Overview

Public support for government loans to major U.S. automakers has increased sharply since 2009. Opinions are far less positive, however, about two other major initiatives to bolster the economy – the 2008 bank bailout and the 2009 stimulus plan.

Americans also are of two minds when it comes to government regulation of business. While regulations are viewed negatively in the abstract, large majorities want to maintain or even strengthen federal regulations in food production, environmental protection, automobile safety and other areas.

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted Feb. 8-12 among 1,501 adults, finds that 56% say the loans the government made to GM and Chrysler were mostly good for the economy, while 38% say the loans to the automakers were mostly bad for the economy.

Opinion about the auto loans has reversed since October 2009. At that time, just 37% said the loans were mostly good for the economy while 54% expressed negative views. Republicans remain more skeptical than Democrats about the GM and Chrysler loans, but Republican support for the loans has nearly doubled since 2009 – from 23% then to 44% today.

A majority of Americans (55%) say that the auto industry has a positive effect on the way things are going in the country; just 29% say it is having a negative effect. Far more say the auto industry is having a positive impact than say that about large corporations generally (28%) or banks and financial institutions (22%). However, the auto industry is not viewed as positively as small businesses (75% positive effect) or technology companies (70%).

The survey finds that while the government’s loans to automakers are viewed more positively today than in the fall of 2009, there has been less change in opinions about other major economic policies. About four-in-ten (39%) say the major loans that the government extended to banks and financial institutions during the economic crisis of 2008 were the right thing for the government to do; 52% say they were the wrong thing. These views are virtually identical to opinions two years ago.

The public is now divided over Barack Obama’s stimulus plan, which Congress passed in 2009. Overall, 37% approve of the legislation and 41% disapprove, while 23% express no opinion. Two years ago, 38% approved of the stimulus, while nearly half (49%) disapproved; 13% had no opinion.

In terms of policy proposals currently under consideration in Washington, there is far more support than opposition for building the Keystone XL pipeline that would carry oil from Canada’s oil sands to refineries in Texas. So far, this issue has not resonated widely with the public; just 24% have heard a lot about this issue, while 37% have heard nothing at all.

Still, among those who have heard at least a little about the Keystone XL pipeline, 66% say the government should approve the pipeline, while just 23% say it should not.

Republicans are far more likely than Democrats or independents to have heard about the pipeline. Among those aware of this issue, 84% of Republicans say the government should build the pipeline, while just 9% say they should not. Independents, by greater than two-to-one (66% to 27%) approve of its construction. Democrats who have heard about the pipeline also are supportive – 49% approve of building the pipeline and 33% disapprove.

Mixed Views of Government Regulation

The public has mixed attitudes about government regulation of business. Over the past year, there has been an increase in the percentage saying that, in general, government regulation of business usually does more harm than good – from 45% last March to 52% today. Four-in-ten (40%) say government regulation is necessary to protect the public interest.

At the same time, there is little support for weakening federal regulations in specific areas such as food packaging and production, environmental protection, automobile safety standards, workplace health and safety and prescription drugs.

In each of these areas, large majorities say the federal government should strengthen regulations or keep them the same as they are now. For the most part, these opinions are little changed from 1995.

Moreover, the public does not see individual business sectors as over-regulated, with one notable exception. About half (49%) say there is too much federal regulation of small businesses, compared with just 21% who say there is too little regulation and 23% who say there is the right amount of regulation.

By contrast, when it comes to large corporations, banks and financial institutions, and the oil and gas industry, pluralities say there is too little federal regulation. When it comes to the health insurance industry, however, about as many say there is too little (40%) as too much regulation (37%).

There are sharp partisan differences over the level of federal regulation in each of the business sectors included in the survey. Majorities of Republicans say each is over-regulated, while Democrats are far more likely to say there is too little regulation. For the most part, independents are closer to Democrats than Republicans.

For instance, comparable percentages of Democrats and independents say there is too little federal regulation of the oil and gas industry (56% of Democrats, 52% of independents), banks and financial institutions (50%, 54%) and the health insurance industry (50%, 48%).

The survey also finds that the public is skeptical of the federal government taking a more active role in regulating how internet companies handle privacy issues.

A 56% majority says the government should not do more to regulate how internet companies handle online privacy issues. Only about four-in-ten (38%) want to see the government become more involved in these issues.

