New poll says Americans hate their government

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/americans-hate-the-u-s-government-more-than-ever/

A handful of industries are those "love to hate" types of businesses, such as cable-television companies and Internet service providers.

The federal government has joined the ranks of the bottom-of-the-barrel industries, according to a new survey from the American Customer Satisfaction Index. Americans' satisfaction level in dealing with federal agencies --everything from Treasury to Homeland Security -- has fallen for a third consecutive year, reaching an eight-year low.

The declines represent some backsliding for the U.S. government, given that satisfaction saw some improvement in 2011 and 2012, which may have been the result of spending in the wake of the recession. While the comparison with private enterprise isn't apples to apples given the nature of government services, the findings have some implications for bureaucrats.

"Satisfaction is linked to broader goals in the political system that it wants to maximize, like confidence and trust," said Forrest Morgeson, director of research at the ACSI. "It's much more difficult to govern if the entire population dislikes you."

Although satisfaction is down for the federal government as a whole, the research found that consumers have vastly different views of specific agencies. The department that received the highest score was the Department of the Interior, which received a ranking of 75 points. That could reflect Americans' positive feelings toward national parks, which many visit while on vacation, Morgeson noted.

The lowest-ranked department may not be much of a surprise to taxpayers: Treasury, which received a score of just 55 points, or 20 points below the Department of the Interior. Treasury, as a reminder, oversees the IRS.

"If you think about the most contacted government agency, it'll be the IRS," Morgeson said. "If you think about what the IRS does, which is take money from citizens, you'll have low satisfaction."

Despite the overall lower score for the government, there were some signs of improvement in citizens' experiences, with the feds earning improved scores in customer service and information, which means many citizens believe agencies are delivering information in a clearer way than a year ago.

The government report is based on surveys with more than 2,000 people who were surveyed late last year.

There are two ways we can go here. We can further empower the federal government with someone like Bernie Sanders, or we can pursue something like the Article V movement which allows states to scale back the powers of the federal government.

Such issues like term limits for those in Congress and some sort of balanced budget amendment are favored by about 80% of Americans. So why not do it?

Originally posted by whodey
There are two ways we can go here. We can further empower the federal government with someone like Bernie Sanders, or we can pursue something like the Article V movement which allows states to scale back the powers of the federal government.

Such issues like term limits for those in Congress and some sort of balanced budget amendment are favored by about 80% of Americans. So why not do it?

You really should look at the actual poll before relying on misleading headlines.

In fact, the survey said 63.9% of citizens were satisfied with their experiences with government. Interestingly and contrary to your constant ranting against the federal government and for State and local government replacing it in virtually all areas, there was no difference between citizen satisfaction between them.

The full report is here: http://www.theacsi.org/news-and-resources/customer-satisfaction-reports/reports-2015/acsi-federal-government-report-2015
ReplyReply & QuoteEdit

Originally posted by no1marauder
You really should look at the actual poll before relying on misleading headlines.

In fact, the survey said 63.9% of citizens were satisfied with their experiences with government. Interestingly and contrary to your constant ranting against the federal government and for State and local government replacing it in virtually all areas, there was no diff ...[text shortened]... er-satisfaction-reports/reports-2015/acsi-federal-government-report-2015
ReplyReply & QuoteEdit

So you are happy with 64%?

I guess the goal is to at least keep it 51% or better.

Originally posted by whodey
So you are happy with 64%?

I guess the goal is to at least keep it 51% or better.

Given that - according to the poll - people are no more satisfied with their state governments than with the federal government, what do you suggest is done to improve the 64% figure?

Originally posted by whodey
There are two ways we can go here. We can further empower the federal government with someone like Bernie Sanders, or we can pursue something like the Article V movement which allows states to scale back the powers of the federal government.

Such issues like term limits for those in Congress and some sort of balanced budget amendment are favored by about 80% of Americans. So why not do it?

Let's compromise; an Article V convention with two proposed amendments - Congressional term limits and allowing restrictions on political spending by "independent" entities.

You in?

