Tag Archives: President Obama

Mammosham: Obama’s Regurgitation of the Planned Parenthood Error

President Obama’s political allegence to Planned Parenthood was evident during the second debate. Not only did mentioned it five times, he emphatically oppose defunding the abortion factory. By promoting Planned Parenthood women were supposed to be convinced that he supported all American women. Yet, he used Planned Parenthood as an attempted to mislead American women. His attempt to mislead began with his statement about the reliance of American women on the essential services of Planned Parenthood, services like mammograms. This was the same sales pitched first falsely advertised by Planned Parenthood’s CEO Cecile Richards.

As you will witness, the following investigative video by Live Action reveals that mammograms are not perfromed at any of Planned Parenthood abortion clinics.

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tn2-8IDx2E&w=560&h=315]

During the second presidential debate, Mitt Romney did favor defunding Planned Parenthood. Maybe, he has also seen the growing evidence of Planned Parenthood’s illegal activities much of it uncovered by Live Action investigations. Of course, he might opposed it for economic reasons.

Navy Sued For Records Aimed at Exposing Deception of Congress Over Repeal of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”

The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, whose mission includes restoring America’s Judeo-Christian heritage and promoting a strong national defense, announced Tuesday that it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Department of the Navy. The lawsuit seeks to obtain records that the plaintiffs believe will show intentional deception by the Pentagon to gain congressional support for repeal of the 1993 law regarding open homosexual conduct in the military, usually called “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

Prompting the lawsuit was a Department of Defense Inspector General’s report which suggested that a distorted Pentagon study of homosexuals in the military was produced and leaked solely to persuade Congress to lift the ban on open homosexuality in the military (Repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”).

Erin E. Mersino, the Thomas More Law Center attorney handling the case, explained the reason for the lawsuit, “The Department of Defense and the Department of the Navy have failed to produce a single document despite numerous FOIA requests over the last two years for information to uncover the truth surrounding the congressional repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court in Washington D.C. on behalf of Plaintiffs Elaine Donnelly and the Center for Military Readiness (CMR). Plaintiffs are seeking information to determine the extent to which the Department of the Navy engaged in a campaign of deception as suggested by the Inspector General’s Report.

The Plaintiffs are also seeking the information to determine the extent to which the Department of Defense and the Department of the Navy fulfilled the requirements mandated by Congress for the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” to become valid law. Congress required specific regulations and procedures be implemented to protect national security prior to the repeal taking effect. [See lawsuit here]

CMR is an independent, non-partisan public policy organization that concentrates on military issues. CMR’s president, Elaine Donnelly, has done extensive reporting on and analysis of the 1993 law regarding homosexuals in the military, and the consequences of repealing that law.

Plaintiffs first submitted their FOIA requests on August 31, 2011 requesting all records, documents and e-mails concerning the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” shared among the military Chiefs of Staff, various combatant commanders, and political appointees at the Pentagon and White House. To date, the Department of the Navy has failed to provide any of the requested documents.

Richard Thompson, the Law Center’s President and Chief Counsel, commented, “ Ever since the beginning of the Continental Army of 1775, homosexuality in the military has been prohibited. President Obama changed all that at the expense of our future national security merely to curry favor with his radical homosexual supporters, and Congress went along with him. The purpose of our Armed Forces is to win on the field of battle. This new law will eventually have a devastating impact on unit cohesion and the fighting effectiveness of our combat branches. That’s why we must undo this ill conceived law, and the first step is to discover what went on behind the scenes.”

Contrary to media headlines based on selective misleading leaks about the survey, the actual survey numbers show that nearly 60% of those in the Marine and Army combat units, and among Marine combat arms the number was 67%, thought repealing the DADT law would harm their unit’s ability to fight on the battlefield.

Concerns of Senior Military Leaders Disregarded

During 2010 hearings prior to the rushed lame-duck vote for repeal, both the Commandant of the Marine Corps, General James T. Conway, and the incoming Commandant, General James Amos, informed the Senate Armed Services Committee that their best military advice was to keep the ban in place. Army Chief of Staff General George W. Casey told the Senate Committee that he had serious concerns about the impact of the repeal on a force engaged in two wars.

However, Secretary of Defense Gates and Admiral Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, muzzled other combat commanders from publicly expressing their opinion opposing repeal of the ban. Three-star General Benjamin Mixon, Commander of the U.S. Army Pacific Command, was publicly reprimanded by both Gates and Mullen for publicly expressing his objection to repeal.