However, Americans do not have a positive view of the way that internet companies handle privacy matters. When asked about internet companies that collect personal information for targeted ads, 59% say this is an unjustified use of people’s personal information. Just 33% view this as a fair exchange for the free internet services– such as email, search and social networking – that these companies provide.

Views of Institutions

The survey finds that the public’s views of the impact of major institutions and businesses have changed little over the past two years. Substantial majorities continue to say that small businesses (75%) and technology companies (70%) have a positive effect on the way things are going in the country. Colleges and universities (60%), churches (57%) and the auto industry (55%) also are generally viewed as having a positive impact on the country.

By contrast, just 15% say Congress is having a positive effect while 75% say it is having a negative effect. Opinions about Congress’s impact have grown even more negative since March 2010 (24% positive, 65% negative).

The public also remains highly critical of the impact of the federal government (66% negative effect) and banks and other financial institutions (68%), but these views have shown little change since March 2010.

A majority of Americans (56%) now say the government loans made to GM and Chrysler in the midst of the financial crisis were mostly good for the economy, while 38% say they were mostly bad. In October 2009, almost a year after the loans were announced, public opinion was reversed:  Just 37% said the loans were good, while 54% said they were bad.

Views of the auto bailout have grown more positive among nearly all groups. Today, Republicans are divided over the auto loans (44% mostly good for the economy, 52% mostly bad). In 2009, 70% of Republicans thought they had a negative effect on the economy while just 23% said they were mostly good for the economy.

Independents also had negative perceptions of the auto loans in 2009 (33% mostly good, 59% mostly bad), but opinions are now more positive than negative (54% vs. 40%). And while about half of Democrats (53%) said the loans were good for the economy in 2009, that number has risen to 72% today.

Opinion about the loans to General Motors and Chrysler is particularly positive in the Northeast and Midwest. About two-thirds of Northeasterners (66%) and 61% of Midwesterners say they have been good for the economy, compared with 53% of Southerners and 48% of Westerners. While those with annual family incomes of less than $30,000 are divided in their evaluations of the loans (50% mostly good, 43% mostly bad), those with higher incomes are more positive.

Among Republicans and Republican-leaning independent registered voters, there are no significant differences of opinions about the auto loans by income or education. Mirroring the pattern within the overall public, Republicans and Republican-leaning independent voters who live in the Northeast and Midwest are more positive in their views of the auto bailout than Republicans who live in the South and West; 52% of those in the Northeast and Midwest say the loans were mostly good for the economy, compared with 36% of those in the South and West.

Negative Views of TARP Persist

Public views of the major loans to banks and financial institutions made by the federal government in the fall of 2008 remain, on balance, negative. Today, 52% say these loans through the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) were the wrong thing for the government to do, while 39% say they were the right thing. This is little changed from public opinion two years ago. Immediately following the decision to make the loans in mid-September 2008, a 57% majority said the government’s loans were the right thing to do.

Partisans continue to differ in their views of these loans:  Three-quarters of Republicans (75%) say the loans were the wrong thing for the government to do, as do a smaller majority of independents (55%). By contrast, about six-in-ten Democrats (59%) say the 2008 bank bailout was the right thing to do.

Among Republicans, conservatives are particularly likely to say the bailout was the wrong thing:  Eight-in-ten (80%) say this, compared to 63% of moderate and liberal Republicans. There are no significant differences between liberal Democrats (61% right thing, 30% wrong thing) and their moderate and conservative counterparts (59% right thing, 35% wrong thing).

Public perceptions of how much of the TARP money has been paid back to the government have not changed much since April 2010: A majority (56%) say only some of the money has been repaid, while 16% say none has. Just 13% say most of the money has been paid back and only 2% say all of it. There are no significant partisan differences in perceptions of the repayments. College graduates are more likely than those without a college degree to say the loans have been mostly repaid (24% vs. 7%).

Opinions about Stimulus Less Negative than in 2010

Three years after the passage of the economic stimulus package, public reaction is split:  37% approve of the $800 billion economic stimulus plan passed by Obama and Congress, while about the same percentage (41%) disapproves. While the percentage approving of the stimulus package is little changed from two years ago, disapproval has declined (41% disapprove today, compared with 49% in February

2010). In June 2009, a few months after the stimulus was passed, a 55% majority approved of the legislation.

Republicans continue to disapprove of the stimulus by an overwhelming margin (76% disapprove, 12% approve). Two-thirds of Democrats approve of the stimulus while just 16% disapprove. Independents are divided (33% approve, 40% disapprove).

