New Gallup Poll Shows “Honesty” Rating of Congress at All-time Lows

bachmann-boehner-ryanLately the Affordable Care Act (aka “Obamacare”) has been in the news with people citing various polls showing President Obama’s approval numbers in the low 40’s, and approval for “Obamacare” around the same level.

Republicans, in particular, have jumped on these numbers as “evidence” of the American people rejecting the new healthcare law and continued distrust in President Obama.

Granted, President Obama’s approval numbers have dropped recently (though watch for them to climb back up in the next several months) — they’re still nowhere near as horrifically low as Congress.

In fact, by comparison, President Obama is riding on cloud nine.

See, Gallup did a poll a few weeks ago showing that the overall approval rating of Congress has sunk to a total of nine percent.  A number that has continually drifted downward since the emergence of tea party influence in Congress.

Gallup also did a poll about Congressional honesty — and they hit numbers even lower than nine percent.  According to this Gallup poll, Americans give the honesty and ethics of Congress an approval rating of a whopping eight percent

That. Is. Terrible.

Considering how Republicans claim that Obama’s numbers in the lower 40’s indicate the American people “rejecting” him and his ideology — what does a nine percent approval rating and an eight percent ethics and honesty rating say about what the American people think of Congress?

And again, these numbers continue to decline the more power and influence the tea party gains over Congress.

It’s absolutely embarrassing that Congress has sunk to such incredible levels of incompetence.  But honestly, what should we expect?  We have a good portion of the conservative members of Congress who have only one goal — to obstruct as much as possible.

After all, isn’t that what’s best for their political ideology?  You know, basing a large portion of their party’s beliefs on the assertion that the government is corrupt and inefficient — and then proving it by doing their best to ensure the government is corrupt and inefficient.

Which is basically all they’ve done since President Obama moved into the White House.

And while some more established Republicans have begun pushing back against the ultraconservatives and tea party groups, I believe their actions will ultimately accomplish nothing.  They’ll either pull back and continue to pander to these well-financed and powerful groups or potentially cause a break up of the GOP as we know it.

Either way, these terrible numbers from Gallup do tell us one thing — the American people are sick and tired of the partisan game playing that’s been going on in Congress.

Which is why November 2014 couldn’t be more important for liberals.  It’s our chance to finally end this blatant obstruction and give President Obama a Congress that will actually have a goal of getting something done.

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.


Facebook comments

  • Green_Devil

    Five years of shameless obstruction and no plan and the intentional infliction of economic pain upon the country borne from a racist pique, this is what you get. At least Reid dropped the “nuclear bomb” in the Senate and finally got them moving on confirming nominees,

  • Beverly Haley

    I could not agree with you more Mr. Clifton!

  • strayaway

    Congress deserves to have low honesty ratings but don’t forget that one of the two houses of Congress is controlled by Democrats and the Republican Party is still controlled by corporatist neocons who control the House. Both parties have connived to send our jobs abroad. The present effort to fast track the TPP, supported by the leadership of both parties, is a case in point of why Congress should not be trusted. I don’t see the majority in Congress rushing to get a new (un)ACA health policy either even though members get a $10,000 ‘incentive’ to do so. I would probably get one if I got a $10,000 annual incentive. Why isn’t it good enough for them?

    • Andy Kinnard

      Wow, you just cannot keep yourself from attacking the ACA, can you? You actually had a coherent, relevant comment going before you totally wrecked it with that off topic screed.

      • strayaway

        Thank you for the upbeat part of your statement. I am reminded of the adage, “do as the doctor says, not as the doctor does”. I do see Congress ducking and weaving to avoid (un)ACA coverage and, in worst case, paying themselves $10,000 to take their own medicine. That doesn’t make seem Congress seem more honest. It’s like municipal workers and teachers who move out of the city or district they live in to give their kids better opportunities. If you don’t like the (un)ACA example, I could come up with a number of other acts of Congress that would similarly serve as good examples of why not to trust Congress.

        “Rubio on Monday defended his decision to accept the ($10,000) annual subsidy (for his (un)ACA policy), and said it wasn’t that special.

