By Roy T. Meyers — In a Gazette column last month, Laslo Boyd observed that almost all respondents to the September Gonzales Research poll thought that Maryland has a serious budget problem.

But he then proceeded to observe that in a “perverse display of public opinion, there are very large portions of the population opposed to any of the most likely ways to deal with the current budget woes, and on many of the main options, they are ‘strongly’ opposed.”
There is no doubt that many people like to have their cake and eat it too.

But the vast gap that Boyd reported is to a significant degree an artifact of how his survey was conducted. First, the survey asked respondents about only seven different options, omitting choices that many citizens may think, rightly or wrongly, can be the source of significant budget savings. For example, health spending is about one-quarter of the state combined budget, and provided about the same share of the most recent budget cuts, but there were no questions about this area of the budget.

Second, and more important, it is well known to polling experts that the way questions are asked greatly influences how respondents answer. Asking respondents whether they oppose individual spending cuts or tax increases is like a waiter asking restaurant patrons whether they want the chef’s special without having to pay the price. It’s free lunch polling, but there is no free lunch in budgeting.
When citizens instead are asked to make tradeoffs between several realistic budget options, they tend to make much more realistic judgments. For example, citizens are more likely to support tax increases when they are asked to compare this option to large cuts in education spending that would reduce education quality. And given the state’s projected deficits, this is one of the real choices that we now face.

Boyd concludes that “Marylanders like and want the key programs that state government provides, but don't want to pay for them. And that leaves state policy makers with a real dilemma.” Yet to the extent this dilemma exists, elected officials may have only themselves to blame. If they haven’t educated citizens about the real choices, then they have to expect citizens to prefer false ones.

Consider cuts to higher education, which are opposed by 67 percent of respondents to the Gonzales poll. Of course, state funding for higher education has already been cut significantly. In response, university administrators have worked diligently to find efficiencies.

Faculty and staff are serving many more students even while taking large pay cuts. Yet large projected deficits for the state may lead to additional, severe cuts to Maryland’s public universities. What might the public think about the potential effects of these cuts?

It’s not clear that Gov. Martin O’Malley will find out, if his recent “annual issues survey” of supporters is his guide. In this survey, the governor – or his political consultants – asked the following question:

After double-digit increases throughout the term of his predecessor, Gov. O'Malley has held college tuition to a zero percent increase every year of his term. What do you think is the most important priority for higher education in Maryland?:

1) Holding down the cost of tuition; 2) Making scholarships available for top graduates of Maryland high schools; 3) Making college loans more available and affordable; 4) None of the above

From the perspective of this college professor, the correct answer is “all of the above, when possible.” There’s no question that making college affordable is a great way of promoting economic growth and social mobility. The governor deserves much credit for recognizing this.

But more cuts in state aid to higher education, when combined with a continuing tuition freeze, will leave students with an education that is affordable but also of lower quality. This would be a great shame, for it would reverse the real progress made by Maryland’s public universities. For example, my university, UMBC, was recently ranked as the top national “up-and-coming” university—the result of the state’s previous investment and much hard work by many educators.

The tradeoff between cost and quality is unavoidable for all government services—not just for higher education. If the goal is to ask citizens about real budgetary choices, then survey questions need to recognize this fact.

Roy Meyers is professor of political science at the University of Maryland Baltimore County. He can be reached at Meyers@umbc.edu.

Republished with permission of www.MarylandReporter.com