I’m in hearing on defense acquisition policy all morning.Ive focused on this area for last two years.Massive improvement needed.Competition!6:02 AM Mar 3rd from web

On my way to meet with the President in a few. He’s making an announcemnet re:contracting. Lots of $ to save there.about 7 hours ago from web

In hold waiting for the Pres. Sen Levin,Senn McCain, Rep Towns,Rep Welch also going to be in attendance.about 7 hours ago from TinyTwitter

McCain? McCain? Didn’t he run for something a while back? He’s not one of those partisan obstructionists, is he?

Senator McCaskill and President Obama appear to be on the same page:

President Obama: “…Last year, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, looked into 95 major defense projects and found cost overruns that totaled $295 billion.  Let me repeat:  That’s $295 billion in wasteful spending.  And this wasteful spending has many sources.  It comes from investments and unproven technologies.  It comes from a lack of oversight.  It comes from influence peddling and indefensible no-bid contracts that have cost American taxpayers billions of dollars…”

White House photo, March 4, 2009

There’s a senator from Missouri in that crowd somewhere.

Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies

Subject: Government Contracting

The Federal Government has an overriding obligation to American taxpayers. It should perform its functions efficiently and effectively while ensuring that its actions result in the best value for the taxpayers.

Since 2001, spending on Government contracts has more than doubled, reaching over $500 billion in 2008. During this same period, there has been a significant increase in the dollars awarded without full and open competition and an increase in the dollars obligated through cost-reimbursement contracts. Between fiscal years 2000 and 2008, for example, dollars obligated under cost-reimbursement contracts nearly doubled, from $71 billion in 2000 to $135 billion in 2008. Reversing these trends away from full and open competition and toward cost-reimbursement contracts could result in savings of billions of dollars each year for the American taxpayer.

Excessive reliance by executive agencies on sole-source contracts (or contracts with a limited number of sources) and cost-reimbursement contracts creates a risk that taxpayer funds will be spent on contracts that are wasteful, inefficient, subject to misuse, or otherwise not well designed to serve the needs of the Federal Government or the interests of the American taxpayer. Reports by agency Inspectors General, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), and other independent reviewing bodies have shown that noncompetitive and cost-reimbursement contracts have been misused, resulting in wasted taxpayer resources, poor contractor performance, and inadequate accountability for results.

When awarding Government contracts, the Federal Government must strive for an open and competitive process. However, executive agencies must have the flexibility to tailor contracts to carry out their missions and achieve the policy goals of the Government. In certain exigent circumstances, agencies may need to consider whether a competitive process will not accomplish the agency’s mission. In such cases, the agency must ensure that the risks associated with noncompetitive contracts are minimized.

Moreover, it is essential that the Federal Government have the capacity to carry out robust and thorough management and oversight of its contracts in order to achieve programmatic goals, avoid significant overcharges, and curb wasteful spending. A GAO study last year of 95 major defense acquisitions projects found cost overruns of 26 percent, totaling $295 billion over the life of the projects. Improved contract oversight could reduce such sums significantly.

Government outsourcing for services also raises special concerns. For decades, the Federal Government has relied on the private sector for necessary commercial services used by the Government, such as transportation, food, and maintenance. Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76, first issued in 1966, was based on the reasonable premise that while inherently governmental activities should be performed by Government employees, taxpayers may receive more value for their dollars if non-inherently governmental activities that can be provided commercially are subject to the forces of competition.

However, the line between inherently governmental activities that should not be outsourced and commercial activities that may be subject to private sector competition has been blurred and inadequately defined. As a result, contractors may be performing inherently governmental functions. Agencies and departments must operate under clear rules prescribing when outsourcing is and is not appropriate.

