Norm Dicks: Nepotism in the $4 million dollar range and a million for another son.

Pierce County wins $4.4 million energy efficiency grant

Posted By David Wickert on November 20, 2009 at 8:39 am Bookmark and Share Share this

Pierce County has won a $4.4 million federal grant to improve energy efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The money from the U.S. Department of Energy will cover everything from a new heating system at the jail to installing heat pumps in old houses.

It also will be used to hire Ryan Dicks – son of U.S. Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Balfair – to be the county’s “sustainability manager.”

In announcing the grant, County Executive Pat McCarthy said it “provides an excellent opportunity to find efficiencies, reduce energy costs and improve air quality.”

“It is fundamentally important to me that we leave a legacy of clean air and clean water for our children,” McCarthy said.

The Department of Energy grant is the latest example of federal economic stimulus money flowing to Pierce County.

State figures show $239 million worth of stimulus grants have come to the county through the state. That doesn’t include other grants that came straight from the federal government.

The latest grant will be used for a series of projects:

• To replace a 25-year-old heating, ventilating and air conditioning system that serves two floors at the county’s main jail. The move will allow the county to save 500,000 cubic feet of natural gas a year.

• To work with other agencies to convert older homes from wood stoves, oil or baseboard heat to high-efficiency gas furnaces, natural gas inserts or electric heat pumps. The project is designed to improve air quality and is expected to reduce greenhouse gases by more than 70 tons annually.

• To convert 78 traffic signals to more energy-efficient models, saving an estimated $72,000 annually based on today’s energy costs.

• To replace the electronic message board at Sprinker Recreation Center with a more energy-efficient sign.

• To replace the county’s 10-year-old computer disk storage system with a more energy-efficient system.

The county will also will use the grant money to pay Dicks’ $92,583 salary as sustainability manager. In that role he’ll oversee the grant-funded projects and other cost-saving measures. The position is guaranteed only for 24 months.

Dicks has served as president of an environmental consulting firm and was vice president of conservation transactions for the Cascade Land Conservancy. He also has been regional director for U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell. Currently he works for the King County executive’s office.

Dicks starts work on Monday.

Read more: http://blog.thenewstribune.com/politics/2009/11/20/pierce-county-wins-4-4-million-energy-efficiency-grant/#ixzz0yuY9BYqa

Congressman Norm Dicks, University Of Washington Deny Earmark Abuse
Norm Dicks
Pierce County wins $4.4 million energy efficiency grant


A $6.2 million federal spending request by U.S. Rep. Norm Dicks is intended solely for the University of Washington - and no money will be shared with business partner Intellicheck Mobilisa, a university spokesman said.

Norm Arkans, the university's associate vice president for media relations, denied it would share earmark dollars with Intellicheck - even though Dicks' description of the earmark is almost identical to one he sought for Intellicheck last year.

"This is our project," said Arkans. "There is no role in this project for Mobilisa."

The university's statement contradicts a July 5 Huffington Post Investigative Fund report that Dicks had sought an earmark for the University of Washington that ultimately would financially benefit Intellicheck Mobilisa and in apparent contradiction of Dicks' pledge to restrict earmark requests benefiting for-profit businesses.

"The notion there's a pass-through of funds is erroneous," said Arkans. "We don't do that."

Through a spokesman, Dicks has denied seeking a way around the restrictions. "Intellicheck Mobilisa will not receive any of this funding," said Dicks spokesman George Behan. "There is no subterfuge. There is no intent to get around any rules."

Intellicheck has not responded to requests for comment by the Investigative Fund. On July 11, The Peninsula Daily News, a publication on Washington's Olympic peninsula, where Intellicheck is headquartered, quoted the company's chief executive, Nelson Ludlow, as denying the company would benefit from the earmark. "That is an absolute fabrication. UW is the beneficiary, not us," the newspaper quoted the CEO as saying.

I Want Your Money!!!!!