Stimulus’ State Aid, Infrastructure Funding Viewed Positively

While overall opinions about the stimulus are divided, a majority of Americans (61%) say the stimulus plan, which included money for states to deal with budget problems and funding for roads and other infrastructure, was mostly good for the economy. Just 31% say the stimulus was mostly bad for the economy.

More than eight-in-ten Democrats (83%) say this stimulus was mostly good; just 11% say it was mostly bad. Independent opinions mirror overall public views:  61% say it has been mostly good for the economy; 32% say it has been mostly bad.

A majority of Republicans (57%) say the stimulus was mostly bad, including 62% of conservative Republicans. Moderate and liberal Republicans are more divided in their opinions: 47% say this stimulus was mostly good, while 45% say it was mostly bad. There are no significant ideological differences among Democrats.

Views about the Keystone XL Pipeline

There has been recent controversy over the building of the Keystone XL pipeline that would transport oil from Canada’s oil sands to refineries along the Gulf Coast, but the public is not following this issue very closely. Just 24% say they have heard a lot about it while another 39% have heard a little; 37% have heard nothing at all about the pipeline.

Among those who have heard at least a little, there is strong public support for building the pipeline. About two-thirds (66%) think the government should approve the building of the pipeline, while 23% say it should not be approved.

Republicans overwhelmingly support the building of the pipeline. Fully 84% say the government should approve the Keystone XL pipeline, including 88% of conservative Republicans.

Even among Democrats who have heard about the issue, a 49% plurality support the government approving the pipeline while 33% say it should not be approved. But there is a strong ideological division among Democrats; 63% of conservative and moderate Democrats support the building of the pipeline, compared with just 30% of liberal Democrats. A plurality of liberal Democrats (49%) say the pipeline should not be approved.

By a 66% to 27% margin, far more independents who have heard about the issue think the government should approve the building of the Keystone XL pipeline than say it should not be approved. Independents who lean to the Republican Party overwhelmingly support the building of the pipeline (89% say it should be approved). But Democratic-leaning independents are far more divided; 46% say it should be approved, while 45% say it should not be approved.

In general, more Americans say that government regulation of business is harmful than say it is necessary to protect the public. At the same time, when asked about regulations in specific areas, such as food safety and environmental protection, there is broad support for strengthening regulations or keeping current regulations as they are now rather than reducing regulations.

The public also thinks that in many sectors there is too little rather than too much regulation. Pluralities think there is too little regulation of large corporations, banks and financial institutions and the oil and gas industry. But when it comes to small businesses, far more say there is too much rather than too little regulation of small businesses.

Currently, 52% say government regulation of business usually does more harm than good while 40% think regulating business is necessary to protect the public interest. These views are similar to January 2008, before the financial crisis and onset of the economic recession.

Last March, opinion was more divided; 47% said regulating business is necessary to protect the public interest while 45% said government regulation does more harm than good.

The shift since March 2011 has come mostly among Republicans, widening the gap between the parties on this issue. About three-quarters (76%) of Republicans now say government regulation of business does more harm than good, an increase of 12 points from last year.

Fully 83% of conservative Republicans say regulation is harmful, up from 67% last year. A majority of moderate and liberal Republicans (59%) continue to say that government regulation of business usually does more harm than good, little changed from March 2011.

There also has been virtually no change among Democrats or independents on general views of regulation. A majority of Democrats (57%) think government regulation of business is necessary to protect the public interest. Independents continue to be divided; 44% say regulating business is necessary to protect the public while 49% believe it usually does more harm than good.

Views of Specific Regulations Little Changed from 1995

Overall, the public overwhelmingly supports strengthening regulations or keeping them as they are in specific areas, such as food safety and environmental protection; very few want to reduce regulations in these areas. And these views of regulation have changed little from July 1995.

A 53% majority says that the federal government should strengthen regulations of food production and packaging, while 36% say they should be kept the same as they are now; just 7% say regulations in this area should be reduced.

Similarly, half say that environmental protection regulations should be strengthened while 29% think they should stay the same and 17% say they should be reduced. Fewer than half (45%) think safety and efficiency standards for automobiles should be strengthened, while nearly as many say they should stay the same (42%).

About four-in-ten (41%) say workplace health and safety regulations should be strengthened; 45% say they should be kept the same. When asked about prescription drugs, 39% think regulations in this area should be strengthened while 33% think they should stay the same.

