Health care costs are rising. The price of oil is at an all time high. Americans are struggling to save for the future. But when I turn on the TV or read a newspaper, the story too often seems to be the latest poll, gaffe, or controversy.
We need to hear less about the process, and more about the substance. We deserve serious, in-depth investigative reporting on plans to ensure all Americans have access to quality health care and long-term financial security.
When the next President of the United States takes office in January, what will he do for Americans who can't afford their health care bills? How will he guarantee that Americans who work hard are able to save for retirement, or plan for the unexpected?
More importantly: how will he cut through the partisan gridlock and work across the aisle to actually deliver for American families?
I sincerely hope you will dig into the substance and specifics of the plans of our elected leaders. I'm looking to the media for hard-charging investigative reporting - not sound bites and the horserace. And I'm sure I'm not the only one.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Medicare
The Assault on Medicare
Editorial
No one who has reviewed the changes in Medicare proposed by the Bush administration and the Republican leadership in the Congress has any doubt regarding the motivation behind the legislation. Corporate-tied conservatives made a commitment to begin the process of privatizing Medicare and they are now delivering on that commitment.
Under the guise of creating a prescription drug benefit, the proponents of the legislation , in fact, crafted a scheme designed to enrich pharmaceutical companies while saddling seniors with high co-pays and costs that will continue to make needed medicines unaffordable for millions of citizens. Worse yet, the legislation seeks to use billions of taxpayer dollars to break up the Medicare program and hand the pieces over to the same for-profit concerns that have made the U.S. health care system one of the costliest and most inefficient in the world. So corrupt is the legislation that it actually bans initiatives to lower drug prices.
Editorial
No one who has reviewed the changes in Medicare proposed by the Bush administration and the Republican leadership in the Congress has any doubt regarding the motivation behind the legislation. Corporate-tied conservatives made a commitment to begin the process of privatizing Medicare and they are now delivering on that commitment.
Under the guise of creating a prescription drug benefit, the proponents of the legislation , in fact, crafted a scheme designed to enrich pharmaceutical companies while saddling seniors with high co-pays and costs that will continue to make needed medicines unaffordable for millions of citizens. Worse yet, the legislation seeks to use billions of taxpayer dollars to break up the Medicare program and hand the pieces over to the same for-profit concerns that have made the U.S. health care system one of the costliest and most inefficient in the world. So corrupt is the legislation that it actually bans initiatives to lower drug prices.
Sunday, April 6, 2008
Getting our Mal den City Councilors Accountable
After watching the city council meeting Tuesday April 8th 2008 I was initially thinking I was having a confusing "Senior Moment". After listening with patience I see we have a divided city council with an agenda and that the City Council President should be called to task for putting out a non paying appointment for Trustee to the Cemetery Department out for "bid". The trustee resigned changed his mind applied after" bids" closed,
After a long discussion and a review back and forth and even after asking the City Solicitor and getting an opinion no agreement on the situation was reached and even after the original trustee was confirmed it was left open for re-consideration. It seemed at least one long time councilor was embarrassed by the prolonged discussion. It seems "no rule of law" on city "books"
My take on the situation was that some councilors feel that they should resist the rights of the citizens of Malden to participate in Municipal decision making and object to the Council president reaching out to the general public to invite them to participate in THEIR LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
The city planning board (at great expense) ran a "Vision For Malden Workshops throughout the
City with great participation.
Mass Senior Action Metro North Chapter participated and saw one of their concerns addressed.
Maximize and improve citizen participation in municipal decision-making:
The high level of citizen participation is another important and distictive problem to be solved in Malden. Citizens serve of boards and commissions and help fomulate policy and advise the city council.
THANK YOU CITY COUNCILOR CHRISTENSEN FOR TRYING
Malden Senior
Howard McGowan
349 Pleasant Street
Malden, Ma 02148
781 324 8076
After a long discussion and a review back and forth and even after asking the City Solicitor and getting an opinion no agreement on the situation was reached and even after the original trustee was confirmed it was left open for re-consideration. It seemed at least one long time councilor was embarrassed by the prolonged discussion. It seems "no rule of law" on city "books"
My take on the situation was that some councilors feel that they should resist the rights of the citizens of Malden to participate in Municipal decision making and object to the Council president reaching out to the general public to invite them to participate in THEIR LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
The city planning board (at great expense) ran a "Vision For Malden Workshops throughout the
City with great participation.