        “It’s an [employer] contribution,” Rubio said. “It’s available to every employee of the federal government.”
        -from BradentonDOT com

      • Andy Kinnard

        While I’m not a supporter of reducing congressional pay, I’d be comfortable removing this $10k “employer contribution” as an issue of principle so that they have to work with the same system most of the working citizenry do. I totally agree that Congress is NOT trustworthy; just look at the total pass all branches of government have given the TBTF Banking interests. That, the TPP and TAP are the biggest threats facing the nation right now (IMHO).

      • strayaway

        Andy, What is TAP? I’m interested and looked it up but found too many different things it could refer to.

        Only tangentially related but OPIC is another program I’d like to see canned. It encouraged the transfer of US jobs overseas by, among other things, guaranteeing foreign investments gone bad. A senator’s wife was initially put in charge.

      • Andy Kinnard

        OPIC, WTO, World Bank: All of these government-banking blends are bad for the world, and, by extension, the US. They also inextricably put the government in (IMHO) too close a proximity and too beholden to international banking interests who are NOT their constituencies.

        Trans Atlantic Partnership, a sort of NAFTA for the Western World (much like the TPP is a NAFTA for the Eastern World). I oppose these on the grounds that they subsume our national sovereignty (in addition to their being disastrously bad for the US working class)…the sovereignty issue should be sufficient for anyone.

      • strayaway

        Thanks for the info. I totally agree with you about all of this.

      • Andy Kinnard

        Holy crap! Someone, mark your calendars.

        Just kidding: There are a LOT of issues where I think those of libertarian bent and liberal bent can agree and on which we can team up to effect change. We have to stop these agreements, Kerry’s call for a “new NAFTA”, etc., and divorce our government from the insidious influence of big banking interests. Getting the Citizen’s United decision reversed (probably by Constitutional amendment) is probably the best first step…I’d be willing to sacrifice union’s ability to donate political money on the altar of CU reversal. Do you agree?

      • strayaway

        The right is more economically libertarian but the left is usually socially more libertarian so there is a lot of room for combining efforts. A rollback of the NSA attacks on personal privacy and the encroaching national police state would be high on my list as something the left and libertarians could join forces on. Libertarians tend to be more attracted to the Republican Party for a variety of reasons but that doesn’t mean that libertarian Republicans can’t be voting with Democrats on a number of issues such as privacy, or the Federal Reserve.

        It was Andrew Jackson, a Democrat, who got rid of the Federal Reserve of his day. He gathered the prominent bankers of his day and said to them, ” “Gentlemen, I have had men watching you for a long time and I am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter, I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves.”

        Regarding CU: I haven’t figured out my position on campaign contributions yet. On the one hand, it seems obvious that big money is distorting elections. On the other, the 1st Amendment is very explicit. No means no. Alan Keys, whom I don’t like but will credit for a good idea, suggested that since the Constitution addresses individual freedoms rather than corporate freedoms, that only natural persons should be able to donate. That would leave corporations, unions, churches and other organizations out. That’s a start but I recognize that Soros, Adelson and other billionaires would still be able to swing elections. It would be a tougher slough but if laws giving advantage to the rich such as the Federal Reserve, NAFTA ,and maybe the TPP were eliminated and imports were taxed, more money would be in the hands of middle class and working Americans and the Kochs or Buffet wouldn’t have so much play money to bend campaigns with and the 99% would have more.

      • Andy Kinnard

        I’m totally on board with you on the first two paragraphs.

        As far as CU: I disagree that money=speech and, therefore, would be willing to sacrifice union campaign donations on the altar of getting big money out of our political process. At least with restricting donations to those that can be made in plain sight, we at least have a fighting chance at keeping/forcing representation of the People (rather than corporations and international banking interests).

        I applaud your willingness to consider import tariffs and total abandonment of international “free trade” agreements. Those things are (if I may borrow from Cathy Bates) “the devil”.

        Now, how do we get our two camps to team up on these things?

  • BigTBone

    Whew, thank god I’m in advertising. Oh wait…

  • Stephen Barlow

    Republicans getting an “A” in failing!!!

  • Debra Diroll

    So who are the 9% that approve?

  • 10acres

    If you want to see the bottom fall out run your poll in Georgia.