Is there any power in public opinion?

[Ret10Echo]

Not that this is overly surprising to anyone...but does it not seem that in recent history the more the government "does" the lower the opinion falls? The reaction in Washington to that seems to be to do "more" in an attempt to raise public opinion, with the opposite effect. This makes you realize how out-of-touch the vast majority of officials are in America today.

The article from Pew is available here

With the full report available here

Public opinion about government at all-time low
April 23, 2010

By Dorothy Ramienski
Internet Editor
Federal News Radio


Americans have a less positive opinion of government than they were about a decade ago, according to a recent survey from the Pew Research Center.

Carroll Doherty is an associate director at the organization, and explained that the same question has been asked the same way since 1958, and the number of people who trust their government all of the time or some of the time is at an historical low.

"There are a lot of factors that go into this. It's not just one thing. There are a lot of elements that go into distrust of government, and all of them seem to be present at the moment. Sour economy -- we've seen low levels of trust in the early 1990s, certainly, when the economy was bad. The economy is very bad today with almost 10 percent unemployment. [There is] a bitter partisan environment in Washington, as we saw over the last year with the health care debate. . . . The favorability of Congress is at 25 percent. It's the lowest we've tracked ever."

The general public doesn't tend to look at branches differently, either. Many lump federal, state and local levels of government together when asked at whom they were upset. A lot of people, however, lashed out specifically at Congress.

"I think they do reserve a special place for Congress, at this point -- there just seems to be such a negative feeling about Congress and the political parties. . . . President Obama's ratings are not terribly positive, but compared to other figures in Washington, he stands fairly tall. [He has] an under 50 percent rating, but that is almost double the favorability rating of Congress."

Many federal agencies saw declining ratings in terms of public opinion.

The Department of Education, FDA and Social Security Administration are just some of the agencies that are viewed less positively now than they were back in 1998.

Interestingly, both the CIA and the IRS saw an increase in their ratings.

"The IRS number has moved around, but we do see that people don't feel terribly burned by federal taxes. They certainly don't like paying them, but the burden is not terribly high in historical terms. I think the agency ratings are following the pattern of overall views of government. Most Americans don't have contact with government agencies frequently, but I think the notable one is Department of Education. I think that may reflect a greater disatisfaction with the quality of public education in this country."

The study also showed that many people now think that the government is inefficient and has the wrong priorities, with the percentage of the latter increasingly sharply since the 1997 survey.

"People have a sour view of national conditions and, again, the economy is a major factor there. They see the government as not having a positive impact. It's a little bit of 'blame the government' {which is} kind of an American tradition, to a certain extent."

Doherty said, in addition, the mistrust of government didn't simply start with the most recent health care reform debate. He said much of the discontent began during the Bush administration during the last decade.

"The composition of those opinions has changed. Republicans have become far less trusting under President Obama. Democrats have become more so, but not a great deal -- right now, 33 percent say they trust the government. That's lower than the percentage of Republicans who trusted the government during the Bush administration. So, Democrats are a bit more skeptical even though they're in power."
Doherty added that this mistrust could have dramatic affects on either party during the mid-term elections later this year.v

[Richard]

"The favorability of Congress is at 25 percent. It's the lowest we've tracked ever."

They must not have been tracking Congress for very long then - the polls were much lower than that just a few years ago - when GWB's polls were at their lowest, I remember the polls for Congress were even lower than his and much lower than 25%.

And so it goes...

Richard

[nmap]

This makes you realize how out-of-touch the vast majority of officials are in America today.


I agree - but how could it be otherwise? They are insulated from the public in a variety of ways. It is, I think, unlikely that the average citizen will ever meet an elected official at any level - even at the city level. By "meet", I do not mean going to some large meeting, or a rally, or some other group arrangement. In this case, I refer to a one-on-one, face-to-face meeting where a discussion and an exchange of ideas occurs.

The people who have access must purchase it - either through some sort of donation, or through the ability to deliver votes or favorable publicity to the elected official. Merely writing letters (or making calls, or sending e-mails) has minimal effect - a staffer will note the item and include it in some sort of summary. While I recognize there must be some exceptions to this, I suspect it is quite small.