I Want Your Money trailer...Set against the backdrop of today's headline - 67% of Americans don't approve of Obama's economic policies, the film takes a provocative look at our deeply depressed economy using the words and actions of Presidents Reagan and Obama and shows the marked contrast between Reaganomics and Obamanomics. The film contrasts two views of the role that the federal government should play in our daily lives using the words and actions of Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama. Two versions of the American dream now stand in sharp contrast. One views the money you earned as yours and best allocated by you; the other believes that the elite in Washington know how to best allocate your wealth. One champions the traditional American dream, which has played out millions of times through generations of Americans, of improving one's lot in life and even daring to dream and build big. The other holds that there is no end to the "good" the government can do by taking and spending other peoples' money in an ever-burgeoning list of programs. The documentary film I Want Your Money exposes the high cost in lost freedom and in lost opportunity to support a Leviathan-like bureaucratic state.

The Technocracy Boom

July 19, 2010

By David Brooks

During the first part of this period, the Republicans were in control. They expanded a vast national security bureaucracy. In their series in The Washington Post, Dana Priest and William M. Arkin detail the size of this apparatus. More than 1,200 government agencies and 1,900 private companies work on counterterrorism, homeland security and intelligence programs at around 10,000 sites across the country. An estimated 854,000 people have top-secret security clearance. These analysts produce 50,000 reports a year — a flow of paper so great that many are completely ignored.

In the second part of the period, Democrats were in control. They augmented the national security bureaucracy but spent the bulk of their energies expanding bureaucracies in domestic spheres.

First, they passed a health care law. This law created 183 new agencies, commissions, panels and other bodies, according to an analysis by Robert E. Moffit of the Heritage Foundation. These include things like the Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement Program, an Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee and a Cures Acceleration Network Review Board.

The purpose of the new apparatus was simple: to give government experts the power to analyze and rationalize the nation’s health care system. A team of experts on the newly created Independent Medicare Advisory Council was ordered to review and streamline Medicare. A team of experts within the Office of Personnel Management was directed to help set standards for insurance companies in the health care exchanges. Teams of experts serving on comparative effectiveness boards were told to survey data and determine which medical treatments work best and most efficiently.

Democrats also passed a financial reform law. The law that originally created the Federal Reserve was a mere 31 pages. The Sarbanes-Oxley banking reform act, passed in 2002, was only 66 pages. But the 2010 financial reform law was 2,319 pages, an intricately engineered technocratic apparatus. As Mark J. Perry of the American Enterprise Institute noted, the financial reform law is seven times longer than the last five pieces of banking legislation combined.

Once again, government experts were told to take a complex, decentralized system — in this case the financial markets — and impose rules, rationality and order. The law creates one über-panel, the Financial Stability Oversight Council. It directs government experts to write rules in 243 separate areas.

The law also calls upon government experts to make some heroic judgments. For example, it calls upon regulators to break up banks that might be about to pose a risk to the country’s economy. That is to say, investors may believe a bank is stable. The executives of the bank may believe it is stable. But the regulators are called upon to exercise their superior vision and determine which banks are stable and which are not.

When historians look back on this period, they will see it as another progressive era. It is not a liberal era — when government intervenes to seize wealth and power and distribute it to the have-nots. It’s not a conservative era, when the governing class concedes that the world is too complicated to be managed from the center. It’s a progressive era, based on the faith in government experts and their ability to use social science analysis to manage complex systems.

This progressive era is being promulgated without much popular support. It’s being led by a large class of educated professionals, who have been trained to do technocratic analysis, who believe that more analysis and rule-writing is the solution to social breakdowns, and who have constructed ever-expanding networks of offices, schools and contracts.

Already this effort is generating a fierce, almost culture-war-style backlash. It is generating a backlash among people who do not have faith in Washington, who do not have faith that trained experts have superior abilities to organize society, who do not believe national rules can successfully contend with the intricacies of local contexts and cultures.

This progressive era amounts to a high-stakes test. If the country remains safe and the health care and financial reforms work, then we will have witnessed a life-altering event. We’ll have received powerful evidence that central regulations can successfully organize fast-moving information-age societies.