Mass Senior Action Metro North Chapter participated and saw one of their concerns addressed.
Maximize and improve citizen participation in municipal decision-making:
The high level of citizen participation is another important and distictive problem to be solved in Malden. Citizens serve of boards and commissions and help fomulate policy and advise the city council.
THANK YOU CITY COUNCILOR CHRISTENSEN FOR TRYING
Malden Senior
Howard McGowan
349 Pleasant Street
Malden, Ma 02148
781 324 8076
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Malden Elected Representataves on McFadden Manor
I am disappointed on how this item has lost Steam. I went to a meeting of a senior group and heard an Atty from Lynn decribe how the Lynn Mayor and City Council closed the well run nursng homes (2) by" softsoaping " the advocates with "promises" "buck passing" delays and behind the scenes action with a "controlled" input from citizens. BLUE PRINT FOR WHAT IS HAPPENING IN MALDEN. Only the organized group in Malden keeping up the pressure with the help of the taxpayers will save the situation. WHY THE SHORT ATTENTION SPAN. KEEP MCFADDEN OPEN
Friday, March 28, 2008
Senator Tisei on Malden Funds State Budget
It also level funds Additional Assistance at $5.6 million, and retains full Lottery aid at $10 million.
An attempt by Tisei to amend the resolution and provide Malden with an additional, one-time supplemental payment of $1.6 million fell short on a vote of 6 to 31 in the Senate last week.
A similar proposal was also defeated in the House by a vote of 26 to 124 earlier this month.
“The state budget won’t be finalized until this summer, but it’s important for cities and towns to know right now the minimum amount of funding they can expect to receive from the state,” said Tisei. “I am disappointed we couldn’t get the support we needed to expand the local aid package, but the important thing is that Malden and other communities now have reliable baseline figures they can use to build their budgets for next year.”
Tisei had proposed taking $150 million from the state’s Stabilization (or “Rainy Day”) Fund and redistributing this money to cities and towns through the Lottery formula. He said the money should be returned to communities as partial compensation for the three years that Lottery proceeds were capped by the state during the last economic downturn.
The local aid resolution, which passed unanimously in both branches without the supplemental payment, provides for a $223 million statewide increase in Chapter 70 funding, which will bring total state education aid to Massachusetts’ cities and towns to $3.949 billion.
Unlike Gov. Patrick’s budget proposal, the resolution level-funds Lottery aid without making receipt of these funds contingent on the approval of casinos.
Although state Lottery proceeds are expected to total only $811 million in Fiscal Year 2009 — $124 million short of last year’s allocation — the Legislature will hold communities harmless and provide them with the full $935 million they received last year.
Malden’s Lottery aid will be level-funded at $10 million, with $8.7 million funded through Lottery revenue, and the remaining $1.3 million paid for through the General Fund.
An attempt by Tisei to amend the resolution and provide Malden with an additional, one-time supplemental payment of $1.6 million fell short on a vote of 6 to 31 in the Senate last week.
A similar proposal was also defeated in the House by a vote of 26 to 124 earlier this month.
“The state budget won’t be finalized until this summer, but it’s important for cities and towns to know right now the minimum amount of funding they can expect to receive from the state,” said Tisei. “I am disappointed we couldn’t get the support we needed to expand the local aid package, but the important thing is that Malden and other communities now have reliable baseline figures they can use to build their budgets for next year.”
Tisei had proposed taking $150 million from the state’s Stabilization (or “Rainy Day”) Fund and redistributing this money to cities and towns through the Lottery formula. He said the money should be returned to communities as partial compensation for the three years that Lottery proceeds were capped by the state during the last economic downturn.
The local aid resolution, which passed unanimously in both branches without the supplemental payment, provides for a $223 million statewide increase in Chapter 70 funding, which will bring total state education aid to Massachusetts’ cities and towns to $3.949 billion.
Unlike Gov. Patrick’s budget proposal, the resolution level-funds Lottery aid without making receipt of these funds contingent on the approval of casinos.
Although state Lottery proceeds are expected to total only $811 million in Fiscal Year 2009 — $124 million short of last year’s allocation — the Legislature will hold communities harmless and provide them with the full $935 million they received last year.
Malden’s Lottery aid will be level-funded at $10 million, with $8.7 million funded through Lottery revenue, and the remaining $1.3 million paid for through the General Fund.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Council Meeting 3/13/2008
Malden - What happened to the voice of the people?