Originally posted by whodey
Such issues like term limits for those in Congress and some sort of balanced budget amendment are favored by about 80% of Americans. So why not do it?

That's obvious:
1. It is those in Congress that need to carry out the reform.
2. Those in Congress don't want the reform. (obviously).
3. Voters tend to vote for incumbents because they believe they will do a better job because they already have connections.
Not enough people care about the issue to actually do something. They would rather express their opinion on Chess sites or in polls.

Have you ever written to your congressman about anything?

Originally posted by twhitehead
That's obvious:
1. It is those in Congress that need to carry out the reform.
2. Those in Congress don't want the reform. (obviously).
3. Voters tend to vote for incumbents because they believe they will do a better job because they already have connections.
Not enough people care about the issue to actually do something. They would rather express the ...[text shortened]... opinion on Chess sites or in polls.

Have you ever written to your congressman about anything?

A mere vote in Congress wouldn't suffice; the Constitutional Convention rejected term limits and a Constitutional Amendment would be required. Congress could be bypassed in order to get such an Amendment:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;

Article V, Constitution of the United States

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Given that - according to the poll - people are no more satisfied with their state governments than with the federal government, what do you suggest is done to improve the 64% figure?

Allow states to run their own affairs.

Why should we force conservative states to adopt socialism and socialist states adopt conservatism? Why force either to accept a particular ideology with such religious fervor? Why not let them succeed/fail based upon their own merits?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Let's compromise; an Article V convention with two proposed amendments - Congressional term limits and allowing restrictions on political spending by "independent" entities.

You in?

Restriction on spending by "independent" entities?

That sounds pretty broad.

I'm no longer convinced that the money wins elections. Take the 2010 elections, for example, People were just voting "R" regardless of their Dim counterparts who may have outspent them. People just wanted change. Then you have Jeb who had the bulk of the money in the GOP. People are just tired of him, so no amount of money will cause him to prevail.

If you disagree, I suppose you think Obama had the bulk of the money and corporate support over Romney to win last election.

Originally posted by whodey
Allow states to run their own affairs.

Why should we force conservative states to adopt socialism and socialist states adopt conservatism? Why force either to accept a particular ideology with such religious fervor? Why not let them succeed/fail based upon their own merits?

Why have a United States at all then?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Why have a United States at all then?

Is this really a serious question? You are suggesting that if states run their own health care programs. like MA did under Romneycare, then we should not have a United States? 🙄

Originally posted by whodey
Restriction on spending by "independent" entities?

That sounds pretty broad.

I'm no longer convinced that the money wins elections. Take the 2010 elections, for example, People were just voting "R" regardless of their Dim counterparts who may have outspent them. People just wanted change. Then you have Jeb who had the bulk of the money in the GOP. ...[text shortened]... ou think Obama had the bulk of the money and corporate support over Romney to win last election.

I figured you'd want to keep the possibility/probability of rich folks buying elections intact despite your many posts screeching about it.

Why have term limits then? Isn't the whole idea that entrenched people in Washington are more susceptible to "corruption"?

As usual, your positions are those of a partisan shill.

Originally posted by twhitehead
That's obvious:
1. It is those in Congress that need to carry out the reform.
2. Those in Congress don't want the reform. (obviously).
3. Voters tend to vote for incumbents because they believe they will do a better job because they already have connections.
Not enough people care about the issue to actually do something. They would rather express the ...[text shortened]... opinion on Chess sites or in polls.

Have you ever written to your congressman about anything?

.

Originally posted by twhitehead
That's obvious:
1. It is those in Congress that need to carry out the reform.
2. Those in Congress don't want the reform. (obviously).
3. Voters tend to vote for incumbents because they believe they will do a better job because they already have connections.
Not enough people care about the issue to actually do something. They would rather express the ...[text shortened]... opinion on Chess sites or in polls.

Have you ever written to your congressman about anything?

Reform? Does a drunk need reform? A drunk needs an intervention. They are drunk on money and power and they are incapable of helping themselves.

Any power that is unrestricted and without checks and balances goes awry. To think that men in government are angels and those in the private sector are not, is laughable.