If the reforms fail — if they kick off devastating unintended consequences or saddle the country with a maze of sclerotic regulations — then the popular backlash will be ferocious. Large sectors of the population will feel as if they were subjected to a doomed experiment they did not consent to. They will feel as if their country has been hijacked by a self-serving professional class mostly interested in providing for themselves.

If that backlash gains strength, well, what’s the 21st-century version of the guillotine?

Royal Indulgences (HOW DOES THE U.S.SPEND YOUR MONEY)?

Putting Government First?

by Patrick J. Buchanan
08/13/2010

Where a man's purse is, there his heart will be also.
If you would know where the heart of the Obama party is today, consider. In the dog days of August, with temperatures in D.C. rising above 100, Nancy Pelosi called the House back to Washington to enact legislation that could not wait until September.

Purpose: Vote $26 billion to prevent layoffs of state, municipal and county employees whose own governments had decided they had to be let go if they were to meet their constitutional duty to balance their books.

Workers their own governments thought expendable, Congress decided were so essential, it borrowed another 26 thousand million dollars from China to keep them on state and local payrolls.
A nation whose national debt is approaching the size of its gross national product, that goes abroad to borrow money to keep non-essential workers on government payroll is a nation on the way down and out.

And anyone who thinks this Obama party is ever going to cull the armies of tens of millions of government workers or scores of millions of government beneficiaries to put America's house in order is deluding himself.

As long as this Congress and White House remain in power, a U.S. default on its national debt is inevitable. The only question is when.

Nor is this the first time the Obama administration has rushed to save workers whom their own state, city and county governments were prepared to let go. Among the reasons the $800 billion stimulus failed is that so little of it was directed to firing up the locomotive of the economy, the private sector, and so much of it was spent to ensure that government workers did not have to share in the national sacrifice.

Why Pelosi & Co felt compelled to return to D.C., to ensure that state and local government payrolls were not pared, is not hard to understand.

Which party does the American Federation of Teachers; the National Education Association; and the American Federation of State, Municipal and County Employees usually contribute to, work for, vote for? At which of the two party conventions are teachers and government employees hugely over-represented?

Consider, too, the states deepest in debt and facing the largest cuts in employee ranks, pay and benefits: California, Illinois, New York.

In these states, public employees earn at least $10,000 per year more in pay and benefits than the average America worker, who is bailing them out.

Hence, we have a situation where private sector workers in Middle America are being taxed, their children being driven ever deeper into debt to China, so government employees who have greater job security than they do, and earn more in pay and benefits than they will ever earn, can stay in Fat City.

And folks wonder why so many Americans detest government.

In the same week Congress came back to prevent AFSCME from taking a haircut, the Wall Street Journal reported that, in 2009, only three of 52 metro areas with over 1 million in population saw "net earnings and the broader measure of personal income both rise."

Are you surprised to learn Washington, D.C., was among the three?

That same day, USA Today had a startling report on how, during the last decade, U.S. Government workers, like Wall Street bankers, left their fellow Americans in the dust.

"Federal workers have been awarded bigger average pay and benefit increases than private employees for nine years in a row. The compensation gap between federal and private workers has doubled in the past decade.

"Federal civil servants earned average pay and benefits of $123,049 in 2009 while private workers made $61,051 in total compensation. ... The Federal compensation advantage has grown from $30,415 in 2000 to $61,998 last year."

Remarkable. U.S. government workers, who enjoy the greatest job security of any Americans, now earn twice as much in pay and benefits as the average American. This is not the D.C. some of us grew up in.

Nor is this all Obama's doing. For most of the fat years of the federal work force came while Washington was being run by a Congress of Big-Government Conservatives and a White House of Bush-Cheney Republicans.

No wonder the tea party is targeting both parties.

Nevertheless, it is impossible to believe that the Obamaites, who intervened twice and massively with bailouts to prevent minor layoffs of local and state government employees, have the stomach to do the major surgery needed to cut the federal monolith down to size.

For the vast majority of the tens of millions of government workers vote Democratic, as do the vast majority of the scores of millions of beneficiaries of federal, state and local programs.