It is the policy of the Federal Government that executive agencies shall not engage in noncompetitive contracts except in those circumstances where their use can be fully justified and where appropriate safeguards have been put in place to protect the taxpayer. In addition, there shall be a preference for fixed-price type contracts. Cost-reimbursement contracts shall be used only when circumstances do not allow the agency to define its requirements sufficiently to allow for a fixed-price type contract. Moreover, the Federal Government shall ensure that taxpayer dollars are not spent on contracts that are wasteful, inefficient, subject to misuse, or otherwise not well designed to serve the Federal Government’s needs and to manage the risk associated with the goods and services being procured. The Federal Government must have sufficient capacity to manage and oversee the contracting process from start to finish, so as to ensure that taxpayer funds are spent wisely and are not subject to excessive risk. Finally, the Federal Government must ensure that those functions that are inherently governmental in nature are performed by executive agencies and are not outsourced.

I hereby direct the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), in collaboration with the Secretary of Defense, the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Administrator of General Services, the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, and the heads of such other agencies as the Director of OMB determines to be appropriate, and with the participation of appropriate management councils and program management officials, to develop and issue by July 1, 2009, Government-wide guidance to assist agencies in reviewing, and creating processes for ongoing review of, existing contracts in order to identify contracts that are wasteful, inefficient, or not otherwise likely to meet the agency’s needs, and to formulate appropriate corrective action in a timely manner. Such corrective action may include modifying or canceling such contracts in a manner and to the extent consistent with applicable laws, regulations, and policy.

I further direct the Director of OMB, in collaboration with the aforementioned officials and councils, and with input from the public, to develop and issue by September 30, 2009, Government-wide guidance to:

   (1) govern the appropriate use and oversight of sole-source and other types of noncompetitive contracts and to maximize the
use of full and open competition and other competitive procurement processes;

   (2) govern the appropriate use and oversight of all contract types, in full consideration of the agency’s needs, and to minimize risk and maximize the value of Government contracts generally, consistent with the regulations to be promulgated pursuant to section 864 of Public Law 110-417;

   (3) assist agencies in assessing the capacity and ability of the Federal acquisition workforce to develop, manage, and oversee acquisitions appropriately; and

   (4) clarify when governmental outsourcing for services is and is not appropriate, consistent with section 321 of Public Law 110-417 (31 U.S.C. 501 note).

Executive departments and agencies shall carry out the provisions of this memorandum to the extent permitted by law. This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

The Director of OMB is hereby authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.

BARACK OBAMA

# # #

Rough translation: the Bush era of crony capitalism is over. It’s nice to see that Senator McCain has sort of come around. It must upset him to no end now that Rush Limbaugh is the head of the republican party.

On January 30th SurveyUSA released a 600 sample poll of adults taken in Missouri from January 20th through the 21st showing the approval numbers for Senators Claire McCaskill (D) and Kit Bond (r). The margin of error is 4.1%.

The poll was sponsored by KCTV in Kansas City.

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Claire McCaskill is doing as United States Senator?

All

52% – approve

39% – disapprove

10% – not sure

Democrats [43% of sample]

78% – approve

18% – disapprove

4% – not sure

republicans [26% of sample]

22% – approve

66% – disapprove

12% – not sure

Independents [26% of sample]

39% – approve

48% – disapprove

14% – not sure

Hmmm. Claire McCaskill only has a net positive approval from Democrats. I wonder who she’s listening to?

Let’s take a look at the numbers for Kit “I’m not sure what I said, but what the hell, I’m outta here in less than two years” Bond:

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Kit Bond is doing as United States Senator?

All

55% – approve

31% – disapprove

14% – not sure

Democrats [43% of sample]

48% – approve

40% – disapprove

12% – not sure

republicans [26% of sample]

72% – approve

15% – disapprove

13% – not sure

Independents [26% of sample]

50% – approve

33% – disapprove

17% – not sure

Hmmm. He has a net positive approval among republicans, Independents, and Democrats.

The “not sure” numbers are significantly up when compared to previous SurveyUSA polls for both Claire McCaskill (except for Democrats) and Kit Bond.  

Okay, okay, call it nepotism, but I’m giving my husband his front page say on Afghanistan:

As a young Marine clerk in the summer of 1964, I was typing discharge papers for enlisted marines returning from their roles as “advisers” in Vietnam. To a man, they would say something to this effect: “They don’t want us over there. You can’t trust any of them. The guy who cut your hair in the morning could very well be the guy who would cut your throat that night.” By 1975, we all learned that we should have listened to the enlisted men.