To the editor:
I attended the council meeting (on Tuesday, March 4) in support of the Friends of McFadden Manor. I thought the allowed speakers made a very good presentation “in a limited way.” My concern was that the councilors respectfully listened, but there was little reaction or questioning on what was being said.
Most councilors have said that “they needed more information” before deciding their plan of action. We had a “nice” warm reception, but, really, no substance in what is the problem and how it can be solved.
Mass Senior Action Metro North members have advised the Friends how to proceed in organizing and proceeding through the steps to get recognition at City Hall and dealing with the departments. They have been able to get people to listen, but no substance.
We have made money the issue in making 42 Malden residents homeless. We are now seeing the city about to stop taking responsibility for the welfare and care of even more frail and vulnerable Malden residents because we need to remove them from the tax rolls, while we benefit the more affluent citizens with a modern assisted-living complex.
Keep McFadden open. Find the money in the budget.
I was disappointed that we had a closed hearing and more of the citizens were not allowed to express their concerns. I guess the unusual numbers maybe in attendance showed the feeling of the voters of the city, and that this issue is to be remembered as to what the City Council will do.
Howard McGowan
Pleasant Street
Malden
To the editor:
I attended the council meeting (on Tuesday, March 4) in support of the Friends of McFadden Manor. I thought the allowed speakers made a very good presentation “in a limited way.” My concern was that the councilors respectfully listened, but there was little reaction or questioning on what was being said.
Most councilors have said that “they needed more information” before deciding their plan of action. We had a “nice” warm reception, but, really, no substance in what is the problem and how it can be solved.
Mass Senior Action Metro North members have advised the Friends how to proceed in organizing and proceeding through the steps to get recognition at City Hall and dealing with the departments. They have been able to get people to listen, but no substance.
We have made money the issue in making 42 Malden residents homeless. We are now seeing the city about to stop taking responsibility for the welfare and care of even more frail and vulnerable Malden residents because we need to remove them from the tax rolls, while we benefit the more affluent citizens with a modern assisted-living complex.
Keep McFadden open. Find the money in the budget.
I was disappointed that we had a closed hearing and more of the citizens were not allowed to express their concerns. I guess the unusual numbers maybe in attendance showed the feeling of the voters of the city, and that this issue is to be remembered as to what the City Council will do.
Howard McGowan
Pleasant Street
Malden
Friday, March 14, 2008
November Elections Federal And State Elections
I have been reading in the local papers the announcements of the candidates for office in the Federal, State and LOCAL elections with all of their background and listing of their accomplishments. There are many fund raisers started by those in office and those seeking office
I notice that there is a lack of information on what efforts they will be putting forward to deal with the current problems in the City of Malden.
We have some important "life Changing" "Quality of life" issues in the city that need immediate attention. and action..
As a Senior Advocate I have become aware the Senior population, a large portion of the registered voters who go to the polls , have some concerns that need attention and action now.
1. A big issue is how the city will be handling the "Affordable Housing" situation that is "on the front burner" in the minds of most Seniors. With the issue of Expired Use, Affordable Housing,
and Independent Living and what will be done to give relief to Seniors and protection against the
rising rent increases without help from city, state, and federal legislators.
2. We as seniors (and this should be of concern to those so called "baby boomers") are interested in what will be done about the issue of Home Care VS Nursing home care. This is something that should be of concern to all families with aging members. Keep our families together in their neighbor hoods.,
3. Of concern to the Seniors as well of the entire resident population of Malden is the lack of a Community Hospital and the moving out of health facilities to surrounding areas making necessary medical services hard to access.
4. The lack of protection and concern for safety in the downtown area for not only Seniors but all segments of the community.
These items mentioned are "only the tip of the iceberg" on questioning what is needed in the City of Malden that we would like to have addressed by or current representatives but also by those seeking office.
I also have seen a lack of communication with our representatives on a continuing basis partly due to lack of action be our Seniors and taxpayers to assure that their wants and needs are addressed.
I hope we have more candidates step forward and we get a chance to get the quality representation and service we deserve.. Competition and Choice are a good mix.
I look forward to the registered voters holding the office holders and those seeking office accountable.
Howard C. McGowan
349 Pleasant Street
Malden, Ma., 02148
781 324 8076
maldensenior@verizen.net
I notice that there is a lack of information on what efforts they will be putting forward to deal with the current problems in the City of Malden.