What Pelosi & Co. were saying with that $26 billion bailout this week is, "We are going to protect our own."

Which is why either Obama, Pelosi, Reid & Co. go, or we are gone.

Mr. Buchanan is a nationally syndicated columnist and author of Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World, "The Death of the West,", "The Great Betrayal," "A Republic, Not an Empire" and "Where the Right Went Wrong."

Lawsuit against Governor Gregoire Filed Today

The constitutional separation of powers between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government is imperative to our way of life. It protects citizens from tyranny. But our governor apparently decided that her separated role as our state’s chief executive was too binding. She has decided to legislate, too.

So, on behalf of the citizens of Washington State and our clients Pat and Sandy Tarzwell, Sterling Hill, James Wolfe, Matt Erickson, and Cindy Marshall, the Evergreen Freedom Foundation initiated legal action against Governor Christine Gregoire and several state agencies for pursuing actions outside their constitutional and statutory authority. We filed the lawsuit in Thurston County Superior Cout today, July 21. We want you to be one of the first to know what we did and why we did it.

During the 2009 Legislative Session, Gregoire introduced a bill to reduce green house gas emissions (SB 5735). Her bill was discussed in both the House and the Senate. After much debate and citizen testimony, legislators determined it needed more study. The bill died.

Governor Gregoire didn’t like that outcome. So on May 21, 2009, she issued Executive Order 09-05 instructing the Departments of Ecology and Transportation to take specific actions to address climate change—the same actions she requested in her failed legislation.

In her press conference, Gregoire said, “What we’ve done in the executive order is everything that was in the final bill—plus. There’s more in the executive order then was in the final bill that did not pass the legislature.” Clearly, Executive Order (EO) 09-05 was intended to replace her rejected legislation.

We requested public records of what transpired in the process of creating EO 09-05 especially as it related to intent. Here’s an example of what we found in a confidential briefing document from then-Director of Ecology Jay Manning to Governor Gregoire:

“With the legislature’s failure to pass your climate change bill, you directed us to prepare an executive order (EO) that accomplishes what the bill would have authorized and more.” He continued: “[W]e propose adding several significant directives that make the EO more significant, more attractive to those interested in making progress on climate change and more controversial for those not so inclined.” Jay Manning, Governor’s Decision Document, Climate Change EO (May 5, 2009)

If we are correct that Governor Gregoire exceeded her constitutional authority by issuing EO 09-05, the order is invalid and all expenditures of public funds as a result of the executive order are without proper authorization and should be halted immediately. The governor has the right to champion her climate change beliefs and attempt to persuade the legislature and the public that she is right. But she does not have the authority to circumvent the proper legislative process.

Executive Order 09-05 will cost the taxpayers millions of dollars. The governor has no legal right to authorize taxpayer expenditures or new revenue sources without legislative approval. This “end-run” around the legislature is not only unacceptable, it is irresponsible to add millions of dollars to our staggering state deficit.

With a stroke of the pen, our governor has further eroded one of the most basic tenets undergirding the American founding: no taxation without representation. Why elect principled legislators or take time to make our voices heard on the capitol steps, if our governor disregards the very process designed to protect us from tyranny?

Power vested in a single ruler is the definition of tyranny. We are not there, but our country is moving in that direction. What’s worse is the legislative body giving a wink and a nod to the executive branch to pursue unconstitutional activity—be it the president or the governor—because they fear treading that policy ground themselves. We ought to not re-elect legislators who are silent on this matter.

So we the people must step up to stop this abuse. If we allow our governor to take upon herself the power to spend public funds against the wishes of both the Senate and the House, we will pay in ways that go far beyond finances.

Our Chief Legal Counsel, Mike Reitz has put this case together with assistance from our legal advisors. Mike, along with Attorney General Rob McKenna and Steve O’Ban, helped craft the successful plan that took us all the way to the US Supreme Court on behalf of teachers and free speech, so you can count on him to craft this case well. He will keep you updated. Please follow the lawsuit at www.effwa.org.