To overcome these constraints on active duty senior officers to honestly express their opinion, 1,167 retired flag and general officers, 51 of them former four stars, signed an open letter to President Obama and Congress expressing great concern about the impact that a repeal would have on morale, discipline, unit cohesion and overall military readiness.

An Anti-Christian Policy

Despite the fact that an overwhelming majority of America’s Armed Forces are Christian, the Pentagon brushed aside the religious and moral objections to homosexuality by service members. The Department of Defense recommended elimination of longstanding military laws prohibiting consensual sodomy and adultery to go along with repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law. Moreover, recognizing that a large number of military chaplains believe that homosexuality is a sin and are required by God to condemn it as such, the Pentagon claimed that their objections, based upon deeply held religious beliefs, could be overcome through education and training. Ongoing controversies about the Defense Department’s attempts to circumvent the Defense of Marriage Act by authorizing same-sex “ceremonies,” which are simulated marriages on military bases, remain unresolved. Documents obtained by this FOIA lawsuit will improve public understanding of what happened during the lame-duck Congress in 2010, and what must be done to repair the damage.

Obama’s Budget: Ignoring the 500-Pound Entitlement in the Room

By Cameron Smith

When President Obama released his budget for fiscal year 2013, the political reactions were swift … and predictable. Republicans immediately branded the budget “Debt on Arrival,” Nancy Pelosi called the President’s budget “a fiscally responsible plan,” and Harry Reid dodged the budget entirely, opting instead to talk about the need for transportation spending.

While the President is touting more than $4 trillion in deficit reduction, Republicans see as little as a $300 billion difference between Obama’s proposals and the consequences for the national debt if Congress does nothing but continue current policies. Regardless of how much deficit reduction actually takes place, the President’s “best case” scenario calls for $6.7 trillion in additional debt over the next decade.

Jack Lew, President Obama’s Chief of Staff, set the tone for the President’s budget by suggesting that “[t]here’s pretty broad agreement that the time for austerity is not today.” That sounds better than telling America that President Obama has proposed the largest budget in American history at a time of record national debt.

To make matters worse, the President is relying on an overly optimistic economic output to limit his requested deficit to “just” $901 billion for fiscal year 2013. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects real gross domestic product (GDP), an inflation-adjusted measure of America’s economic output, to increase year to year by just one percent for fiscal year 2013. President Obama’s budget assumes three times that amount of growth.

Why do the President’s projections about the performance of the American economy matter? Estimates of income taxes and social insurance taxes hinge entirely on how the economy actually performs. When GDP growth is lower than projected, tax receipts are often proportionally lower, increasing the amount of the deficit.

The cavalcade of press releases, news conferences, and political punditry serve only to mask the harsh reality buried in the pages of the President’s budget. First of all, entitlements are at the heart of America’s budgetary problems. Period. Politicians address earmarks, tax increases, foreign aid, welfare programs and a host of other topics before the heaviest line item on the budget-entitlements-is ever mentioned.

In truth, the vast majority of Republican and Democrats in Washington would sooner play egg toss with a hand grenade than talk seriously about entitlement reform. And there is apparently little political advantage in doing so.

According to a Pew Research Center poll conducted in 2011, Americans have a split personality when confronted with the realities regarding entitlements. Sixty percent of respondents said maintaining current benefits under Social Security was more important than reducing the federal budget deficit. However 52 percent said Social Security needed major changes or to be completely rebuilt.

The President’s budget clearly demonstrates the impact of mandatory programs on America’s spending.

President Obama’s budget calls for $2.3 trillion in mandatory spending, which includes Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Add to that $851 billion in security spending which includes programs such as Defense, Homeland Security, and Veterans Affairs, and $248 billion in interest payments and those items account for 117 percent of the revenues coming in to pay for all of the federal government. Even if the President raises taxes exactly as he wants, mandatory and security spending alone will automatically cause America to deficit spend.

Maintaining the status quo for mandatory spending not only has serious consequences for America’s budgets, but also leaves the programs themselves in jeopardy. The Social Security and Medicare Board of Trustees Report for 2011 states clearly that, after 2036, “tax income would be sufficient to pay only about three-quarters of scheduled benefits through 2085.” The same report also notes that general fund revenues rather than Medicare payroll taxes “accounted for more than 45 percent of Medicare’s outlays” in fiscal year 2010.

