Congressional Approval Rating at Historic Low

According the the latest Gallup Poll Congress continues to freefall as Americans express their dissatisfaction with their service.

June 20, 2008

Confidence in Congress: Lowest Ever for Any U.S. Institution

Just 12% of Americans express confidence in Congress

• USA
• Congress
• Government and Politics
• Americas
• Northern America

by Jeffrey M. Jones

PRINCETON, NJ — Gallup’s annual update on confidence in institutions finds just 12% of Americans expressing confidence in Congress, the lowest of the 16 institutions tested this year, and the worst rating Gallup has measured for any institution in the 35-year history of this question.

Gallup first asked about confidence in institutions in 1973, repeating the question biannually through 1983, and obtaining annual updates since then. This year’s update comes from a June 9-12 Gallup Poll.

In the latest update, Congress ranks just below HMOs, for whom 13% of Americans express “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence. Big business, the criminal justice system, organized labor, newspapers, television news, and the presidency all receive relatively low confidence ratings.

In contrast, Americans express the most confidence in the military, as they have each year since 1988 (with the exception of 1997, when small business edged it out). Small business ranks second in the current poll, just ahead of the police. These are the only three institutions that for whom a majority of Americans express a high degree of confidence.

The Younger Years

The 22 most corrupt members of Congress

• Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-NM)
• Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
• Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
• Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK)
• Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA)
• Rep. John T. Doolittle (R-CA)
• Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL)
• Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA)
• Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA)
• Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-LA)
• Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA)
• Rep. Gary G. Miller (R-CA)
• Rep. Alan B. Mollohan (D-WV)
• Rep. Timothy F. Murphy (R-PA)
• Rep. John P. Murtha (D-PA)
• Rep. Steve Pearce (R-NM)
• Rep. Rick Renzi (R-AZ)
• Rep. Harold Rogers (R-KY)
• Rep. David Scott (D-GA)
• Rep. Jerry Weller (R-IL)
• Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-NM)
• Rep. Don Young (R-AK)

Dishonorable mentions

• Sen. Larry E. Craig (R-ID)
• Sen. David Vitter (R-LA)

Obama’s Advantage

by Bill O’Reilly (more by this author) Posted 06/28/2008 ET Right now, the smart money is betting the next president of the United States will be named Obama, and dollars are the primary reason why. As you may have heard, the senator has flip-flopped on public campaign financing and now says he will not accept it, even though he once thought it was a swell idea. The government set taxpayer-based funding for presidential candidates at $85 million because, the wisdom went, it would prevent fat cats in the private sector from donating big dollars to influence a potential POTUS. But, like the military, it’s voluntary — and Obama is no longer interested in signing up, even though John McCain says he will. That’s because, in his defeat of Hillary Clinton, Obama raised about $300 million — and his campaign believes he can raise another $300 million before the vote next November. Of course, that is an astounding amount of cash and puts Obama light years ahead of McCain’s paltry $85 million. Money might not be able to buy true love, but it can certainly buy TV and radio airtime, an army of mercenary consultants and legions of staff members in every state. Add in the fact that the media generally love Barack Obama, generously giving him positive news coverage, and you can see some dark clouds on the horizon for McCain. So, it seems like Obama has everything going his way right now. The Bush administration is unpopular, the economy is tanking, and his opponent is 71 years old. Yet, according to Gallup tracking polls this week, Obama and McCain are tied. As Obama supporter P. Diddy might say: What’s up with that? Despite his charisma, his appeal to young Americans and the support of a frenzied liberal media, millions of working-class Americans, primarily white, remain a bit skeptical of the young senator from Illinois. That’s what’s up, my man. McCain has earned respect by his war service and longtime Senate record. You might not agree with him, but there’s no question he has served his country faithfully. Compared to McCain, Barack Obama is new to national public service — and his record troubles some voters. In a largely traditional country, Obama is considered by the National Journal as the most liberal senator on the Hill. Not a great thing in many precincts. The world is a very dangerous place, and the next president will be intensely challenged. We are talking life and death, prosperity or decline. Many voters understand the stakes and are keeping their options open. That, of course, is a good thing. Money and the media should not decide the next election. The wisdom of the regular folks should. Both Obama and McCain would be smart to figure that out. Mr. O’Reilly is host of the Fox News show “The O’Reilly Factor” and author of “Who’s Looking Out for You?”

An Election Without Meaning

Will November 2008 bring a meaningful change to America?

Will getting rid of George W. Bush and Richard Cheney without impeachment or indictment really make a difference?

Will a 600 billion dollar war/defense budget be cut in half and used for desperately needed domestic spending?

Will the ninety-three billion dollars profits in the private health insurance companies¬¬—those parasitic intermediates between you and your doctor—be used instead for full health care coverage for all?

Will Habeas Corpus and Posse Comitatus be restored to the people?

Will torture stop and the US withdraw from Iraq immediately?

Will all students in public universities be able to enroll for free?

Will the US national security agencies stop mass spying on our personal communications?

Will the neo-conservative agenda of total military domination of the world be reversed?

The answer to these questions in the context of the current billion dollar presidential campaign is an absolute no. Instead we have a campaign of personalities and platitudes. There is a race candidate, a gender candidate and a tortured veteran candidate, each talking about change in America, national security, freedom, and the American way. The candidates are running with support of political parties so deeply embedded with the military industrial complex, the health insurance companies, Wall Street, and corporate media that it is undeterminable where the board rooms separate from the state rooms.

The 2008 presidential race is a media entertainment spectacle with props, gossip, accusations, and public relations. It is impression management from a candidates’ perspective. How can we fool the most people into believing that we stand for something? It is billions of dollars of gravy for the media folks and continued profit maximunization for the war machine, Wall Street, and insurance companies no matter who is determined the winner in November.

We must face the fact that the US government’s primary mission is to protect the wealthy and insure capital expansion worldwide. The US military—spending more than the rest of the militaries of the world combined—is the muscle behind this protect-capital-at-all-costs agenda, and will be used against the American people if deemed necessary to support the mission.

Homeland Security, the North American Command, mass arrest practices with the FALCON raids, new detentions centers, and broadened “terrorism” laws to included interference with business profits are all now in place to insure domestic tranquility through extra judicial means if needed.

The two party corporate political system is having a HOMELAND presidential campaign—Hillary, Obama, McCain, Election, Lacking, Actual, National, Debate. It is time for real change, but it will only come with a social movement of reform in the tradition of the progressive, labor, civil rights, anti-war movements of the last century. We need to use all of our activist, legal, and political resources to reverse these threats to freedom. Naomi Wolf says it is not too late to prevent totalitarianism, but we have to act fast.

Peter Phillips is a Professor of Sociology at Sonoma State University and director of Project Censored. Access to verifying facts and analysis for the issues mentioned above is available at www.projectcensored.org. Reprints and postings allowed with credit to original author.