EO 09-05 went into effect in May 2009, but several regulations will not be adopted or implemented until 2011. Before we made the decision to proceed with legal action, we needed to finish our research, gather motivated plaintiffs, and determine whether or not we could afford to bring a suit. Thankfully, it’s unlikely to cost extraordinary amounts of money to get a judicial ruling on the separation of powers in this case. Also thankfully, we have a donor who will give one dollar for every two dollars our members provide to us earmarked for this case.

But we must move quickly now. Today, we put a stake in the ground. So, if you have the ability to help us with the costs, know that your donation will be matched to extend its value. A $10,000 donation will result in $5,000 match from our benefactor. A $100 donation will garner $50 in matching funds. You can participate from personal or business accounts. All donations are tax-deductible to the extent allowed by law. Click here to make a tax-deductible donation today.

With your help, the Freedom Foundation will stop this abuse of power that leads to eventual tyranny. We will defend our constitution and protected our right to have “no taxation without representation.” Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Lynn Harsh, Chief Executive Officer

P.S. You can read our press release and watch a short video about the case at http://www.effwa.org/main/article.php?article_id=3194.

Freedom Foundation Sues Governor Gregoire

The Freedom Foundation is filing a lawsuit against Washington State Governor Gregoire for her misuse of power. The Freedom Foundation is arguing that the Governor does not have the right to make law, only to enforce it.
Today the Freedom Foundation and a group of six taxpayers filed a lawsuit to invalidate an executive order issued by Gov. Chris Gregoire.

“We believe Gov. Gregoire’s climate change executive order is an unconstitutional order,” said Michael Reitz, director of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation’s Constitutional Law Center, who represents the taxpayers in this case. “Gov. Gregoire violated the doctrine of separation of powers by snatching a failed bill out of the legislative process and issuing it in the form of an executive order. If the governor wants to pass laws, she’s in the wrong branch of government.”



Executive Order 09-05
Link to complaint
Case background

Pew Research Center for the People & the Press

Distrust, Discontent, Anger and Partisan Rancor

The People and Their Government

April 18, 2010

From: To:

Overview

By almost every conceivable measure Americans are less positive and more critical of government these days. A new Pew Research Center survey finds a perfect storm of conditions associated with distrust of government -- a dismal economy, an unhappy public, bitter partisan-based backlash, and epic discontent with Congress and elected officials.

Rather than an activist government to deal with the nation's top problems, the public now wants government reformed and growing numbers want its power curtailed. With the exception of greater regulation of major financial institutions, there is less of an appetite for government solutions to the nation's problems -- including more government control over the economy -- than there was when Barack Obama first took office.

The public's hostility toward government seems likely to be an important election issue favoring the Republicans this fall. However, the Democrats can take some solace in the fact that neither party can be confident that they have the advantage among such a disillusioned electorate. Favorable ratings for both major parties, as well as for Congress, have reached record lows while opposition to congressional incumbents, already approaching an all-time high, continues to climb.

The Tea Party movement, which has a small but fervent anti-government constituency, could be a wild card in this election. On one hand, its sympathizers are highly energized and inclined to vote Republican this fall. On the other, many Republicans and Republican-leaning independents say the Tea Party represents their point of view better than does the GOP.

These are the principal findings from a series of surveys that provide a detailed picture of the public's opinions about government. The main survey, conducted March 11-21 among 2,505 adults, was informed by surveys in 1997 and 1998 that explored many of the same questions and issues. While a majority also distrusted the federal government in those surveys, criticism of government had declined from earlier in the decade. And the public's desire for government services and activism was holding steady.

This is not the case today. Just 22% say they can trust the government in Washington almost always or most of the time, among the lowest measures in half a century. About the same percentage (19%) says they are "basically content" with the federal government, which is largely unchanged from 2006 and 2007, but lower than a decade ago.

Opinions about elected officials are particularly poor. In a follow-up survey in early April, just 25% expressed a favorable opinion of Congress, which was virtually unchanged from March (26%), prior to passage of the health care reform bill. This is the lowest favorable rating for Congress in a quarter century of Pew Research Center surveys. Over the last year, favorable opinions of Congress have declined by half -- from 50% to 25%.