Our elected officials compel us to comply with some large number of rules, at least some of which are inane, and many of which are non-intuitive. In any event, many of these intrusions are notably objectionable. The present initiative on salt consumption provides a case in point.

I am not at all sure that our elected representatives do a good job of representing me personally, or our national interests generally. Voting is all well and good, but I find it necessary to make low jests about choosing the lesser of two weevils.

Is there a solution? I really don't see one.

[Ret10Echo]

Originally Posted by nmap

[i]I am not at all sure that our elected representatives do a good job of representing me personally, or our national interests generally. Voting is all well and good, but I find it necessary to make low jests about choosing the lesser of two weevils.

Is there a solution? I really don't see one.

nmap, it has been my experience during my brief time here inside the beltway that there is nothing done by the politicos. Most of them are worthless and would be the first one voted off the Island because they eat food and drink water better spent on those who contribute to the greater good.
A majority of the legislation is put together by grad-students and other weanie staffers. The pols parrot the opinions but couldn't tell you for an instant what is in the legislation they sponsor. That should have become painfully apparent during the healthcare debate.


A solution:

Fire the staffers,

ban the leeches...I mean the lobbyists.

When the weight of the work they were ELECTED to do hits their shoulders, most of them will run away crying.

If you take away the candy coating, people may see what is inside and find that what IS in there is suitable only for a scarab.

Just my thoughts.

[Richard]

There is a simple solution to the issue under discussion...

Richard's $.02

[Green Light]

Originally Posted by Richard

There is a simple solution to the issue under discussion...

Richard's $.02

Both parties! Front to rear, disappear!

[Sigaba]

FWIW, the president's chief of staff gave an inside view of the White House's take on popular opinion in an interview on The Charlie Rose Show. That interview is available here.

The short version is that the White House thinks that its policies are pretty much in step with most Americans' true preferences. The chief of staff suggested that the loudest voices on the right (and to a lesser degree, the left) represent a minority opinion that has been inflamed by politicians, pundits, and members of the fourth estate.

IMO, this viewpoint is chilling. Then again, the chills may have been coming from seeing the chief of staff; I thought certain types of undead beings could not be filmed because they don't cast reflections. (Oh, apologies to all the bloodsuckers out there who may be offended by the comparison. Sorry.)

[Richard]

On lobbyists, these can be stopped also through limited government. Whenever government seeks to regulate the private sector, the private sector will seek to "regulate" the government. If the government leaves industry alone, then industry will leave government alone.

Interesting concept - yet History says otherwise.

And so it goes...

Richard's $.02

[Ret10Echo]

Originally Posted by Richard

There is a simple solution to the issue under discussion...

Richard's $.02

"The Anti-Incumbent Party....sign me up

Read this story this morning...

SALT LAKE CITY -- Republican Sen. Bob Bennett - darling of the National Rifle Association and grandson of a Mormon Church president - suddenly may not be conservative enough for ultraconservative Utah.

Bennett could become the first 2010 election casualty among incumbent U.S. senators if he fails to win at least 40 percent of the 3,500 delegates at the state GOP's convention May 8.

His struggle to win a fourth six-year term underscores two forces driving the GOP's fortunes in 2010 as the party out of power seeks more seats in Congress: Incumbency isn't a problem just for Democrats, and ideological purity is an issue of increasing importance for many Republican voters.

"It's hitting just about every incumbent," Bennett said in a recent interview. "The Republicans in this election, they're feeling that's really good because most of the incumbents are Democrats. But in this state, there is no Democrat to get really mad at in this fashion, so they get mad at me."

Full content here

(WARNING: It is the Washington Post....Please wash your hands before returning to work)

[Dozer523]

So?

[ZonieDiver]

Front to rear, disappear!

I haven't heard that in years... it made me smile.

Hey, Congress sucks - but MY Congressman is cool! <g> There's the rub.