In David Halberstam’s The Best and the Brightest, the lesson was reinforced:  Don’t listen to an officer, especially one wearing stars on his cap. The “five o’clock follies” as the press corps in Vietnam called it, was a cheerleading contest, where the brass would give the daily body count and smile upon the press before tottering off to drink cocktails.

Former U. S. Marine Lt. General James L. Jones, President-elect Obama’s appointed National Security Adviser, is one of the cocktail drinkers. “I personally don’t believe that the United States can afford to be perceived as having not been successful in either Iraq or Afghanistan. And I think the consequences for such a perception or such a reality will be with us for years to come in terms of our ability to be a nation of great influence in the twenty-first century.” It’s all about image. Brass loves image.

We’re doing nothing more than reinforcing our image of ourselves as the planet hotshots by sending 20,000 to 30,000 more men to Afghanistan. And that’s just the beginning of what this piece of vanity will cost in lives and treasure. Twenty to thirty thousand is insufficient, but reminiscent of how Vietnam  started. A recent counterinsurgency field manual claims that Afghanistan would require at least 300,000 troops. Before long, we’ll be committing ourselves to those kinds of numbers. Like President Johnson in 1964, Obama will inherit a war. Before he lifts his right hand, it’s already being tied behind his back.

Our own Democratic senator, Claire McCaskill, considers commitment there necessary. At Claire’s “Kitchen Table Talk” in St. Louis last week, one audience member pleaded with her to urge Obama not to get sucked into Afghanistan. Claire wasn’t having it: “We cannot stand by…We cannot stand by and allow terrorists camps and training to go on without any real consequences in our world. We just can’t.” The audience, mostly liberals, responded with resounding applause.  There were few dissenters. Claire and those who applauded her forget that by invading Iraq we increased the terrorism there. They should know that that’s all our soldiers will accomplish on this front. Invasion begets terrorists, and fighting terrorism is the new domino theory.

A bit of history shows that empires should stay away from Afghanistan in particular. The United Soviet Socialist Republics largely came apart after its blunder into Afghanistan. As for the British Empire? It’s now called England-a speck off the coast of Europe. The USSR spent over a decade trying to solve the Afghanistan puzzle. After 15,000 dead and almost a hundred thousand wounded, they withdrew. Bye, Bye Kremlin. The Brits had learned their lesson a century earlier. It, too, was nasty–lots of dead bodies, others just bloodied and disfigured.

Afghanistan is a mishmash of warlords and tribes. We can hardly begin to bring these disparate groups together by military means. And any attempt to do so will only create more rebels, more insurgents. In fact many of the current enemy were once our allies, when we joined the mujahadeen in fighting the Soviets, and that’s the only kind of alliance they want with foreigners–help at getting other foreigners out.

We should know that. Shelby Foote tells the story of a Union soldier asking a poor Reb, who obviously didn’t own slaves, why he was fighting in the war. “Because you’re down here,” was the terse answer. Osama bin Laden echoed that assessment when he explained that he attacked the United States, not Sweden, because we were the ones in Saudia Arabia.  

So why are liberals, who are and were opposed to our invasion of Iraq, in favor of  increasing our troops in Afghanistan? Have they been cowed by the right wing-nuts who label them “weak on terrorism?” I believe so. Democrats continue to appropriate obscene amounts of money for “defense”–aka War. Six hundred billion a year to the Pentagon. We should focus on what the State Department can achieve instead of robbing our social programs to underwrite the war machine. Because you know what? Talk is cheap, or at least a lot cheaper than blood. Not to mention being more effective.

So let’s not ask the senators or the generals for advice on Afghanistan. It’s the grunts who know. They’ll tell you the same thing I’m telling you about what the future holds. And here’s how I know what it holds: simply because my crystal ball looks into the past.

Claire took a lot of heat on this site over her remarks about holding Bush and Cheney “accountable”. Her attitude about spending taxpayer money sensibly is less likely to raise your ire. She responded to a question about her no vote on cap and trade legislation by explaining that in the form it was offered, we were committing ourselves to fifty trillion dollars in pre-spent money–unnecessarily.

