Data from a national survey provide insight into how public officials and advocates for Medicaid, SNAP, and a broad array of basic needs programs can effectively protect these services in the months ahead. As explained in this memo, the public does not support cutting basic needs programs during the upcoming budget debate in Congress. Instead, Americans want these programs to work better.
Voters know these programs primarily serve low-income Americans. The fact that beneficiaries are people in need is a strength for advocates, not something that needs to be downplayed. As providers know, there is nothing extravagant or excessive about this assistance. Describing these as “safety net programs” elicits a much less positive response, and the Center for American Progress recommends avoiding that language.
The consequences of budget debates are felt by families who struggle to afford the basics, such as health care, groceries, and housing. Advocates should place this debate in the context of today’s high prices for essentials, which helps Americans identify with the challenges facing those in need and increases empathy. With tariffs, economic uncertainty, cuts to food banks, and rising grocery bills, officials who fight for their constituents’ basic needs will be on a strong foundation.
Americans know any of us could be just one paycheck away from a crisis and want to protect and strengthen these programs so we can count of them. Critically, pushing for federal programs to be improved is a more credible posture than simply defending the status quo. Advocates must not accept the premise that only opponents of these programs will make them more efficient or root out fraud. Advocates should state clearly that fraud is unacceptable and these programs can work better but the proposed cuts are cruel and will cut the heart out of basic needs programs, not the fat.
While corruption is a powerful concern among voters, these arguments work best when there is a clear connection between corruption and the consequences felt by the public. In this survey, very harsh populist language fell flat and may have failed to draw the connections necessary to build empathy and support for these services.
Similarly, while making the wealthy pay what they owe in taxes is a much better way to address any budget problems than cutting off vulnerable people from basic needs, this is salient only when the harms to people in need are made clear. Too much focus on “billionaires” or wealthy interests likely diverts voters’ attention away from the vulnerable populations who will be devastated by these cuts, and that is who must be centered in this debate.
Key findings from Hart Research are included in this presentation, while further details are available in these top lines and crosstabs.