[Pete]

"......Bennett's list of perceived political transgressions is long. He voted for the massive federal bank bailout two years ago and co-authored a bipartisan alternative to the Democrats' health care overhaul, both deeply unpopular here and seen as government grabs for more power. Voters also remember his campaign promise 18 years ago to serve only 12 years in the Senate....."

Bennett's problem ain't just he's been in Washington. Meeting halfway on a bad bill is still halfway too far.

The problem with Washington is far too many politicians want to meet halfway on a bad bill and then go off for drinks at the Country Club.

[badshot]

In my view, here's some of the things I'd do to cut the size of government:

1) Reduce all Salaries to five percent less than the median salary of private workers doing similar jobs for all federal employees. (With the exception of Military, Intel, and Law Enforcement positions).

2)Reduce the salaries of both houses and the President by 45%. Cut both houses staff in half. Since they're all serving for the good of the country, monetary rewards shouldn't be part of the equation.

3) Term limits on both houses (limit self serving interests and corruption)

4) Lose Department of Education and few other departments. Base the census on tax returns, don't file, don't have a voice.

5) Legalize all prescription drugs, focus the DEA and other agencies on seizing property and monies from the illegal drug markets (completely strip them clean of any property). The smart people will save on health care, the dumb ones won't make it. (hardcore it is)

6) Reduce the ATF, shift focus to criminals/cartels and away from civilian
oversight, with the exception of background checks and weapons registration. (No special class of weapons other than explosive devices)

7) Slowly privatize the FDA, would cut the cost of new drugs (most of the new ones will kill you faster than what mental disorder they are taken for). Drugs would get to the market faster and for half the cost. Competition reduces costs, not monopolies. Right now it costs up to 100M to get a drug or device through the FDA, and they still don't get it right a good part of the time.

8) Reduce the tax code to four pages.

9) Nobody is too big to fail...rewarding bad behavior never works

Many more on the list...

My creator grants me my basic rights, not some fat slob.

Bet you're all glad I'm not in politics...

[Richard]

IMO, larger or smaller won't make much of a difference as far as government efficiency and intrusiveness goes - the following aside reminds me of a few conversations I've had on occasion with several state and federal agencies.

Richard

A woman had died in January, but her bank had billed her for their annual service charges for February and March on her credit card, and then added late fees and interest on the monthly charge. The balance had been $0.00 but was now around $60.00. A family member placed a call to the bank.

Family Member: "I am calling to tell you that she died in January."

Bank: "The account was never closed and the late fees and charges still apply."

Family Member: "Maybe, you should turn it over to collections."

Bank: "Since it is two months past due, it already has been."

Family Member: So, what will they do when they find out she's dead?"

Bank: "Either report her account to the frauds division or report her to the credit bureau, maybe both!"

Family Member: "Do you think God will be mad at her?"

Bank: "Excuse me?"

Family Member: "Did you just get what I was telling you, the part about her being dead?"

Bank: "Sir, you'll have to speak to my supervisor."

Supervisor gets on the phone:

Family Member: "I'm calling to tell you, she died in January."

Bank: "The account was never closed and the late fees and charges still apply."

Family Member: "You mean you want to collect from her estate?"

Bank: (Stammer) "Are you her lawyer?"

Family Member: "No, I'm her great nephew." (Lawyer info given)

Bank: "Could you fax us a certificate of death?"

Family Member: "Sure." (fax number is given)

After they get the fax:

Bank: "Our system just isn't set-up for death. I don't know what more I can do to help."

Family Member: "Well, if you figure it out, great! If not, you could just keep billing her. I don't think she will care."

Bank: "Well, the late fees and charges do still apply."

Family Member: "Would you like her new billing address?"

Bank: "That might help."

Family Member: "Odessa Memorial Cemetery, Highway 129, Plot Number 69."

Bank: "Sir, that's a cemetery!"

Family Member: "And what do you do with dead people on your planet?"

[Utah Bob]

Bank: "Our system just isn't set-up for death.

And our government just isn't set up for efficiency.