She seriously did say fifty trillion. She’s holding out for a better bill.

Similarly, Claire is cautious about the stimulus:

“Let me talk about the stimulus real quickly. I … I …. I hope I can vote for  it. And the reason I say that is I’m nervous. I’m very nervous. I’m very, very nervous. You take the idea that we’re going to spend 500 billion to 700 billion dollars in America and you hand it over to the appropriators. There is a real fear I have that there will be people who will substitute projects in this bill that are not good stimulaters in terms of the economy. This bill is not about solving the problems in America. That’s not what it’s for. It’s not to solve the health care problem. It’s not to help solve the education problem. It’s not there to solve any social problem we have in this country. It is there to create jobs. And if we do not have the discipline to make sure that every dime we spend in the stimulus package is in fact going to create jobs, then we’re going to be throwing away some of your money. And we can’t afford to be throwing away any of your money right now. (…) There’s a lot of ways to create jobs–shovel ready projects, infrastructure–is one way. There are other ways we can create jobs, but that’s the test: that we can create jobs and that we can realistically create them–this is the sticker–within ninety days. So this is not for a long term stimulus; this is for a short term stimulus.”

I want hundreds of billions of dollars spent on creating jobs. I want it spent quickly. But Claire is right. We spent money bailing out banks that are now refusing to lend money to deserving companies. That bill should have been better crafted, and I appreciate Claire’s caution about what gets into the stimulus package.

On Wednesday, the Senate unanimously passed an oversight bill sponsored by Senator McCaskill.

“Let me be clear. The taxpayer money that is being used is not a ‘bail out’, but a crucial investment.  The American people entrusted Congress with their money and we are loaning and investing it in order to keep our economy afloat. Bottom line – we need to make sure we get this money back and the only way we can do that is with strong oversight on how this money is spent. This bill gives the inspector general the authority he needs to make that happen,” McCaskill said.

The legislation:

• Makes clear Special IG [Inspector General] has authority over ALL actions taken under the relief plan.
• Gives IG the authority to hire auditors quickly by granting him temporary hiring authority.
• Requires the Treasury Secretary to explain to Congress why any IG recommendations are not implemented.
• Requires that the IG issue a report in July of 2009 to Congress analyzing how the program’s funds have been spent to date.  The report will also be made public and posted on the Internet within 24 hours of its release.
• Makes the funds for the Office of the Special Inspector General available immediately to allow IG to set up his office.

The bill is a start, but it’s a baby step. Any time the Senate votes yes unanimously on something, just assume it’s bland.

Now we need to get specific about what the IG will look for. Thursday on Fresh Air, Teri Gross interviewed the chairman of the Congressional Oversight Panel for–excuse my terminology–the “bailout”. Elizabeth Warren was full of good information, but I was especially interested in this part:

One of the areas that I’m interested in is that we are recapitalizing the banks. What it means is we’re putting a lot of money into these banks, who apply for it. And yet so far as I can tell–I want to put this in the form of a question–there don’t seem to be any restrictions on any of the banking practices. So, you know, if these are banks that are raising their rates on customers for no reason at all, that are engaging in lots of tricks and traps pricing that you and I have talked about in the past, there’s no statement that if we give you this money, that taxpayer dollars are not supposed to be used to subsidize lousy practices that prey on American families.

Similarly, we haven’t asked, “What are you going to do with this money?” So, there are small businesses out there that are literally starving to death, because they can’t get money. I’m talking about, you know, triple A rated folks who’ve got great credit, who have long relationships with their banks. And they’re simply told, “Sorry, we’re not lending it out. We’re keeping it in our vaults.

Now, I think that if we’re going to put money in the banks, with the notion that those banks are then going to lend it out and that’s what’s going to keep the wheels of commerce turning, then we ought to be accounting for that money. We ought to see to it that the money is in fact moving out in the forms of loans, good loans to small businesses.