While job ratings for the Obama administration are mostly negative, they are much more positive than the ratings for Congress; 40% say the administration does an excellent or good job while just 17% say the same about Congress.

Federal agencies and institutions also are viewed much more positively than is Congress. Nonetheless, favorable ratings have fallen significantly since 1997-1998 for seven of 13 federal agencies included in the survey. The declines have been particularly large for the Department of Education, the FDA, the Social Security Administration, as well as the EPA, NASA and the CDC. In terms of job performance, majorities give positive ratings to just six of 15 agencies or institutions tested, including the military (80% good/excellent) and the Postal Service (70%).

As was the case in the 1997 study of attitudes about government, more people say the bigger problem with government is that it runs its programs inefficiently (50%) than that it has the wrong priorities (38%). But the percentage saying government has the wrong priorities has increased sharply since 1997 -- from 29% to 38%.

Perhaps related to this trend, the survey also finds a rise in the percentage saying the federal government has a negative effect on their day-to-day lives. In October 1997, 50% said the federal government had a positive effect on their daily lives, compared with 31% who said its impact was negative. Currently, 38% see the federal government's personal impact as positive while slightly more (43%) see it as negative.

Rising criticism about government's personal impact is not limited to the federal government. Just 42% say their state government has a positive effect on their daily lives, down from 62% in October 1997. There is a similar pattern in opinions about the impact of local government -- 51% now see the impact of their local government as positive, down from 64% in 1997.

Despite the attention captured by demonstrations and other expressions of anti-government sentiment, Americans' feelings about the federal government run more toward frustration rather than anger. In the current survey, 56% say they are frustrated with the federal government, 21% say they are angry and 19% say they are basically content. Since October 1997, majorities have expressed frustration with the federal government, with a single notable exception; in November 2001, two months after the 9/11 attacks, just 34% said they were frustrated with the federal government.

And despite the frustration most Americans feel with government, a majority of the public (56%) says that if they had a child just getting out of school they would like to see him or her pursue a career in government; and 70% say the government is a good place to work, unchanged from October 1997.

However, along with the frustrated majority, which has remained fairly steady over the years, the survey also identifies a small but growing segment of the public that holds intense anti-government views. The proportion saying that they are angry with the federal government has doubled since 2000 and matches the high reached in October 2006 (20%).

Over this period, a larger minority of the public also has come to view the federal government as a major threat to their personal freedom -- 30% feel this way, up from 18% in a 2003 ABC News/Washington Post survey. Intense anti-government sentiment is highly concentrated among certain groups -- Republicans, independents and others who lean Republican, and those who agree with the Tea Party movement.

For example, 43% of Republicans say the federal government presents a major threat to their personal freedom, as do 50% of independents who lean Republican and fully 57% of those who agree with the Tea Party movement. That compares with just 18% of Democrats, 21% of independents who lean Democratic and just 9% of those who disagree with the Tea Party movement.

The Perfect Storm

The current survey and previous research have found that there is no single factor that drives general public distrust in government. Instead, there are several factors -- and all are currently present. First, there is considerable evidence that distrust of government is strongly connected to how people feel about the overall state of the nation. Distrust of government soars when the public is unhappy with the way things are going in the country.

The recent downward trend in trust in government began in the fall of 2008, when public satisfaction plunged amid the financial crisis. In early October 2008, 11% said they were satisfied with the way things were going in this country -- the lowest measure in more than two decades of Pew Research Center polling. That same month, a CBS/New York Times survey found just 17% saying they could trust the government in Washington to do what is right, which matched an all-time low seen previously only in the summer of 1994.

A second element is presidential politics. Trust in government is typically higher among members of the party that controls the White House than among members of the "out" party. However, Republicans' views of government change more dramatically, depending on which party holds power, than do Democrats'. Republicans are more trusting of government when the GOP holds power than Democrats are when the Democrats are in charge.