We have some important "life Changing" "Quality of life" issues in the city that need immediate attention. and action..
As a Senior Advocate I have become aware the Senior population, a large portion of the registered voters who go to the polls , have some concerns that need attention and action now.
1. A big issue is how the city will be handling the "Affordable Housing" situation that is "on the front burner" in the minds of most Seniors. With the issue of Expired Use, Affordable Housing,
and Independent Living and what will be done to give relief to Seniors and protection against the
rising rent increases without help from city, state, and federal legislators.
2. We as seniors (and this should be of concern to those so called "baby boomers") are interested in what will be done about the issue of Home Care VS Nursing home care. This is something that should be of concern to all families with aging members. Keep our families together in their neighbor hoods.,
3. Of concern to the Seniors as well of the entire resident population of Malden is the lack of a Community Hospital and the moving out of health facilities to surrounding areas making necessary medical services hard to access.
4. The lack of protection and concern for safety in the downtown area for not only Seniors but all segments of the community.
These items mentioned are "only the tip of the iceberg" on questioning what is needed in the City of Malden that we would like to have addressed by or current representatives but also by those seeking office.
I also have seen a lack of communication with our representatives on a continuing basis partly due to lack of action be our Seniors and taxpayers to assure that their wants and needs are addressed.
I hope we have more candidates step forward and we get a chance to get the quality representation and service we deserve.. Competition and Choice are a good mix.
I look forward to the registered voters holding the office holders and those seeking office accountable.
Howard C. McGowan
349 Pleasant Street
Malden, Ma., 02148
781 324 8076
maldensenior@verizen.net
Thursday, March 13, 2008
City Question on access to information City Affairs
In order to be informed citizens we have to have access to information. Seems the only people who have access to the monetary situation of the city is the council, the mayor and department heads. I haven't seen any budgets or salary postings. There is no information about where the money is or where it's going. It's not that complicated to tell the citizens how much the city takes in and spends each year. The council forces us to make "choices", either this service or that service without ever telling us the details behind the situation-especially when it comes to money. I know I like to make decisions about money when I have all the information in front of me. I feel sorry for the people at McFadden's, as a city we should be forced to come together and make tough decisions, but without all the information, the council and mayor are able to spend "our" money while leaving the citizenry in the dark about where the money is really going....
Comment Citizen on Story McFadden Manor
Malden resident's have no one to blame but themselves. We elect these city council members. People forget that the council is a representation of Malden. It's not the council's city, it's the people's city. However, the city rakes in millions of dollars each year from state aid and local taxes. Do we really know where all this money is going? Open up the books at McFadden and all the city budgets and let the people see where all the money is going. We all do it everyday running our own households, why can't we see where all the money is going in the city. I'm sure there are wastes and excesses in the city that the council doesn't want us to know about, just like we don't want our spouses to know about in our budget. Once we know where all the money is going and how much we really have to spend, then we can have a true debate about what Malden resident's want to pay for, like McFadden or a bloated DPW budget or education budget.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Massachusetts Health Issue
Legislative panel takes up health care initiativePosted by F.M.
Boston (AP) -- A bill that targets soaring health care costs will be heard by a legislative panel on Beacon Hill.The measure unveiled earlier this month by Senate President Therese Murray would make Massachusetts the first state to ban doctors from accepting gifts from pharmaceutical firms. It also calls for a statewide electronic medical record-keeping system and public review of any insurance rate increases that exceed 7 percent a year.Murray says her goal is to reduce waste and inefficiencies as the state continues to implement the landmark 2006 law mandating health insurance for all Massachusetts residents.The Legislature's Health Care Financing committee was scheduled to hear testimony on the bill Wednesday.
Boston (AP) -- A bill that targets soaring health care costs will be heard by a legislative panel on Beacon Hill.The measure unveiled earlier this month by Senate President Therese Murray would make Massachusetts the first state to ban doctors from accepting gifts from pharmaceutical firms. It also calls for a statewide electronic medical record-keeping system and public review of any insurance rate increases that exceed 7 percent a year.Murray says her goal is to reduce waste and inefficiencies as the state continues to implement the landmark 2006 law mandating health insurance for all Massachusetts residents.The Legislature's Health Care Financing committee was scheduled to hear testimony on the bill Wednesday.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Comment New Resident on Accoutabilty
In a discussion of McFadden Manor
Maybe just a communication problem
I am new to Malden and these posts are very disturbing. I recently read that the city wants to upgrade the website. Wouldn't they want to include the budgets and salary information on the site like other cities and towns? Are you people suggesting that Malden is so corrupt, they won't post information that belongs to the public? After all, city employees are actually working for the taxpayer - well they are being paid by them. I don't understand why they wouldn't post the information about the grant. They should be accountable as to how money is spent. The money does not belong to them. Is it really that bad here?