The President’s budget continues the unfortunate trend of Presidential budgets that read more like a child’s Christmas list than a good faith effort for America to live within its means. Unfortunately, neither end of the political spectrum has shown leadership in dealing with America’s budgetary challenges. The President has clearly developed a budget aimed at improving his prospects with his political base, and Republicans, concerned with the reaction of senior citizens, remain conspicuously silent on ways to deal with entitlements, the most glaring economic burdens in the budget.

In this election year, political courage is in short supply on both sides of the aisle when it comes to fiscal responsibility.

Cameron Smith is General Counsel and Policy Director for the Alabama Policy Institute, a non-partisan, non-profit research and education organization dedicated to the preservation of free markets, limited government and strong families, which are indispensable to a prosperous society.

Obama Formally Requests $1.2 Trillion Hike in Borrowing Limit

President Barack Obama asked Congress Thursday for another $1.2 trillion increase in the nation’s debt limit, a request that is largely a formality but carries election-year implications. It was the third and final such request the president was allowed under a deal the White House reached with lawmakers in August to prevent a government default.

Congress has 15 days to reject the president’s request. Read more

President Obama to the U.N. General Assembly: Peace & Middle East

President Obama’s speech was presented before the U.N General Assembly on Wednesday September 21, 2011.

High Noon at the UN

By Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, “Second Thought”

President Obama joins the campaign against the Palestinian UN initiative in spite of his belief that the UN is the quarterback of international relations, in defiance of his closest advisors – UN Ambassador Susan Rice, Director of Multilateral Affairs Samantha Power and Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett – and irrespective of his support of Palestinian claims and his assumption that the Palestinian issue is the root cause of Middle East turbulence and the crown jewel of Arab policy-making.

However, President Obama operates within the Federalist system which precludes an omnipotent president, and significantly constrains his maneuverability. It accords Congress – a bastion of support of the Jewish State – power equal to that of the President, domestically and internationally. The clout of Congress grows in direct correlation to the weakness of Obama, whose popularity plunged from 65% in January 2009 to 39% in August 2011. Obama is aware that House and Senate Democratic leaders, such as House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, Ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Relations Committee Howard Berman, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and former Chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Robert Menendez, would suspend foreign aid to the Palestinian Authority, should the Palestinians proceed with their UN initiative. The President is cognizant of the fact that their support is critical to his reelection aspirations in November 2012.

Moreover, the US Congress constitutes the most authentic representative of the American people, who – especially upon the tenth anniversary of 9/11 – consider Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims as part of the terrorist threat, view the UN as a role-model of ingratitude and treat Israel as a special, capable, democratic and unconditional ally.

The US campaign against the Palestinian initiative at the UN is driven by the American People’s and Congress’ identification with the Jewish State, and by their mistrust of the UN and the Palestinians. According to a May 26, 2011 CNN poll, 82% of Americans consider Israel an ally and a friend, compared with 72% in 2001. 67% support Israel, while only 16% support the Palestinians, who are as unpopular as Iran (15%) and North Korea (17%). According to a February, 2011 Gallup poll, 68% consider Israel an ally; the April 2011 Rasmussen Report shows that most Americans oppose foreign aid to Arab countries but support foreign aid to Israel; a September 2010 Rasmussen Report indicates that most Americans are willing to defend militarily only five other countries – Canada, Britain, Israel, Germany and Mexico; and the April 2010 Quinnipiac Polling Institute determines that 66% expect Obama to improve treatment of Israel.

According to a February, 2011 Gallup poll, 62% of Americans think that the UN is performing poorly, compared with 30% in 1953. A February, 2011 Rasmussen Report determined that only 27% of likely US voters regard the UN as an ally of the US, while 15% consider the UN an enemy and 54% are undecided.

Congressional attitudes toward the UN reflect public resentment of anti-American bias in the UN, a home court for anti-US countries in general and Islamic and rogue regimes in particular, even though the US funds 22% of the UN budget. Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, who chairs the House Foreign Affairs Committee, recently introduced the United Nations Transparency, Accountability and Reform Act, which would cut off US contributions to any UN entity that grants membership, or any other upgraded status, to the Palestinian Authority. According to Ros-Lehtinen, “UN obsession with castigating Israel — from the Human Rights Council and the Goldstone Report and the Durban conferences to the multitude of UN bodies created for the sole purpose of condemning Israel — has eliminated UN credibility…. The UN’s most infamous anti-Israel act came in 1975, when the General Assembly voted to declare that ‘Zionism is racism.’”