There are substantial partisan differences in views of regulation, but the gaps have not widened since 1995. In general, Democrats and independents are more likely than Republicans to support strengthening regulations. Majorities of Democrats (63%) and independents (53%) think that the federal government should strengthen environmental regulations, compared with just 28% of Republicans. Similarly, 57% of Democrats and 44% of independents favor strengthening workplace health and safety regulations. Just 25% of Republicans agree. But even among Republicans, far more say regulations in these areas should be strengthened or kept as they are than say they should be reduced.

Women also are more supportive of strengthening regulations than men. About six-in-ten women (61%) say the federal government should strengthen food safety regulations, compared with 45% 0f men. And by a 47% to 34% margin more women also support stronger regulations of workplace health and safety. There also is a 9-point gap between men and women on strengthening environmental protection and prescription drugs.

Small Businesses Seen as Over-Regulated

Overall, the public is more likely to say there is too little rather than too much regulation in most business sectors.

About four-in-ten (43%) say there is too little regulation of large corporations, 19% say there is the right amount and 31% say there is too much regulation.

Opinion is nearly identical for banks and financial institution, with a 43% plurality saying there is too little regulation. By a 44% to 36% margin more also say there is too little rather than too much regulation of the oil and gas industry.

Opinion is more divided on the health insurance industry (40% too little; 37% too much). And when it comes to small businesses, a plurality (49%) says there is too much regulation; 23% think there is the right amount and just 21% say there is too little regulation.

Republicans are far more likely than Democrats and independents to say there is too much regulation of many specific groups. Majorities of Republicans say each of the industry sectors tested are over-regulated – from 74% who say there is too much regulation of small businesses to 58% and 55%, respectively, who say there is too much regulation of banks and large corporations.

By contrast, half or more Democrats say each of the sectors is under-regulated, except for small businesses; just 29% say there is too little regulation of small businesses. Independents’ views are close to those of Democrats, again with the exception of opinions about regulation of small businesses. Nearly half of independents (49%) say there too much regulation of small businesses.

Internet Privacy and Government Regulation

Most Americans (59%) see the business practice of targeting ads based on data collected from users of email, search or social networking sites as an unjustified use of private information. Only one-in-three (33%) see this as a fair exchange for the free services these companies provide.

Despite this concern, Americans are not eager for the government to take a larger role on this issue. A majority (56%) say that the government should not get more involved in regulating how internet companies handle privacy issues, while just 38% say the government should do more. People under age 30 are evenly split on the legitimacy of internet companies using personal information to target ads: 47% call it an invasion of privacy while 46% see it as a fair exchange for free services. By contrast, people over age 30 see this as an unjustified use of private information, by a 62% to 30% margin. In keeping with this, younger Americans are more likely than those age 30 and older to say the government should not get more involved in this issue (62% vs. 54%).

There is also a substantial educational difference in how people view internet privacy.  College graduates are more accepting than those without college degrees of the use of personal information by internet companies for advertising, and are more opposed to government regulation.

There is relatively little partisan divide over the legitimacy of how companies use personal information; majorities of Republicans (55%), Democrats (60%) and independents (60%) alike think targeted advertising is an unjustified use of peoples’ private information. But there is a sharp partisan difference over the role the government should take. Two-thirds of Republicans (67%) and a majority of independents (56%) say that the government should not get more involved in this issue. Democrats are evenly divided (45% government should do more vs. 49% should not get more involved).

People who use social networking tools such as Facebook and Twitter are far more likely than those who do not use them to say that collecting personal information for targeted advertising is a fair exchange for services (43% vs. 20%). Yet even among social network users, roughly half (52%) say collecting personal information to target advertisements is an unjustified use of private information. Social network users are more opposed to greater government regulation in this area (59%) than are those who do not use social networking sites (51%).

Even among those who are uncomfortable with companies using personal information to target ads, there is no call for greater government regulation. Only about half (45%) of those who think this is an unjustified use of people’s private information say the government should to more to regulate internet privacy, while about the same number (49%) say it should not get more involved. Not surprisingly, among the minority who see the use of personal information as a fair exchange for the free services internet companies provide, 72% oppose any greater government role.

The public offers very positive ratings of the impact of small businesses and technology companies on the way things are going in this country today. Fully three-quarters (75%) say small businesses are having a positive effect on the country and nearly as many (70%) say they same about technology companies.

