Rasmussen Reports, one of the most respected and accurate polling organizations in the country, now provides proof of what many of us have long known - the vast majority of Americans do not believe that the federal government has the consent of the governed.
The notion that governments derive their only just authority from the consent of the governed is a foundational principle of the American experiment.
However, a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 23% of voters nationwide believe the federal government today has the consent of the governed. Sixty-two percent (62%) say it does not, and 15% are not sure.
In his new book, In Search of Self-Governance, Scott Rasmussen observes that the American people are “united in the belief that our political system is broken, that politicians are corrupt and that neither major political party has the answers.” He adds that “the gap between Americans who want to govern themselves and the politicians who want to rule over them may be as big today as the gap between the colonies and England during the 18th century.”
The book earned positive reviews from Larry Sabato, Pat Caddell, Bill Kristol, Joe Trippi and others. In Search of Self-Governance is available from Rasmussen Reports and at Amazon.com.
The growing disconnect between mainstream America and the ruling political elite has been discussed on this site numerous times and now we have the polling numbers to prove it. Despite the polls, Washington carries on with business as usual, apparently oblivious to the concerns, beliefs and values of their constituents. Additional polls reinforce the basic disconnect between mainstream voters and the ruling elite.
Data released yesterday finds that 68% of voters believe the Political Class doesn’t care what most Americans think.
Over the past couple of years, most Americans have opposed many initiatives of the Political Class including the bailouts of the financial and auto industries. Additionally, most voters still favor repeal of the national health care plan and overwhelmingly disagree with the Justice Department’s decision to challenge Arizona’s new immigration law in court.
Fifty-five percent (55%) don’t even think most members of Congress pay all the taxes they owe.
Voters are evenly divided over the notion that a group of people randomly selected from the phone book could do a better job than the current Congress.
One reason for skepticism about the Political Class is that 70% believe Big Government and Big Business are on the same team working together against the rest of us.
In a recent Wall Street Journal article, Scott Rasmussen, founder of Rasmussen Reports further expounded on the serious rift between the governed and the ruling elite.
“Americans don’t want to be governed from the left or the right,” Scott Rasmussen tells the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conference of 1,500 conservative and moderate legislators. “They want, like the Founding Fathers, to largely govern themselves with Washington in a supporting—but not dominant—role. The tea party movement is today’s updated expression of that sentiment.”
A majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents all agree with the mainstream view on Mr. Rasmussen’s three questions. “The major division in this country is no longer between parties but between political elites and the people,” Mr. Rasmussen says. His recent polls show huge gaps between the two groups. While 67% of the political class believes the U.S. is moving in the right direction, a full 84% of mainstream voters believe the nation is moving in the wrong one.
The fact that 67% of the ruling political elite believe we are moving in the right direction despite the totally opposite belief by those they rule over should be a cause of great concern regarding the future political stability of the country. The ruling elite will continue to enforce their “enlightened view” upon an unwilling populace until they are voted out of office. Since Democrats and Republicans both seem to be largely woven out of the same cloth, the question of whether any fundamental change will occur remains open.
Baseball great, 48 year old Roger Clemens, faces the equivalent of a death sentence with the threat of a 30 year prison term after being indicted for making false statements, obstruction and felony perjury. The indictment follows an inquiry into Mr. Clemen’s alleged use of steroids, during which Mr. Clemens flatly denied ever using steroids or human growth hormone.
Federal prosecutors, miffed by Mr. Clemens audacity to make allegedly “false statements under oath”, announced the indictment today and seem prepared to vigorously prosecute Mr. Clemens. US Attorney Ronald Machen, said in a statement that “The Department of Justice takes referrals from congressional committees very seriously”.
Mr. Clemens continues to maintain his innocence, stating on Twitter that, “I never took HGH or steroids. And I did not lie to Congress. I look forward to challenging the government’s accusations, and hope people will keep an open mind until trial. I appreciate all the support I have been getting. I am happy to finally have my day in court.”
The ironic part of this human tragedy is that Roger Clemens was man enough to state his innocence, forgoing his Fifth Amendment rights and agreeing to testify before Congress. According to sports writer Jeff Passan,
Clemens wasn’t in trouble when baseball released George Mitchell’s report on steroid use. Sure, it disintegrated the purity of everything he spent 24 seasons building, but Clemens was no felon. Just a guy who chose the wrong drug dealer. Only when he went on the warpath to prove his innocence did Clemens tiptoe near a law that people in power are interested in prosecuting.