You know I want to point out–this is not crazy–that the British put money into their banks, and they just made it an explicit term that, you know, you can have this taxpayer money, our taxpayer money, to make your banks stronger; but in return, you have to agree that small and mid size businesses get a certain amount of loans. And  we’ll compare your lending portfolio today with what it was a year ago, and if we’re not seeing taxpayers’ money used in a way that helps commerce, then you’re not getting it. It’s … it’s that kind of accountability that the Congressional Oversight Panel is going to ask for.

Requiring such accountability would be a giant step.

On Sunday, Claire McCaskill appeared  on talk TV, defending Obama for naming Hillary Clinton and Robert Gates to his cabinet:

McCaskill spoke on Fox News Sunday, opposite Senator Lindsey Graham. She tried to push back on claims that the two powerful personalities of Obama and Clinton may collide.

“Obviously, Barack Obama is going to set the policy, but he will listen to different views,” McCaskill said. “He is not afraid to be challenged by people around him. He wants to be challenged,” she said.

She went on to defend his choice of keeping on Secretary of Defense Bill Gates.

“Let me say this about Secretary Gates. Even though there may have been times I disagreed with him and maybe Barack Obama disagreed with him, this is a man who clearly holds the highest level of the military accountable for mistakes, which has been very impressive to all of us,” she said. “He has solid relationships on both sides of the aisle. And what these picks say about Barack Obama is that the kind of change that he’s embracing is that you don’t just pick the people who were on your side during the campaign. You pick the best you can find. That’s an important change for Washington,” she added.

Indeed, Obama has chosen a number of conservatives like Gates, Geithner and Summers for his cabinet and few if any progressives. Hmm. If I were choosing people for those or any other cabinet positions, I’d want at least some of my advisors to be of the deepest, darkest blue hue. After all, progressives were right about the foolishness of attacking Iraq, right about the dangers of deregulation, right about the science of climate change and right about requiring our president to acquire FISA warrants.

Robert Kuttner, founding co-editor of The American Prospect, on the other hand, lays out the argument that Obama could be following in the Lincolnesque mold. A chapter in his new book, Obama’s Challenge, describes how three great presidents–Lincoln, FDR, and Lyndon Johnson in regard to civil rights–moved the country toward their goals. Lincoln, especially, believed in purple cabinets. Kuttner offers two observations about how he led:    

First, Lincoln’s great challenge as president was not just to preserve the Union, or even to free the slaves. It was to win over public sentiment among what today would be called opinion leaders and the people generally. Lincoln gradually transformed how different segments of society thought about the problem of slavery, the challenge  of rebuilding the Union, and the role of government in reconstruction and economic development. Out of impossible disunity, he built something close to national consensus.

After more than a century and a half, the popular conception of Lincoln is of the president who saved the Union and freed the slaves. Often overlooked is the fact that holding together the North was almost as difficult a task as conquering and then reintegrating the South. “A house divided against itself cannot stand,” Lincoln had warned in 1858, paraphrasing scripture. But in the war years, a divided house was a fitting description not just of the sundered Union, but of the fractious North as well. Loyalists to the Union included Radical Republicans who wanted both immediate liberation of the slaves and severe punishment of the South; War Democrats who favored a much more gradualist approach; Peace Democrats or “Copperheads” who were ready to abandon the slaves in exchange for a negotiated peace; and citizens of border states, who had narrowly opted to stay with the Union but wanted to keep their slaves.

Second, what enabled Lincoln to hold this coalition together and move it toward a viable national policy had everything to do with Lincoln’s character. “Malice toward none” was not just a felicitous phrase for how Lincoln hoped to treat the conquered and ravaged South. It was how he conducted his daily human relations and mastered politics.

Lincoln’s “team of rivals” included all but the most extreme representatives of these diverse factions. The cabinet was a hothouse of intrigue. Lincoln held it together with exceptional courtesy and respect, and a capacity to lead by example and by teaching. What made people his allies and admirers was not just his keen intellect and good humor. More importantly, it was his kindness, decency, idealism, and honor. He went out of his way to let people know that they were valued when he might have chosen to humiliate them. This trait reflected not just the imperatives of the time–he could not afford to sacrifice even a single potential ally–but also his abiding sense of how one treated people.