This pattern is particularly evident in the Obama era. The president's policies -- especially the year-long effort to overhaul the health care system -- have served as a lightning rod for Republicans. Currently, just 13% of Republicans say they can trust the government in Washington to do what is right, nearly equaling a low point reached in June 1994 during the Clinton administration (11%).

A third factor is that a particular subgroup of independents, who are financially pressed, chronically distrustful of government and who typically lean to the Republican Party, appears to be especially angry today. Pew Research political typology surveys in the past have labeled these individuals as "disaffecteds." This group may explain, in part, why at least as many Republican-leaning independents (37%) as conservative Republicans (32%) say they are angry with the government. And identical percentages of Republican-leaning independents and conservative Republicans (53% each) say they agree with the Tea Party movement.

Finally, record discontent with Congress -- and dim views of elected officials generally -- have poisoned the well for trust in the federal government. Undoubtedly, this has contributed to growing discontent with government even among groups who are generally more positive about it, such as Democrats. Today, many fewer Democrats say they trust government than did so during the later Clinton years. And just 40% of Democrats have a favorable impression of the Democratic Congress -- the lowest positive rating for Congress ever among members of the majority party.

For the most part, the public sees the members of Congress themselves, rather than a broken political system, as the problem with the institution. A majority says (52%) that the political system can work fine, it's the members of Congress that are the problem; 38% say that most members of Congress have good intentions, but the political system is broken.

Public opinion about elected officials in Washington is relentlessly negative. Favorable ratings for the Democratic Party have fallen by 21 points -- from 59% to 38% -- over the past year and now stand at their lowest point in Pew Research surveys. The Republican Party's ratings, which increased from 40% last August to 46% in February, have fallen back to 37%.

When asked about a series of criticisms of elected officials in Washington -- that they care only about their careers, are influenced by special interests, are unwilling to compromise, and are profligate and out-of-touch -- large majorities (no fewer than 76%) agree with each of the statements. And while 56% say they would like their child to pursue a career in government, far fewer (36%) say the same about their child making a career in politics.

It's Not Just Government

While anti-government sentiment has its own ideological and partisan basis, the public also expresses discontent with many of the country's other major institutions. Just 25% say the federal government has a positive effect on the way things are going in the country and about as many (24%) say the same about Congress. Yet the ratings are just as low for the impact of large corporations (25% positive) and banks and other financial institutions (22%). And the marks are only slightly more positive for the national news media (31%), labor unions (32%) and the entertainment industry (33%).

Notably, those who say they are frustrated or angry with the federal government are highly critical of a number of other institutions as well. For example, fewer than one-in-five of those who say they are frustrated (18%) or angry (16%) with the federal government say that banks and other financial institutions have a positive effect on the way things are going in the country.

Familiar Complaints, Growing Concerns

As in the past, poor performance is the most persistent criticism of the federal government. Fully 74% think that the federal government does only a fair or poor job of running its programs, which is on par with opinions in the late 1990s.

But another strain of criticism is that the federal government's priorities are misguided and that government policies do too little for average Americans. More than six-in-ten (62%) say it is a major problem that government policies unfairly benefit some groups while nearly as many (56%) say that government does not do enough to help average Americans.

Since 1997, there has been a substantial increase in the percentage saying that middle-class people get less attention from the federal government than they should; 66% say that currently, up from 54% thirteen years ago. In contrast with many opinions about government, this view is shared by comparable percentages of Republicans (68%), Democrats (67%) and independents (65%). Conversely, about half of Republicans (52%), Democrats (52%) and independents (47%) say that Wall Street gets more attention than it should from the federal government.

The size and power of the federal government also engender considerable concern. A 52% majority say it is a major problem that the government is too big and powerful, while 58% say that the federal government is interfering too much in state and local matters.

The public is now evenly divided over whether federal government programs should be maintained to deal with important problems (50%) or cut back greatly to reduce the power of government (47%). In 1997, a clear majority (57%) said government programs should be maintained. Greater support for cutting back government programs is seen among Republicans (up 14 points) and independents (eight points); by contrast, just 27% of Democrats say programs should be greatly cut back, unchanged from 1997.