The indictment, 19 pages long and rich with information, highlights 15 utterances the government deemed false leading to an obstruction of justice charge. Testimony regarding steroids, HGH and vitamin B12 comprise three false statement charges and two more perjury charges, each of which could carry five years prison time.
On page 10 is the statement most horrifying to Clemens, the rubbing alcohol in his gaping wound: “The Committee did not issue CLEMENS a subpoena, and CLEMENS was under no obligation to testify. CLEMENS retained his right under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution to refuse to answer any questions that might tend to incriminate him.”
He could’ve taken the Mark McGwire tack, treating the Fifth like his best friend. He could’ve done what so many other accused steroid users did: not say a thing and let the allegations fade into the ether, a black mark, sure, but not one that torpedoes a life. He could’ve done what his friend Andy Pettitte did: admit use, apologize for it and move on.
There remains the possibility, of course, that Clemens never did use steroids,…
Still, it’s harrowing to see another all-time great baseball player, steroids or not, paraded in front of the country as an example that thou best not trifle with the feds.
Does the country really want to see Roger Clemens put in jail, made an example of, by over zealous prosecutors seeking to exhibit the Federal Government’s stern authority over its citizens? Readers of this column are already aware of the fact that the United States incarcerates more of its citizens than any country on earth -see How The US Justice System Turns Jaywalkers Into Violent Criminals.
The United States currently has in prison 762 people per 100,000. The incarceration rate in France is 96 people per 100,000. Is the United States a land full of criminals or do we have a justice system run amok?? People lie everyday, including those who lead our country. Doesn’t the Justice Department have better things to do?
The President’s wife has been taking a severe beating in the press after taking a luxurious vacation to Costa del Sol. The New York Daily News demonized Mrs. Obama, portraying her as a “modern-day Marie Antoinette”, spending extravagantly as the US sinks into an economic abyss.
Sacrifice is something that many Americans are becoming all too familiar with during this economic downturn. It was a key theme in President Obama’s inaugural address to the nation, and he’s referenced it numerous times when lecturing the country on how to get back on its feet.
But while most of the country is pinching pennies and downsizing summer sojourns - or forgoing them altogether - the Obamas don’t seem to be heeding their own advice. While many of us are struggling, the First Lady is spending the next few days in a five-star hotel on the chic Costa del Sol in southern Spain with 40 of her “closest friends.”
Mrs. Obama’s trip was obviously not a public relations coup for the White House but one must admire the refreshing honesty exhibited by her flamboyance. The trip was a blatant admission by the Obamas of the obvious fact that they are better than us, richer than us and certainly more powerful than us. All people are not equal regardless of what the politicians tell us in their wonderful speeches.
Michelle Obama was probably incredulous at the venomous press reaction to her trip - after all, this is how she lives every day of her life. The President and his wife are routinely surrounded by an army of servants 24/7 to attend to every conceivable need. The imperial life style of a President is not routinely reported in the press - maybe it should be.
The President’s criticism of “fat-cat bankers” has been relentless. Since taking office, Obama has seized every opportunity to flame the public hatred for bankers by portraying them as being greedy and insensitive.
Obama Criticizes Fat-Cat Bankers-Bloomberg - Dec 14, 2009 - “I did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of fat-cat bankers on Wall Street,” Obama said in an interview with CBS’s “60 Minutes” program.
“The people on Wall Street still don’t get it,” Obama said. “They’re still puzzled why is it that people are mad at the banks”.
Recently, Obama’s “pay czar” again publicly excoriated bankers for their greed.
TARP Pay Czar Criticizes Big Bank Bonuses - LA Times - July 24, 2010 - The Obama administration’s pay czar on Friday came to the same conclusion about fat Wall Street bonuses that average Americans have already reached: There’s no logic behind them, except greed.
Still, the findings sparked outrage from some in Congress, renewed calls for reining in Wall Street compensation and raised the prospect of re-energized efforts to impose hefty taxes on such bonuses.
President Obama said the “lavish bonuses” highlighted the need for provisions in the recently enacted financial regulatory reform that address executive compensation…
Does Obama really care how much bankers get paid or is he simply seizing a political opportunity to increase his poll numbers? As usual it’s not clear what Obama’s real values are, but flogging bankers hasn’t helped, as his poll ratings drop to all time lows (see Obama’s Approval Ratings Plunge).
Perhaps the cynicism is unwarranted - maybe bankers are indeed “greedy” and “just don’t get it” - maybe Obama truly feels that bankers are being unjustly enriched at the expense of the public. I would like to believe Obama’s motives are pure, but if so, where is the moral outrage when it comes to public officials blatantly looting the public treasury?
