Public Ignorance and Estate Tax Repeal: The Effect of Partisan Differences and Survey Incentives

We re-examine whether the broad support for repeal of the estate tax is a result of citizen ignorance. We find that increasing information about the estate tax or politics in general has very different effects on Republicans and Democrats. While high and low-information Republicans support estate tax repeal, Democratic support is higher among those who know less. However, most highly-informed people in both parties support repeal. We also show that standard surveys overestimate the extent of misinformation about the estate tax. Therefore, “ignorance” is not a compelling explanation of why so many people support estate tax repeal.estate tax; voter competence; survey research; experimental economics; public policy

Were Bush Tax Cut Supporters “Simply Ignorant?” A Second Look at Conservatives and Liberals in “Homer Gets a Tax Cut”

In a recent edition of Perspectives on Politics, Larry Bartels examines the high levels of support for tax cuts signed into law by President Bush in 2001. In so doing, he characterizes the opinions of “ordinary people” as being based on “simple-minded and sometimes misguided considerations of self interest” and concludes that “the strong plurality support for Bush’s tax cut...is entirely attributable to simple ignorance.” Our analysis of the same data reveals different results. We show that for a large and politically relevant class of respondents – people who describe themselves as “conservative” or “Republican” – increasing information levels increase support for the tax cuts to the extent that they have any affect at all. Indeed, using Bartels’ measure of political information, we show that the Republican respondents rated most informed supported the tax cuts at extraordinarily high levels (over 96%). For these citizens, Bartels’ claim that “better-informed respondents were much more likely to express negative views about the 2001 tax cut” is simply untrue. We then show that Bartels’ results depend on a very strong assumption about how information affects public opinion. He restricts all respondents -- whether liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat – to respond to increasing information levels in identical ways. In other words, he assumes that if more information about the tax cut makes liberals less likely to support it, then conservatives must follow suit. This assumption is very presumptive about the policy and value trade- offs that different people should make. Our analysis, by contrast, allows people of different partisan or ideological identities to react to higher information levels in varying ways. This flexibility has many benefits, one of which is a direct test of Bartels’ restrictive assumption. We demonstrate that the assumption is untrue. Examined several ways, our findings suggest that much of the support for the tax cut was attributable to something other than “simple ignorance.” Bartels’ approach is based on a very strong presumption about how citizens should think and what they should think about. We advocate a different approach, one that takes questions of public policy seriously while respecting ideological and partisan differences in opinion and interest. Indeed, citizens have reasons for the opinions and interests they have. We may or may not agree with them. However, we, as social scientists, can contribute more by offering reliable explanations of these reasons than we can by judging them prematurely. By turning our attention to explaining differences of opinion, we can help to forge a stronger and more credible foundation for progress in meeting critical social needs.public opinion, tax policy, incomplete information, welfare economics

Were Bush Tax Cut Supporters "Simply Ignorant?" A Second Look at Conservatives and Liberals in "Homer Gets a Tax Cut"

In a recent edition of Perspectives on Politics, Larry Bartels examines the high levels of support for tax cuts signed into law by President Bush in 2001. In so doing, he characterizes the opinions of “ordinary people” as lacking “a moral basis” and as being based on “simple-minded and sometimes misguided considerations of self interest.” He concludes that “the strong plurality support for Bush’s tax cut...is entirely attributable to simple ignorance.” Our analysis of the same data reveals different results. We show that for a large and politically relevant class of respondents – people who describe themselves as “conservative” or “Republican” – rising information levels increase support for the tax cuts. Indeed, using Bartels’ measure of political information, we show that the Republican respondents rated “most informed” supported the tax cuts at extraordinarily high levels (over 96%). For these citizens, Bartels’ claim that “better-informed respondents were much more likely to express negative views about the 2001 tax cut” is simply untrue. We then show that Bartels’ results depend on a very strong assumption about how information affects public opinion. He restricts all respondents -- whether liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat – to respond to increasing information levels in identical ways. In other words, he assumes that if more information about the tax cut makes liberals less likely to support it, then conservatives must follow suit. This assumption is very presumptive about the policy trade-offs that different people should make. Our analysis, by contrast, allows people of different partisan or ideological identities to react to higher information levels in varying ways. This flexibility has many benefits, one of which is a direct test of Bartels’ restrictive assumption. We demonstrate that the assumption is untrue. Examined several ways, our findings suggest that much of the support for the tax cut was attributable to something other than “simple ignorance.” Bartels’ approach is based on a very strong presumption about how citizens should think and what they should think about. We advocate a different approach, one that takes questions of public policy seriously while respecting ideological and partisan differences in opinion and interest. Indeed, citizens have reasons for the opinions and interests they have. We may or may not agree with them. However, we, as social scientists, can contribute more by offering reliable explanations of these reasons than we can by judging them prematurely. By turning our attention to explaining differences of opinion, we can help to forge a stronger and more credible foundation for progress in meeting critical social needs.tax cut; President Bush; Republicans; conservatives; information; competence; public policy

