Showing posts with label Article One of the United States Constitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Article One of the United States Constitution. Show all posts

Tuesday, June 13, 2017

Gallup Finds Stunning Decline In Americans' Respect For US Government

Authored by Eric Zuesse via The Strategic Culture Foundation,


On June 9th, Gallup’s Editor-In-Chief, Frank Newport, headlined «Americans Want More Than Just Budget Cuts» and reported that, «Gallup"s latest update shows that 28% of Americans have a favorable opinion of the federal government, while 55% have an unfavorable opinion. That"s the lowest rating for any business or industry sector we tested». Here are the details on that net minus 27% (55% minus 28%) favorability-rating for «The federal government»:



Dr. Newport then points out that, the last time when Gallup had reported about Americans’ opinions of Congress, which was on 28 September 2015, «The More Americans Know Congress, the Worse They Rate It»; and, specifically, that, whereas only 7% of Americans who answered either 4 or 5 out of five questions about Congress correctly were rating Congress either «Excellent» or «Good», a far higher 27% of Americans who had answered none of the five questions correctly were rating Congress either «Excellent» or «Good».  29% of Americans who had answered zero questions correctly were rating Congress as either «Poor» or «Bad», but a far higher 66% of Americans who had answered either 4 or 5 of the questions correctly were rating Congress as «Poor» or «Bad». Consequently, «The Knowledgeable Are the Most Negative About Congress» according to Gallup’s latest available information, published there.


The basic point in Dr. Newport’s June 9th article is that the reason why Americans dislike «The federal government» isn’t that it’s ‘too big’ or ‘spends too much money’ or any of the other excuses that the (widely despised) Republican Party claims, but is instead that, «Americans think that Congress is corrupt and not focused on the interests of the people. They want their representatives to compromise rather than rigidly stick to principles».


By «principles» there, might be meant such things as ‘a balanced budget’ or ‘cutting spending’ (as Republicans would like to be hearing), but it might also mean ‘consideration and decent treatment of the poor’ (as Democrats would like to be hearing); and, so, in a survey such as this, it is really meaningless overall.


What is far more meaningful was Gallup’s survey about Americans’ perceptions about corruption in Congress: 52 % thought that «Most members» of Congress are corrupt, but only 32 % thought that their own particular member of Congress is corrupt. Obviously, if the perceptions on that matter had been correct nationwide, and 52% of Congress is corrupt, then 52% of the survey’s respondents should have been saying that their own Representative in Congress is corrupt. In other words: the U.S. public are widely deceived to believe that their own Representative is not corrupt but that a substantial majority (52% saying that Congress is «Corrupt», versus only 42 % saying it’s «Not corrupt») believe that «Congress» is corrupt.


Gallup’s 28 September 2015 report about perceptions of Congress made note, also, that there was an extraordinary jump in 2006 in the percentage saying that «Most members are corrupt», from 38 % saying that in 2005, up to 47 % saying that in 2006. After 2006, the percentages saying that, rose only slightly. Perhaps 2006 was a post-Iraq-invasion syndrome, in which increasing numbers of Americans came to distrust the U.S. government that had clearly lied and invaded Iraq under false pretenses. The Gallup Poll’s findings about Americans’ perceptions regarding the question »In general, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the way things are going in the United States at this time?» first peaked at 61% right before the invasion, in the poll taken on «3/3-5/03» or March 3-5 of 2003, then subsided a bit but finally rose even higher, to 62%, in the poll taken during «8/22-25/05» or August 22-15 of 2005, and then it stayed generally above that and briefly soared into the 80s during 2011, but is now in the high 60s, still slightly higher than the post-Iraq-invasion disillusionment period.


In any case, what seems clear is that Americans now strongly dislike ‘our’ federal government and generally consider it to be «corrupt» or not really «our» government, but instead to be somehow «their» government of »us». And, also obviously, if this long-term trend continues, then the American public will be heading into a pre-revolutionary condition, and, beyond that, into a revolutionary one. If the existing long-term trend continues, then the result will be either the overthrow of the U.S. federal government, or else a lock-down of first the Internet and then the public, at a time of already overcrowded prisons. Of course, when there is not space to accommodate additional prisoners, then military compounds become resorted to — and martial law.


No longer is it at all reasonable to characterize the United States as a stable democracy. It’s certainly not stable now; and, also, it’s certainly not a democracy. And the present long-term trend is in the wrong direction.


The United States is certainly a country that is currently heading into some kind of convulsive transition — but, certainly, also, an extremely unpleasant transition, even if, somehow, one that can reach a stability which is better, not worse, than that of the earlier post-WW-II era. And, of course, if it turns out to be a pre-WW-III transition, then the result will be catastrophic for the entire world.


The way that the U.S. federal government has responded to the current transition, up till now, is to continue the lies. But there is no certainty that that will continue to work, even for the people at the very top.

Thursday, March 16, 2017

Goldman Warns, Trump Budget "More Notable For What's Not Included"

As expected, the White House has released topline spending totals for government agencies in FY2018, endorsing a $30bn nominal cut in congressional appropriations. However, as Goldman Sachs details, the release includes no projections of the overall fiscal path or economic assumptions, and includes no discussion of tax reform or infrastructure proposals. Those details are expected to be released in May.


MAIN POINTS:


1. The President’s “skinny” Budget proposes a $30bn (0.15% of GDP) nominal reduction in total funding appropriated to government agencies in 2018, essentially endorsing the decline in spending called for under current law as a result of the spending caps under sequestration. Within this declining topline figure, the White House proposes to shift $54bn (0.3% of GDP) from non-defense to defense spending in 2018.


2. For FY2017, the budget proposes $3bn in new funding for the border wall and immigration enforcement, and $5bn in new supplemental defense spending. These proposals may be considered as part of the spending bill Congress will attempt to pass by April 28, when current government spending authority expires.


3. The proposal should be seen as a starting point for congressional negotiations. Note that congressional appropriations bills are not passed through the "reconciliation" process and thus will likely to need 60 votes--and thus at least 8 Democratic votes—to pass in the Senate. Assuming Democrats object, it seems unlikely that the full extent of the proposed cuts to domestic agencies will be approved, which would lead to a smaller increase in defense spending and/or a smaller cut (or increase) in total congressional appropriations than what the President proposes.


4. From a market perspective, this proposal is more notable for what is not included...


  • It provides no economic or fiscal projections, and

  • no discussion of tax reform or infrastructure plans, which the White House says will be released “in coming months”, likely as part of a full budget submission to Congress that we expect to be released around May.

  • It also includes no discussion of the Obamacare replacement plan.

But apart from that, everything is awesome?