Although disclosure of public officials giving themselves outrageous pay and benefits in Bell City, California has outraged the public, not a word of recrimination has come out of the White House. The shameless looting of taxpayer monies by public officials sworn to work for the interests of those who elected them is almost beyond comprehension, as reported by The Wall Street Journal:
For an illustration of everything wrong with the nation’s public pensions, look no further than the compensation in Bell, California.
Bell City Manager Robert Rizzo stepped down three weeks ago after news broke that he was making $800,000 a year to oversee the blue-collar town of 40,000. Now the Los Angeles Times reports that records show Mr. Rizzo’s compensation was double that amount—some $1.5 million a year. That number included the 28 weeks of vacation and sick time Mr. Rizzo was allowed annually—at a cost of $386,000. Good work, if you can get it.
Mr. Bell’s comp also spiraled up thanks to the city’s contributions to his pension and other retirement plans. Mr. Rizzo is in line to collect at least $600,000 annually in guaranteed pension payouts upon retirement, thanks to California’s generous formulas based on time served and compensation. Those payouts—which could add up to tens of millions of dollars over Mr. Rizzo’s lifetime—help explain why the Golden State is currently $6.2 billion in the hole for retiree pension and benefit payments.
These paydays are the inevitable result of the dominance of government unions in city and state politics. While most private workers have 401(k)-type plans that rise and fall in value with economic growth, unions negotiate guaranteed payouts that stay lucrative whether or not the cities can afford them.
Bankers are not elected by the public and do not directly work for the taxpayers. Bankers may owe the public some accountability, but elected officials should certainly be held to a higher standard. If Mr Obama is looking to improve his poll standings, how about some outrage over public officials who breach the public trust and enrich themselves at public expense? Mr Obama should take a page out his banker’s book and propose taxing Mr. Rizzo’s ill gotten gains at 100%.
Government Thwarts Oil Cleanup - Incompetence or Calculated Political Decision?
It has been over two months since the Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded and sank in the Gulf of Mexico on April 22, 2010. Estimates of the amount of crude oil gushing into the Gulf range from 60,000 to 100,000 barrels a day causing an ecological disaster along the entire gulf coast. As residents fume about the slow and nonchalant government cleanup efforts, logical minds are beginning to wonder why the government does not take some common sense efforts to facilitate the cleanup.
DEEPWATER HORIZON
A Government intent on facilitating the cleanup and mitigating the huge environmental damage of the oil spill would address the following:
- Rather than rejecting offers of foreign government help, this assistance should have been immediately accepted.
- Suspend EPA rules on the amount of oil allowed in discharge from skimmer boats which is preventing large amounts of oil from being recovered. Blindly following bureaucratic rules when they do not make sense creates a general sense of incompetence.
- Large amounts of skimmer boats are not being allowed to participate in the cleanup efforts since by law they must be stationed elsewhere. Exactly where else would you want the skimmer boats to be when they are urgently needed today in the Gulf?
- Federal authorities have hampered and restricted local efforts to contain and cleanup the oil spill based on mindless reams of regulations which make no sense under emergency conditions.
Speculation on why the government has reacted at a snail’s pace in addressing the Gulf oil disaster center on basic incompetence and at worst, a calculated political decision. Consider the following from the Wall Street Journal:
As the government fails to implement such simple and straightforward remedies, one must ask why.
One possibility is sheer incompetence. Many critics of the president are fond of pointing out that he had no administrative or executive experience before taking office. But the government is full of competent people, and the military and Coast Guard can accomplish an assigned mission. In any case, several remedies require nothing more than getting out of the way.
Another possibility is that the administration places a higher priority on interests other than the fate of the Gulf, such as placating organized labor, which vigorously defends the Jones Act.
Finally there is the most pessimistic explanation—that the oil spill may be viewed as an opportunity, the way White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said back in February 2009, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” Many administration supporters are opposed to offshore oil drilling and are already employing the spill as a tool for achieving other goals. The websites of the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace, for example, all feature the oil spill as an argument for forbidding any further offshore drilling or for any use of fossil fuels at all. None mention the Jones Act.
To these organizations and perhaps to some in the administration, the oil spill may be a strategic justification in a larger battle. President Obama has already tried to severely limit drilling in the Gulf, using his Oval Office address on June 16 to demand that we “embrace a clean energy future.” In the meantime, how about a cleaner Gulf?
Designed By :