Public Ignorance and Estate Tax Repeal: The Effect of Partisan Differences and Survey Incentives

We re-examine whether the broad support for repeal of the estate tax is a result of citizen ignorance. We find that increasing information about the estate tax or politics in general has very different effects on Republicans and Democrats. While high and low-information Republicans support estate tax repeal, Democratic support is higher among those who know less. However, most highly-informed people in both parties support repeal. We also show that standard surveys overestimate the extent of misinformation about the estate tax. Therefore, “ignorance” is not a compelling explanation of why so many people support estate tax repeal

Were Bush Tax Cut Supporters "Simply Ignorant?" A Second Look at Conservatives and Liberals in "Homer Gets a Tax Cut"

In a recent edition of Perspectives on Politics, Larry Bartels examines the high levels of support for tax cuts signed into law by President Bush in 2001. In so doing, he characterizes the opinions of “ordinary people” as lacking “a moral basis” and as being based on “simple-minded and sometimes misguided considerations of self interest.” He concludes that “the strong plurality support for Bush’s tax cut...is entirely attributable to simple ignorance.” Our analysis of the same data reveals different results. We show that for a large and politically relevant class of respondents – people who describe themselves as “conservative” or “Republican” – rising information levels increase support for the tax cuts. Indeed, using Bartels’ measure of political information, we show that the Republican respondents rated “most informed” supported the tax cuts at extraordinarily high levels (over 96%). For these citizens, Bartels’ claim that “better-informed respondents were much more likely to express negative views about the 2001 tax cut” is simply untrue. We then show that Bartels’ results depend on a very strong assumption about how information affects public opinion. He restricts all respondents -- whether liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat – to respond to increasing information levels in identical ways. In other words, he assumes that if more information about the tax cut makes liberals less likely to support it, then conservatives must follow suit. This assumption is very presumptive about the policy trade-offs that different people should make. Our analysis, by contrast, allows people of different partisan or ideological identities to react to higher information levels in varying ways. This flexibility has many benefits, one of which is a direct test of Bartels’ restrictive assumption. We demonstrate that the assumption is untrue. Examined several ways, our findings suggest that much of the support for the tax cut was attributable to something other than “simple ignorance.” Bartels’ approach is based on a very strong presumption about how citizens should think and what they should think about. We advocate a different approach, one that takes questions of public policy seriously while respecting ideological and partisan differences in opinion and interest. Indeed, citizens have reasons for the opinions and interests they have. We may or may not agree with them. However, we, as social scientists, can contribute more by offering reliable explanations of these reasons than we can by judging them prematurely. By turning our attention to explaining differences of opinion, we can help to forge a stronger and more credible foundation for progress in meeting critical social needs

Chromothripsis orchestrates leukemic transformation in blast phase MPN through targetable amplification of DYRK1A