I can well imagine Obama treating people of other political persuasions with the same courtesy and respect that Lincoln did. The question is whether we can be sure they are of a different political persuation from him.

In this vein, Glenn Greenwald and David Sirota have been noticing the troubling use of the term “pragmatic” to describe Obama’s cabinet appointments. The media, to avoid admitting that some of them–Geithner and Summers, most notably–are conservative, use a term that is neither liberal nor conservative: pragmatic.

Sirota frets that if the Geithners are pragmatic, what does that make us liberals: pie-in-the-sky idiots?

Our own history during the Great Depression indicates that the pragmatic way to deal with such a massive crisis is through some good old fashioned ideological progressivism.

Obama, I think, knows this, and is doing something of a dance – one that doesn’t seek to challenge or change the Orwellian shenanigans, but to manipulate them for his own – and likely progressive – ends. It could be really brilliant (as long as what he’s doing isn’t the opposite – an attempt to sell policies crafted by conservatives with a marketing team made up of progressives – I don’t think it is, but we can’t be totally sure just yet).

One of Sirota’s commenters is far less sure than Sirota himself. The commenter thinks it likely that our president-elect picked conservatives because he prefers them:

Why would conservative free-market ideologues sign on to be used as vessels for Obama’s progressive economic dictums? This seems an unsubstantiated speculative stretch. Plus, it would make Obama an uber-wonk who maps out all levels of governmental policy by himself and delivers them to his appointed stooges who give it a “pragmatic” cover. (…..)

The fact is, Obama appointed these people because he respects them and agrees with their ideas. He spent ten years at Chicago University — the ground-zero of Milton Friedman ‘Chicago School’ hyper free-market disaster capitalism. Even if he’s on the left end of that spectrum, its pretty far-right.

McCaskill, no lefty herself, describes Obama as strong enough to know his own mind, even when he works with conservatives. Maybe, but I don’t necessarily trust her evaluation.

Still, we hope she’s right. Of course. And Obama has proposed a $700 billion works project to create jobs by improving infrastructure and building a green energy grid. That hardly sounds like Milton Friedman.

At any rate, here’s what we can know: that all three of the presidents Kuttner describes as bringing about transformational change did so under considerable pressure from progressive activists: Lincoln from abolitionists, Roosevelt from labor unions, and LBJ from civil rights groups.

We can’t get inside Obama’s mind. But we can promise ourselves that we’ll do our part to push the national conversation to the left.  

On October 22nd SurveyUSA released a 600 sample poll of “Adults” taken in Missouri from October 17th through the 19th showing the approval numbers for Senators Claire McCaskill (D) and Kit Bond (r). The margin of error is 4.1%.

The poll was sponsored by KCTV in Kansas City and KMOX in St. Louis.

Can you say “Wall Street bailout” really fast?

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Claire McCaskill is doing as United States Senator?

All

44% – approve

49% – disapprove

7% – not sure

Democrats [36% of sample]

68% – approve

28% – disapprove

4% – not sure

republicans [23% of sample]

22% – approve

71% – disapprove

7% – not sure

Independents [34% of sample]

38% – approve

56% – disapprove

6% – not sure

My. Oh my.

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Kit Bond is doing as United States Senator?

All

51% – approve

42% – disapprove

8% – not sure

Democrats [36% of sample]

34% – approve

59% – disapprove

7% – not sure

republicans [23% of sample]

70% – approve

23% – disapprove

7% – not sure

Independents [34% of sample]

58% – approve

38% – disapprove

5% – not sure

On May 30th SurveyUSA released a 600 sample poll of “Adults” taken in Missouri from May 16th through the 18th showing the approval numbers for Senators Claire McCaskill (D) and Kit Bond (r). The margin of error is 4.1%.

The poll was sponsored by KCTV in Kansas City and KSDK in St. Louis.

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Claire McCaskill is doing as United States Senator?