Maybe just a communication problem
I am new to Malden and these posts are very disturbing. I recently read that the city wants to upgrade the website. Wouldn't they want to include the budgets and salary information on the site like other cities and towns? Are you people suggesting that Malden is so corrupt, they won't post information that belongs to the public? After all, city employees are actually working for the taxpayer - well they are being paid by them. I don't understand why they wouldn't post the information about the grant. They should be accountable as to how money is spent. The money does not belong to them. Is it really that bad here?
Confidence in Institutions
GALLUP NEWS SERVICE
PRINCETON, NJ -- The percentage of Americans with a "great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in Congress is at 14%, the lowest in Gallup's history of this measure -- and the lowest of any of the 16 institutions tested in this year's Confidence in Institutions survey. It is also one of the lowest confidence ratings for any institution tested over the last three decades.
Gallup's annual update on Americans' confidence in institutions shows that confidence ratings are generally down across the board compared with last year. The public's confidence ratings in several institutions, including Congress, are now at all-time low points in Gallup's history of this measure. These low ratings reflect the generally sour mood of the public at this time.
Of the 16 societal institutions tested in Gallup's 2007 update, Americans express the most confidence in the military. They have the least confidence in HMOs and Congress. Americans have much more confidence in "small" business than in "big" business.
Basic Data
Gallup's annual update of the public's confidence in institutions -- conducted June 11-14, 2007 -- shows that all but 2 of the 16 institutions included in this year's survey have at least slightly lower confidence ratings than last year (although most of these changes are not statistically significant). The largest drops in confidence between 2006 and 2007 are eight percentage points for banks, the presidency, television news, and newspapers. There has been no change in the ratings of big business and HMOs.
The drop in confidence in most institutions coincides with a period of time in which Americans have low levels of overall satisfaction with the way things are going in the United States, are giving Congress and President Bush low approval ratings, and are very negative about the direction of the economy. There is little doubt that this same "malaise" is reflected when respondents are asked to rate their confidence in the list of 16 societal institutions in Gallup's annual update. Whether these low ratings are becoming a permanent fixture of the American psyche or represent a short-term bout of public depression remains to be seen.
The general pattern of confidence in institutions has remained similar in recent years. There are three institutions tested this year in which a majority of Americans express a great deal or quite a lot of confidence: the military, small business, and the police. Two institutions tested have confidence ratings in the 40% range -- the church/organized religion and banks. All other institutions generate a great deal or quite a lot of confidence from less than 40% of the American population. The five institutions at the bottom of the list -- each with confidence ratings below 20% -- are the criminal justice system, organized labor, big business, HMOs, and Congress.
Congress and the Other Two Branches of Government
Confidence in the three branches of government -- executive (the presidency), legislative (Congress), and judicial (the Supreme Court) -- has been drifting downward over the past several years, following historically high ratings in the years immediately after 9/11.
The current confidence rating for Congress -- 14% -- is the lowest in Gallup's history for that institution. Although ratings of Congress have never been high, they were at the 40% level at the time of Watergate in the 1970s, and again in 1986.
Americans' confidence in the presidency has dropped concomitantly with the drop in Bush's approval ratings. In 2002, 58% were confident in the presidency compared to the current 25%. President Bush's job approval ratings have fallen from 84% at the beginning of 2002 to 32% today.
At 34%, confidence in the Supreme Court, like Congress, is at its lowest point in Gallup's trend. Confidence in the Supreme Court has been at or above the 50% point at several times during the last several decades.
The Military
Americans' confidence in the military has always been relatively high, even in the mid-1970s during the aftermath of the Vietnam War. The military has been near or at the top of the list of institutions tested in each Gallup survey since 1987. The high point for the military -- 85% expressing a great deal/quite a lot of confidence -- came in March 1991, just after the first Persian Gulf War when the United States swiftly achieved its goal of driving Iraqi forces out of Kuwait. Even with this high point, confidence in the military has been nearly as high at several times since Sept. 11, 2001. The military's current 69% confidence rating, although still the highest of any institution tested this year, is the lowest for the military since 9/11.
