2012 reelection prospects. This bloc shares the tea party's alarm over the $14 trillion national debt but takes a more nuanced view of how to achieve fiscal balance.

As Dean Baker points out, the idea that voters in 2010--independents or otherwise--were sounding an alarm about the debt isn't supported by the evidence (though it's long been touted in the corporate media as the leading message of the midterms). But the point of some of the articles about the Obama budget is that it doesn't go far enough. Today's Post (2/14/11), for instance, has an article headlined "Obama Spending Plan Criticized for Avoiding Deficit Commission's Major Proposals"--a pretty clear sign that the budget critics worth listening to are the ones who want deeper spending cuts.

Unrelated to budgeting, the Sunday Post piece describes Republican ideas on education spending cuts that would

wipe out two decades of education initiatives by pulling nearly $5 billion from the Education Department, including funds for math and science and the popular Teach for America program, which puts well-trained teachers in needy schools.

The point of Teach for America is actually more like the opposite--sending novice teachers to go into "needy" districts for two-year stints in the classroom, it operates under the premise that children are well-served by educators who are not "well-trained."

New York Times reporter Matt Bai has tried to argue that the public is really worried about the budget deficit. He's tried to find polling evidence to show the public favors some form of budget-cutting austerity, which usually leads him to focus on numbers that support his argument while ignoring those that run counter to his political preference.

He's back at it today (11/5/10), in a piece warning Republicans to not confuse their midterm for some sort of mandate. He tries to make a case that the voters were really with the Tea Party on some key issues:

All of this implies that Republicans think the voters are with their most ardent activists on the economic issues of the day. And there is a persuasive case to be made that they're right about this, at least as far as the conservative critique of federal spending is concerned.

In exit polling in November, 56 percent of voters said government was doing too much that should be left to the private sector and individuals, compared with 38 percent who thought it should be doing more.

It's important to remember that this is a poll of 2010 midterm voters--a subset of the total voting population, and one that would skew Republican, given the electoral outcome. It's hard to draw many conclusions from such a vague idea anyway, but Bai has better evidence:

In a Pew poll from December, 70 percent of voters said they saw the federal deficit as a major problem that needed to be addressed now--a powerful show of support for the Tea Party argument.

Huh. When  I clicked on that link--which is a different Pew poll--I saw that when people were asked what was more important, jobs or the deficit, jobs won 45-22. And the other Pew poll--an exit poll of voters--showed "cutting spending to reduce the deficit" running neck and neck with "spending to create jobs." I don't see any of that supporting "the Tea Party argument," as best I can understand what that argument might be.

Looking at other polls doesn't much help--if you scan some of the summaries at PollingReport.com, for instance, you see surveys like a recent CBS poll where voters express far more concern about jobs (56 percent) than the deficit (4 percent).

Bai's reporting style seems reminiscent of John Stossel. He starts with a premise--some Tea Party ideas are popular, people want to attack the deficit-- and cherrypicks evidence to support that conclusion. So he can write things like "voters endorsed the Tea Party ideal of a radically more parsimonious federal government" and point to evidence that maybe--if you squint really hard--supports that conclusion, while rejecting substantial evidence to the contrary.

New York Times reporter Matt Bai apparently really, really cares about the budget deficit-- so much so that he's done reporting suggesting that the rest of us care about it as much as he does. He's also demonstrated his concern by writing an outrageously misleading article about Social Security and the deficit (the Times had to correct one of the article's more misleading assertions; Bai falsely claimed that a Democratic congressmember called the Social Security trust fund "make-believe money").

Today (11/24/10)  Bai is tackling the furor over TSA airport screening, which is apparently proof that Americans in the age of Obama distrust Big Government. You see, liberals interpreted the elections of 2006 and 2008 as proof that Americans are "ready to embrace a more expansive government." I don't recall that being anyone's rallying cry, but never mind. Bai's point is that even in liberal circles there is an understanding that Americans prefer small government, deficit-cutting:

Consider a survey last month conducted by the Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg for the liberal Campaign for America’s Future, which the group has cited to buttress its case that voters are prone to accept liberal arguments. Even in this poll, 76 percent of voters agreed that the top priority in Washington should be to "reduce the size of government and the deficit." And a plurality of voters (50 percent) said they were more worried about government spending and taxes than they were about government failing to invest in job creation.

Bai could be referring to this poll from October, but it's more likely that he is referring to this one, which was released this month. Neither one really delivers the message as clearly as Bai is claiming.

Did an overwhelming majority of Americans really think that cutting spending and attacking the deficit should be the top priority? Not really. In the poll, respondents were asked to react to three very leading statements.  76 percent agreed with this:

Politicians have spent the country into bankruptcy, with federal deficits going through the ceiling. This debt held by China weakens the country and the economy. Priority number one is to reduce the size of government and the deficit. We have to balance the budget by making major cuts in big spending programs now, not later. That will free up our citizens and bring America back.

But when the same people were asked whether we need to "put the middle class first," 84 percent agreed. And 80 percent agreed with this: "To get America back, we need a government that works for middle class Americans -- fostering good jobs and education." It's hard to draw many conclusions from those results, especially since the deficit does not emerge as voters' top priority when they're asked to rank their priorities in other polls.

And if panic over the deficit was a top priority, then why is there this headline in the poll report : "Mandate: fighting for middle class/jobs wins over spending/deficits."  That was how the pollsters labeled their finding that 52 percent of voters wanted politicians in Washington fighting special interests and corporations and working to create jobs. 42 percent wanted someone to rein in spending. A question about whether the government should "do more" or is "doing too much" was basically a wash. And more voters favored rebuilding infrastructure over cutting the deficit (52-42).

Of course, Matt Bai can use the TSA controversy to make any argument he wants. But you shouldn't cite a poll to make your point when that poll offers ample evidence that undermines your argument.

The New York Times (9/16/10) points out in a write-up of its new poll :

The economy and jobs are increasingly and overwhelmingly cited by Americans as the most important problems facing the country, while the deficit barely registers as a topic of concern when survey respondents were asked to volunteer their worries.

Huh. The New York Times has spent a lot of time telling readers that the public cared very deeply about this, as FAIR noted in a June 24 Action Alert, which asked the paper to provide evidence for assertions like Times reporter Matt Bai's suggestion (6/17/10) that "the federal deficit has emerged as a chief concern for voters," or for the Times' report (6/18/10) that the Senate's failure to pass a spending bill was evidence that lawmakers, "reacting to rising public concern, have grown reluctant to vote for measures that add to federal red ink."