A desire for smaller government is particularly evident since Barack Obama took office. In four surveys over the past year, about half have consistently said they would rather have a smaller government with fewer services, while about 40% have consistently preferred a bigger government providing more services. In October 2008, shortly before the presidential election the public was evenly divided on this issue (42% smaller government, 43% bigger government).

The Regulation Paradox

Despite the public's negative attitudes toward large corporations, most Americans (58%) say that "the government has gone too far in regulating business and interfering with the free enterprise system." This is about the same percentage that agreed with this statement in October 1997 (56%).

Along these lines, the public opposes government exerting more control over the economy than it has in recent years. Just 40% say this is a good idea, while 51% say it is not. Last March, the balance of opinion was just the opposite. By 54% to 37%, more people said it was a good idea for the government to exert greater control over the economy.

While the public is wary of too much government involvement with the economy, it suspends that concern when it comes to stricter regulation of major financial companies. A clear majority (61%) says it is a good idea for the government to more strictly regulate the way major financial companies do business, which is virtually unchanged from last April (60%).

Government Distrust and Midterm Politics

Hostility toward government seems likely to be a significant election issue and an important element in both midterm voting intentions and turnout. While there was widespread distrust of the federal government in the late 1990s, just 37% went so far as to say that the federal government needed "very major reform." Today, that figure stands at 53%; increasing numbers of Republicans, independents and Democrats say that government needs very major reform. Still, far more Republicans (65%) and independents (54%) than Democrats (41%) express this view.

Consistent with this pattern of partisanship, anti-government sentiment appears to be a more significant driver of possible turnout among Republicans and independents than among Democrats. Among Republican voters who are highly dissatisfied with government, 83% say they are absolutely certain to vote in the midterm elections; that compares with 67% of Republicans who express low levels of frustration with government. By contrast, there is no difference in intention to vote among Democrats who are highly frustrated with government (63%) and those who are less frustrated (64%).

Perhaps more troubling for Democrats, the link between dissatisfaction with government and voting intentions is at least as strong among independent voters. Independents who are highly dissatisfied with government are far more committed to voting this year than are independents who are less frustrated (78% vs. 58%). Overall, independents voters slightly favor the GOP candidate in their district by a 41%-to-34% margin, but those who are highly dissatisfied with government favor the Republican candidate by an overwhelming 66%-to-13% margin. Independents who are less dissatisfied with government favor the Democratic candidate in their district (by 49% to 24%), but are much less likely to say they are certain to vote.

While the GOP has a decided enthusiasm advantage predicated on discontent with government, it has a potential unity problem given the appeal of the Tea Party to many of its members. Only about half of Republicans (49%) say that the GOP is the party that best reflects their views right now, while as many as 28% cite the Tea Party. Among independents who lean Republican, the problem is potentially greater: As many say the Tea Party best reflects their views right now (30%) as the GOP (29%), with nearly as many saying nobody is representing their views (28%).

Continue reading the full report online at people-press.org.

Also on people-press.org view an interactive graphic which charts survey findings against key events as well as other data (e.g, unemployment rate, national satisfaction, incumbent losses).

How satisfied are you? Take our new quiz. When you finish, you will be able to compare your government satisfaction score with that of the average American, as well as with the scores of many demographic and political groups.

---

About the Surveys

This extensive study of public attitudes toward the federal government serves as an update and expansion of the Pew Research Center's 1998 Deconstructing Distrust report. Results are based on interviews from four telephone surveys conducted on landline and cell phones of nationwide samples of adults living in the continental United States.

The main survey was conducted March 11-21, 2010 with a sample of 2,505 adults. Interviews were conducted in English and Spanish. For the total sample of 2,505 interviews, the margin of sampling error that would be expected at the 95% confidence interval is plus or minus 2.5 percentage points. The margin of error for subgroups is larger.

Three other surveys of approximately 1,000 adults each were conducted March 18-21, April 1-5 and April 8-11. Interviews were conducted in English. The margin of sampling error for these surveys is plus or minus 4 percentage points.