Big vs. Small Business
There is an enormous difference in Americans' confidence in business -- depending on the one-word adjective placed before the word "business" when the list is read to respondents. Only 18% of Americans express a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in big business, compared to 59% who express confidence in small business.
Confidence in big business has never been high, reaching its maximum of 34% in 1974. Even in the halcyon days of the dot.com boom in the late 1990s, only 30% of Americans expressed a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in big business. The current 18% confidence rating in big business is the same as last year, and remains the lowest in Gallup history.
The Church or Organized Religion
The 46% confidence rating for the church/organized religion is within one percentage point of being the lowest in Gallup's history:
Ratings for the church fell significantly in the wake of revelations surrounding the priest abuse scandal in 2002, and before that had dropped in the wake of the television evangelism scandals of the late 1980s and early 1990s.
Confidence in the church or organized religion is particularly low among Catholics compared to Protestants. Confidence in the church or organized religion among Catholics was at 53% in 2004, and has dropped to 39% today. Among Protestants, confidence went from 60% in 2004, to 63% in 2006, to 57% today.
Journalistic Entities
Americans have relatively low levels of confidence in the Fourth Estate. Just 23% of Americans have a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in television news, and only 22% express the same sentiment for newspapers. Neither of these two entities has done exceedingly well in Gallup's history, but both are particularly low this year.
Bottom Line
Americans are currently in a very sour mood; a state of affairs that is reflected in the relatively low confidence ratings given many Americans institutions in Gallup's latest survey.
Confidence ratings for Congress are not only at the bottom of this year's list, but represent the lowest confidence rating in Congress in Gallup's history of using this confidence measure. This reflects a confluence of both the historically low standing of Congress in the minds of the public and the overall negative mindset of the American public.
Confidence in several other institutions is also at an all-time low point. We assume that the low confidence ratings measured this year are connected to Americans' broader malaise with the state of the country. It is not entirely clear what is behind the currently bad mood on the part of Americans, but Gallup analyses show that the Iraq war and the economy are certainly perceived as major problems at this point in time. The very low ratings for Congress suggest that Americans may be upset that their elected representatives have not been able to rectify these concerns as well.
Survey Methods
Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,007 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted June 11-14, 2007. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points. In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.
PRINCETON, NJ -- The percentage of Americans with a "great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in Congress is at 14%, the lowest in Gallup's history of this measure -- and the lowest of any of the 16 institutions tested in this year's Confidence in Institutions survey. It is also one of the lowest confidence ratings for any institution tested over the last three decades.
Gallup's annual update on Americans' confidence in institutions shows that confidence ratings are generally down across the board compared with last year. The public's confidence ratings in several institutions, including Congress, are now at all-time low points in Gallup's history of this measure. These low ratings reflect the generally sour mood of the public at this time.
Of the 16 societal institutions tested in Gallup's 2007 update, Americans express the most confidence in the military. They have the least confidence in HMOs and Congress. Americans have much more confidence in "small" business than in "big" business.
Basic Data
Gallup's annual update of the public's confidence in institutions -- conducted June 11-14, 2007 -- shows that all but 2 of the 16 institutions included in this year's survey have at least slightly lower confidence ratings than last year (although most of these changes are not statistically significant). The largest drops in confidence between 2006 and 2007 are eight percentage points for banks, the presidency, television news, and newspapers. There has been no change in the ratings of big business and HMOs.
The drop in confidence in most institutions coincides with a period of time in which Americans have low levels of overall satisfaction with the way things are going in the United States, are giving Congress and President Bush low approval ratings, and are very negative about the direction of the economy. There is little doubt that this same "malaise" is reflected when respondents are asked to rate their confidence in the list of 16 societal institutions in Gallup's annual update. Whether these low ratings are becoming a permanent fixture of the American psyche or represent a short-term bout of public depression remains to be seen.
The general pattern of confidence in institutions has remained similar in recent years. There are three institutions tested this year in which a majority of Americans express a great deal or quite a lot of confidence: the military, small business, and the police. Two institutions tested have confidence ratings in the 40% range -- the church/organized religion and banks. All other institutions generate a great deal or quite a lot of confidence from less than 40% of the American population. The five institutions at the bottom of the list -- each with confidence ratings below 20% -- are the criminal justice system, organized labor, big business, HMOs, and Congress.