All

51% – approve

42% – disapprove

7% – not sure

Democrats [44% of sample]

71% – approve

23% – disapprove

6% – not sure

republicans [28% of sample]

30% – approve

66% – disapprove

4% – not sure

Independents [23% of sample]

41% – approve

50% – disapprove

9% – not sure

There is improvement among Democrats. Note that Democrats make up a significantly larger portion of the sample when compared to April. There is a drop in approval among Independents.

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Kit Bond is doing as United States Senator?

All

55% – approve

35% – disapprove

9% – not sure

Democrats [44% of sample]

45% – approve

44% – disapprove

11% – not sure

republicans [28% of sample]

77% – approve

18% – disapprove

5% – not sure

Independents [23% of sample]

52% – approve

42% – disapprove

7% – not sure

Kit Bond’s numbers have improved among Democrats and Independents. republican approval remains the same.

This release did not include presidential issues crosstabs.

On April 25th SurveyUSA released a 600 sample poll taken in Missouri from April 11th through the 13th showing the approval numbers for Senators Claire McCaskill (D) and Kit Bond (r). Claire McCaskill’s numbers remain steady, Kit Bond’s overall approval numbers have gone down. The margin of error is 4.1%.

The poll was sponsored by KCTV in Kansas City.

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Claire McCaskill is doing as United States Senator?

All

50% – approve

46% – disapprove

5% – not sure

Democrats [39% of sample]

66% – approve

30% – disapprove

5% – not sure

republicans [24% of sample]

30% – approve

66% – disapprove

5% – not sure

Independents [29% of sample]

47% – approve

49% – disapprove

4% – not sure

The Democratic and republican approval/disapproval numbers for Claire McCaskill have remained stable.  30% disapproval and 5% “not sure” from Democrats for a sitting Democratic senator is not good. Those numbers have remained roughly the same over the last three months.

Who’s going to do all that door to door and phone banking in 2012? It ain’t going to be republicans. She has a net disapproval of 2% among Independents.

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Kit Bond is doing as United States Senator?

All

51% – approve

42% – disapprove

7% – not sure

Democrats [39% of sample]

42% – approve

51% – disapprove

7% – not sure

republicans [24% of sample]

77% – approve

20% – disapprove

4% – not sure

Independents [29% of sample]

43% – approve

50% – disapprove

8% – not sure

Kit Bond’s approval numbers have gone down among republicans, Independents and Democrats. There’s nothing like hitching yourself to a lead balloon when it comes to boosting your popularity, eh Kit?

Top Issues for Next President (Claire McCaskill’s approval numbers within each group)

Economy [44% of sample]

50% – approve

47% – disapprove

3% – not sure

Health Care [12% of sample]

51% – approve

43% – disapprove

7% – not sure

Iraq [11% of sample]

64% – approve

29% – disapprove

7% – not sure

Terrorism [9% of sample]

20% – approve

75% – disapprove

5% – not sure

Immigration [6% of sample]

35% – approve

62% – disapprove

3% – not sure

Environment [6% of sample]

64% – approve

30% – disapprove

6% – not sure

Social Security [4% of sample]

62% – approve

33% – disapprove

5% – not sure

Education [4% of sample]

64% – approve

31% – disapprove

5% – not sure

The state of the economy is toxic when it comes to Joe Average’s opinion of politicians. Trashing the 4th Amendment probably hasn’t helped much with the republican “fear” base (terrorism and immigration).

Top Issues for Next President (Kit Bond’s approval numbers within each group)

Economy [44% of sample]

48% – approve

48% – disapprove

5% – not sure

Health Care [12% of sample]

51% – approve

37% – disapprove

12% – not sure

Iraq [11% of sample]

53% – approve

40% – disapprove

7% – not sure

Terrorism [9% of sample]

71% – approve

24% – disapprove

5% – not sure

Immigration [6% of sample]

67% – approve

24% – disapprove

9% – not sure

Environment [6% of sample]

35% – approve

65% – disapprove

0% – not sure

Social Security [4% of sample]

48% – approve

47% – disapprove

5% – not sure

Education [4% of sample]

50% – approve

40% – disapprove

10% – not sure

The republican “fear” base (terrorism and immigration) just love their Kit. His numbers among the other groups have dropped since last month.