Minnesota Poll: Contradictory feelings on welfare

 A strong majority also disapprove of government policies to reduce the income gap between the rich and the poor. But they are nearly evenly split over the issue of universal benefits -- social benefits that help everyone, not just the poor -- which ultimately narrow the gap.

 The Minnesota Poll showed the seemingly contradictory, usually complex attitudes citizens hold on such hot-button issues as welfare and social spending. It was based on telephone interviews with 814 adults statewide last September, designed to gauge Minnesotans' reaction to family programs common in European nations.

 The views of Jim Le Claire, a retired city surveyor from Minneapolis, were typical of seemingly contradictory attitudes expressed by the people polled. He considers himself a political conservative; he's active in the abortion rights movement, supports "family values" and doesn't like big government.

 But he's also willing to pay more taxes if they are earmarked for "the basics -- things like food, shelter and clothing. And I wouldn't mind paying more taxes for decent child care," he said. "Those children are our future."

 "A lot of people think you have to be either a Republican who is conservative or a Democrat who is liberal," he added. "What I'm saying is -- you should be able to better yourself through your own efforts, through the help of your family or friends, or through social deals. If you do need help, help should be available. But it shouldn't be a freebie."

 Oddly, the controversial notion of expanding the safety net so that all Minnesotans could receive some benefits -- not simply the poorest of the poor -- drew nearly equal responses between people who identified themselves as Republicans and Democrats.

 Forty-five percent of those surveyed agreed that "everyone should get the same basic support that is now given only to people with lower incomes." Forty-eight percent disagreed.

 However, younger people, especially those with less education, were most apt to agree with offering social programs to people who have incomes above the poverty line. And older Minnesotans, especially those with more education, are most apt to disagree.

 The chief poll questions focused on Minnesotans' reaction to European-style programs, which often are criticized because they carry a high pricetag. The survey indicated that most Minnesotans may be willing to pay the price. According to the poll:

 69 percent said they would pay more taxes if they would provide "health care for everyone"; 28 percent would not.

 54 percent would pay more taxes if it created "good, affordable day care"; 42 percent would not.

 66 percent would pay more taxes to guarantee "everyone some minimum level of safe affordable housing"; 30 percent said they would not.

 53 percent would pay more taxes to guarantee support for children who aren't receiving it from an absent parent; 43 percent said they would not.

 At the same time, 67 percent of those surveyed said the government has too many social programs.

 What?

 "A lot of people say 'You pay a lot of taxes but you don't see anything change,' " said Paula Dobberstein, 27, an accountant from Buffalo Lake.

 "But if you saw good coming out of your tax dollars, you wouldn't feel that way. I'd have no problem paying another $5 a week for taxes if I knew the money was going to a family or children who really needed it, or to a family being trained to get off the system.

 "But now a lot of people feel like, 'I'm paying $5 more a week so you don't have to work.' I'm not saying everyone [getting assistance] doesn't need it. But there are people abusing it. And that's what makes people angry."

 Even with anger at the welfare system, respondents overwhelmingly supported all Minnesotans' right to have access to job training programs (88 percent) and basic utilities such as water, gas and electricity (77 percent).

 Most Minnesotans are ignorant of how the U.S. stacks up against other Western industrialized nations. Responding to true-false questions about child poverty and infant mortality rates, and the generosity of the welfare system, only about 1 in 8 got all three right, while 1 in 5 got all three wrong.

 For example, the comparative generosity of U.S. welfare benefits was overestimated by the vast majority of respondents. Seventy-seven percent of the 814 Minnesotans surveyed believed that the United States has one of the most generous welfare systems in the industrialized world. In fact, it lags behind most Western nations.

 The idea of the government making an overt attempt to redistribute income, to narrow the gap between the rich and the poor, was roundly rejected; 68 percent disagreed.

 "I don't think taxes should take from the rich and give to the poor," said Wayne King, 35, a nursing assistant from Blaine. "I think the government should raise the minimum wage to a level where a working family can survive, and then not worry about all these social programs to help people after they're poor."

 In telephone interviews with respondents, most were not familiar with the details of European family benefits. Le Claire said he was aware the French had generous social programs, but also knew they cost a lot of money. Dobberstein also worried about the cost. But she was intrigued.

 "If there are other countries that have done it, I'd say it's something that should at least be looked at here," she said. "Because what we're doing now is not working." 

© Copyright 1996 Star Tribune. All rights reserved.