Congress and the Other Two Branches of Government
Confidence in the three branches of government -- executive (the presidency), legislative (Congress), and judicial (the Supreme Court) -- has been drifting downward over the past several years, following historically high ratings in the years immediately after 9/11.
The current confidence rating for Congress -- 14% -- is the lowest in Gallup's history for that institution. Although ratings of Congress have never been high, they were at the 40% level at the time of Watergate in the 1970s, and again in 1986.
Americans' confidence in the presidency has dropped concomitantly with the drop in Bush's approval ratings. In 2002, 58% were confident in the presidency compared to the current 25%. President Bush's job approval ratings have fallen from 84% at the beginning of 2002 to 32% today.
At 34%, confidence in the Supreme Court, like Congress, is at its lowest point in Gallup's trend. Confidence in the Supreme Court has been at or above the 50% point at several times during the last several decades.
The Military
Americans' confidence in the military has always been relatively high, even in the mid-1970s during the aftermath of the Vietnam War. The military has been near or at the top of the list of institutions tested in each Gallup survey since 1987. The high point for the military -- 85% expressing a great deal/quite a lot of confidence -- came in March 1991, just after the first Persian Gulf War when the United States swiftly achieved its goal of driving Iraqi forces out of Kuwait. Even with this high point, confidence in the military has been nearly as high at several times since Sept. 11, 2001. The military's current 69% confidence rating, although still the highest of any institution tested this year, is the lowest for the military since 9/11.
Big vs. Small Business
There is an enormous difference in Americans' confidence in business -- depending on the one-word adjective placed before the word "business" when the list is read to respondents. Only 18% of Americans express a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in big business, compared to 59% who express confidence in small business.
Confidence in big business has never been high, reaching its maximum of 34% in 1974. Even in the halcyon days of the dot.com boom in the late 1990s, only 30% of Americans expressed a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in big business. The current 18% confidence rating in big business is the same as last year, and remains the lowest in Gallup history.
The Church or Organized Religion
The 46% confidence rating for the church/organized religion is within one percentage point of being the lowest in Gallup's history:
Ratings for the church fell significantly in the wake of revelations surrounding the priest abuse scandal in 2002, and before that had dropped in the wake of the television evangelism scandals of the late 1980s and early 1990s.
Confidence in the church or organized religion is particularly low among Catholics compared to Protestants. Confidence in the church or organized religion among Catholics was at 53% in 2004, and has dropped to 39% today. Among Protestants, confidence went from 60% in 2004, to 63% in 2006, to 57% today.
Journalistic Entities
Americans have relatively low levels of confidence in the Fourth Estate. Just 23% of Americans have a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in television news, and only 22% express the same sentiment for newspapers. Neither of these two entities has done exceedingly well in Gallup's history, but both are particularly low this year.
Bottom Line
Americans are currently in a very sour mood; a state of affairs that is reflected in the relatively low confidence ratings given many Americans institutions in Gallup's latest survey.
Confidence ratings for Congress are not only at the bottom of this year's list, but represent the lowest confidence rating in Congress in Gallup's history of using this confidence measure. This reflects a confluence of both the historically low standing of Congress in the minds of the public and the overall negative mindset of the American public.
Confidence in several other institutions is also at an all-time low point. We assume that the low confidence ratings measured this year are connected to Americans' broader malaise with the state of the country. It is not entirely clear what is behind the currently bad mood on the part of Americans, but Gallup analyses show that the Iraq war and the economy are certainly perceived as major problems at this point in time. The very low ratings for Congress suggest that Americans may be upset that their elected representatives have not been able to rectify these concerns as well.
Survey Methods
Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,007 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted June 11-14, 2007. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points. In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.
FAITH IN OUR GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS
Loss of faith in Bush leads to alternative
Two of my heroes in American politics are Tip O'Neil and Newt Gingrich. Sure, the two are very different. One is far left, one is far right; one wants to grow the government, one wants to shrink it; one is accused of being a bleeding heart, the other of having no heart at all. But these men do share one thing in common: the ability to lead from Congress -- and to do it despite an oppositional president.
Today, as citizens' faith in our president is hitting all-time lows, the American people have come up empty in their search for an alternative. While congressional Republicans are plagued by scandal and infighting, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have failed to show a Democratic alternative to the President's agenda.