Chromothripsis, the process of catastrophic shattering and haphazard repair of chromosomes, is a common event in cancer. Whether chromothripsis might constitute an actionable molecular event amenable to therapeutic targeting remains an open question. We describe recurrent chromothripsis of chromosome 21 in a subset of patients in blast phase of a myeloproliferative neoplasm (BP-MPN), which alongside other structural variants leads to amplification of a region of chromosome 21 in ∼25% of patients (‘chr21amp’). We report that chr21amp BP-MPN has a particularly aggressive and treatment-resistant phenotype. The chr21amp event is highly clonal and present throughout the hematopoietic hierarchy. DYRK1A, a serine threonine kinase and transcription factor, is the only gene in the 2.7Mb minimally amplified region which showed both increased expression and chromatin accessibility compared to non-chr21amp BP-MPN controls. We demonstrate that DYRK1A is a central node at the nexus of multiple cellular functions critical for BP-MPN development, including DNA repair, STAT signalling and BCL2 overexpression. DYRK1A is essential for BP-MPN cell proliferation in vitro and in vivo, and DYRK1A inhibition synergises with BCL2 targeting to induce BP-MPN cell apoptosis. Collectively, these findings define the chr21amp event as a prognostic biomarker in BP-MPN and link chromothripsis to a druggable target

Variables Associated with Intravenous Rehydration and Hospitalization in Children with Acute Gastroenteritis: A Secondary Analysis of 2 Randomized Clinical Trials

Importance: Despite guidelines endorsing oral rehydration therapy, intravenous fluids are commonly administered to children with acute gastroenteritis in high-income countries. Objective: To identify factors associated with intravenous fluid administration and hospitalization in children with acute gastroenteritis. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study is a planned secondary analysis of the Pediatric Emergency Research Canada (PERC) and Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN) probiotic trials. Participants include children aged 3 to 48 months with 3 or more watery stools in 24 hours between November 5, 2013, and April 7, 2017, for the PERC study and July 8, 2014, and June 23, 2017, for the PECARN Study. Children were from 16 pediatric emergency departments throughout Canada (6) and the US (10). Data were analyzed from November 2, 2018, to March 16, 2021. Exposures: Sex, age, preceding health care visit, distance between home and hospital, country (US vs Canada), frequency and duration of vomiting and diarrhea, presence of fever, Clinical Dehydration Scale score, oral ondansetron followed by oral rehydration therapy, and infectious agent. Main Outcomes and Measures: Intravenous fluid administration and hospitalization. Results: This secondary analysis of 2 randomized clinical trials included 1846 children (mean [SD] age, 19.1 [11.4] months; 1007 boys [54.6%]), of whom 534 of 1846 (28.9%) received oral ondansetron, 240 of 1846 (13.0%) received intravenous rehydration, and 67 of 1846 (3.6%) were hospitalized. The following were independently associated with intravenous rehydration: higher Clinical Dehydration Scale score (mild to moderate vs none, odds ratio [OR], 8.73; 95% CI, 5.81-13.13; and severe vs none, OR, 34.15; 95% CI, 13.45-86.73); country (US vs Canada, OR, 6.76; 95% CI, 3.15-14.49); prior health care visit with intravenous fluids (OR, 4.55; 95% CI, 1.32-15.72); and frequency of vomiting (per 5 episodes, OR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.39-1.99). The following were independently associated with hospitalization: higher Clinical Dehydration Scale score (mild to moderate vs none, OR, 11.10; 95% CI, 5.05-24.38; and severe vs none, OR, 23.55; 95% CI, 7.09-78.25) and country (US vs Canada, OR, 3.37; 95% CI, 1.36-8.40). Oral ondansetron was associated with reduced odds of intravenous rehydration (OR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.13-0.32) and hospitalization (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.21-0.89). Conclusions and Relevance: Intravenous rehydration and hospitalization were associated with clinical evidence of dehydration and lack of an oral ondansetron-supported oral rehydration period. Strategies focusing on oral ondansetron administration followed by oral rehydration therapy in children with dehydration may reduce the reliance on intravenous rehydration and hospitalization. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT01853124 (PERC) and NCT01773967 (PECARN)