By contrast, government, banks, and large corporations continue to receive highly negative ratings. Just 15% say Congress is having a positive effect on the country; 75% say negative. Ratings of Congress have fallen from an already low rating in 2010 (24% positive effect). Evaluations of the impact of the federal government, and banks and other financial institutions, are little better than those of Congress: Just 22% say the government and banks have a positive effect on the way things are going; more than six-in-ten say the government (66%) and banks (68%) have a negative effect. Opinions about the impact of these institutions have changed little since 2010.

Republicans and Democrats generally agree in their positive evaluations of small business and technology companies and their negative views of Congress and large corporations, but there are wide partisan divides on the impact of other institutions. For example, 47% of Democrats say labor unions have a positive effect, compared with just 19% of Republicans. And while nearly two-thirds of Democrats (65%) say the auto industry has a positive impact, 46% of Republicans agree.

Overall, comparable majorities say colleges and universities (60%) and churches and religious organizations (57%) are having a positive effect on the country. But Republicans are more likely to rate the impact of religious organizations positively than that of colleges and universities (68% vs. 51%) while Democrats are more likely to see colleges and universities as having a positive impact than churches and religious organizations. (67% vs. 55%).

On balance, the federal government and the national news media are viewed more negatively than positively by both Republicans and Democrats, but Republicans express stronger distaste for both institutions than do Democrats. Republicans say the impact of the federal government on the country is negative by an 86%-10% margin. Among Democrats, the balance of opinion is still negative, but less one-sided (49%-35%). Similarly, the news media is seen as having a negative impact on the country by 76% of Republicans, compared with 50% of Democrats.

Most of the analysis in this report is based on telephone interviews conducted Feb. 8-12, 2012, among a national sample of 1,501 adults, 18 years of age or older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia (900 respondents were interviewed on a landline telephone, and 601 were interviewed on a cell phone, including 284 who had no landline telephone). The survey was conducted by interviewers at Princeton Data Source under the direction of Princeton Survey Research Associates International. A combination of landline and cell phone random digit dial samples were used; both samples were provided by Survey Sampling International. Interviews were conducted in English and Spanish. Respondents in the landline sample were selected by randomly asking for the youngest adult male or female who is now at home. Interviews in the cell sample were conducted with the person who answered the phone, if that person was an adult 18 years of age or older. For detailed information about our survey methodology, see https://alpha.pewresearch.org/pewresearch-org/politics/methodology/

The combined landline and cell phone sample are weighted using an iterative technique that matches gender, age, education, race, Hispanic origin and nativity and region to parameters from the March 2011 Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey and population density to parameters from the Decennial Census. The sample also is weighted to match current patterns of telephone status and relative usage of landline and cell phones (for those with both), based on extrapolations from the 2011 National Health Interview Survey. The weighting procedure also accounts for the fact that respondents with both landline and cell phones have a greater probability of being included in the combined sample and adjusts for household size within the landline sample. Sampling errors and statistical tests of significance take into account the effect of weighting. The following table shows the sample sizes and the error attributable to sampling that would be expected at the 95% level of confidence for different groups in the survey:

Sample sizes and sampling errors for other subgroups are available upon request.

Some of the analysis in this report is based on telephone interviews conducted Feb. 16-20, 2012, among a national sample of 1,006 adults 18 years of age or older living in the continental United States (603 respondents were interviewed on a landline telephone, and 403 were interviewed on a cell phone, including 190 who had no landline telephone). The survey was conducted by interviewers at Princeton Data Source under the direction of Princeton Survey Research Associates International. A combination of landline and cell phone random digit dial samples were used; both samples were provided by Survey Sampling International. Interviews were conducted in English. Respondents in the landline sample were selected by randomly asking for the youngest adult male or female who is now at home. Interviews in the cell sample were conducted with the person who answered the phone, if that person was an adult 18 years of age or older.

The combined landline and cell phone sample are weighted using an iterative technique that matches gender, age, education, race, Hispanic origin and region to parameters from the March 2011 Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey and population density to parameters from the Decennial Census. The sample also is weighted to match current patterns of telephone status, based on extrapolations from the 2011 National Health Interview Survey. The weighting procedure also accounts for the fact that respondents with both landline and cell phones have a greater probability of being included in the combined sample and adjusts for household size within the landline sample. Sampling errors and statistical tests of significance take into account the effect of weighting. The following table shows the sample sizes and the error attributable to sampling that would be expected at the 95% level of confidence for different groups in the survey:

Sample sizes and sampling errors for other subgroups are available upon request.

In addition to sampling error, one should bear in mind that question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of opinion polls.