As a nation, we are facing rising energy and health care costs, serious troubles in Iraq, a constant terrorist threat and general pessimism over the direction of this country. People are craving leadership, perhaps now more than ever. In the past, the American people have counted on prominent and charismatic congressmen and senators to fill this role. They have been able to call for change, push through bills and stand up for their constituents.
Today, though, people's confidence in Congress is even lower than in the president, hovering around 25 percent. Those in the legislature devote more energy to playing politics and manipulating the public than they do writing policy and helping the public. We need leaders in the legislative branch who will restore our faith in government, not just scream about President Bush.
Real leaders don't blindly agree with everything the president does, but they don't blindly oppose him either. O'Neil and Gingrich understood this, and used their congressional leadership posts as a springboard for new ideas. Based on circumstances, these men would either work with or against the president in order to enact policies, which they believed would help the American people.
When Congress brought down Ronald Reagan's proposal to make Social Security solvent entirely through benefit reductions, it was O'Neil who came to the president with a compromise that ended up extending its viability for (presumably) 65 years. While Republicans brought down President Clinton's plan for universal healthcare, meanwhile, Gingrich and others were proposing policy alternatives that would reduce the cost and increase the coverage of healthcare insurance.
With Democrats in a position to take back both houses of Congress, they still have no plan for strengthening our country. Gingrich used his "Contract with America" to assist in balancing the budget, reforming welfare and reducing government corruption. O'Neil, meanwhile, used his clout to help reduce the deficit, correct the Social Security shortfall and put the economy back on the right track.
The Democrats, apparently, believe their chances for victory this November are higher if people are voting against the President than for the members of the Democratic Party. In the short-run, they might be right. But in the long run, America is at its best when it has two strong parties.
When instead of rising to the level of the opposition, a party aims to bring the opposition down with them, we are left with a weak and divided America, and everybody loses.
--Marc Goldwein is a junior political science and economics major from Merion, Pa.
Two of my heroes in American politics are Tip O'Neil and Newt Gingrich. Sure, the two are very different. One is far left, one is far right; one wants to grow the government, one wants to shrink it; one is accused of being a bleeding heart, the other of having no heart at all. But these men do share one thing in common: the ability to lead from Congress -- and to do it despite an oppositional president.
Today, as citizens' faith in our president is hitting all-time lows, the American people have come up empty in their search for an alternative. While congressional Republicans are plagued by scandal and infighting, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have failed to show a Democratic alternative to the President's agenda.
As a nation, we are facing rising energy and health care costs, serious troubles in Iraq, a constant terrorist threat and general pessimism over the direction of this country. People are craving leadership, perhaps now more than ever. In the past, the American people have counted on prominent and charismatic congressmen and senators to fill this role. They have been able to call for change, push through bills and stand up for their constituents.
Today, though, people's confidence in Congress is even lower than in the president, hovering around 25 percent. Those in the legislature devote more energy to playing politics and manipulating the public than they do writing policy and helping the public. We need leaders in the legislative branch who will restore our faith in government, not just scream about President Bush.
Real leaders don't blindly agree with everything the president does, but they don't blindly oppose him either. O'Neil and Gingrich understood this, and used their congressional leadership posts as a springboard for new ideas. Based on circumstances, these men would either work with or against the president in order to enact policies, which they believed would help the American people.
When Congress brought down Ronald Reagan's proposal to make Social Security solvent entirely through benefit reductions, it was O'Neil who came to the president with a compromise that ended up extending its viability for (presumably) 65 years. While Republicans brought down President Clinton's plan for universal healthcare, meanwhile, Gingrich and others were proposing policy alternatives that would reduce the cost and increase the coverage of healthcare insurance.
With Democrats in a position to take back both houses of Congress, they still have no plan for strengthening our country. Gingrich used his "Contract with America" to assist in balancing the budget, reforming welfare and reducing government corruption. O'Neil, meanwhile, used his clout to help reduce the deficit, correct the Social Security shortfall and put the economy back on the right track.
The Democrats, apparently, believe their chances for victory this November are higher if people are voting against the President than for the members of the Democratic Party. In the short-run, they might be right. But in the long run, America is at its best when it has two strong parties.
When instead of rising to the level of the opposition, a party aims to bring the opposition down with them, we are left with a weak and divided America, and everybody loses.
--Marc Goldwein is a junior political science and economics major from Merion, Pa.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