Will Israel leverage the US attitude toward the UN and the Palestinian Authority, or will it persist in the policy of indecisiveness and retreat, which was initiated by the 1993 Oslo Accord?

This article was originally published in “Israel Hayom” Newsletter on September 12, 2011. Yoram Ettinger also publishes The Ettinger Report.

The Truth About Obama’s Jobs Bill

By The National Inflation Association

Last Thursday evening, President Obama gave a speech to a joint session of Congress discussing the jobs situation here in America. The purpose of Obama’s speech was to convince the American public and their elected representatives in Washington to support Obama’s new $447 billion ‘American Jobs Act’, which has a cost that is 49% larger than the $300 billion act most people were expecting. NIA believes this bill will do nothing to reduce unemployment in America and that it is nothing but another stimulus bill in disguise that will add to our budget deficits.

Obama’s bill proposes a $4,000 per employee tax credit for businesses that hire somebody who was previously unemployed for 6 months or more, at a cost of $8 billion. At the same time, Obama wants to extend emergency unemployment compensation (EUC), which allows Americans who have exhausted standard unemployment benefits that last for 26 weeks to continue receiving them for between 20 and 53 additional weeks. EUC benefits are set to expire at the end of 2011 and continuing them through the end of 2012 will cost U.S. taxpayers $49 billion.

It is totally absurd for Obama to give employers money to attempt to hire people he is simultaneously paying to stay out of work. What makes this even more outrageous is that employers have an incentive not to hire recently laid off workers, when only those unemployed for 6 months or more will bring them a $4,000 check. If this bill is passed it will make the unemployment situation in America far worse than it already is.

NIA has heard from members who own farms and have positions on their farms available, but can’t find anybody interested in working for them and filling the available positions. Every time they hire somebody to work on their farm, the worker purposely does a poor job and tries to get fired. Their sole purpose of getting a job is to convince their local unemployment agency that they are trying to find employment so that they can keep receiving unemployment benefits, when in reality they are trying to take advantage of the system. Continue reading

Obama on Jobs: Missing “Rigid” Ideas

By Cameron Smith

Currently, there are almost 600 bills before Congress that contain the word “job.” Politicians have talked about “job creation” nonstop. Oddly enough, this rhetoric demonstrates that those political leaders are listening to what concerns Americans, primarily their economic future.

Their responses fall into two fundamental categories: Those who believe that the government creates jobs and economic growth, and those who believe the private sector accomplishes those ends. The former believe that substantial government spending charges the economy in troubled economic times while the latter tend to believe an unhindered marketplace will correct itself.

After listening to President Obama’s “jobs speech” to Congress, Americans should have little doubt that the President believes the government has a central role in job creation and a virtually unfettered control over the economy.

President Obama led off by stating that government needs to ask whether “[it] can restore some of the fairness and security that has defined this nation since our beginning.” Remember, this is the same nation that Ben Franklin admonished should not give up “essential liberty to purchase … temporary safety” lest it “deserve neither liberty nor safety.” This is a nation where meaningful opportunities for all are prized above equal outcomes. The President’s sentiment is troubling, not because “fairness” and “security” have suddenly become vices, but because government imposition of those virtues is radically different than the average American’s concept of them.

The President even acknowledged that “the drive and initiative of our workers and entrepreneurs … has made this economy the engine and the envy of the world.” But he also qualified those remarks by suggesting that Americans share “a belief that we’re all connected, and that there are some things we can only do together, as a nation.”

The President is correct that there are some things Americans can only do together as a nation, and even more convenient for the President, Americans have agreed on those tasks. The Constitution provides a number of express powers where states and individuals, through the federal government, work together for the common welfare. Conversely, the same Constitution prevents the federal government from interfering in the lives of individuals, their communities, and their states where powers are not granted to the federal government. These constitutional restraints do not mean the American tradition of helping each other is dead but rather that the tradition has meaning because it comes from the hearts of the American people rather than by government compulsion.

Regrettably, President Obama has a different perspective on the limits of government. During the speech, the President asked, “[w]hat kind of country would this be if [Congress] had voted down Social Security or Medicare just because it violated some rigid idea about what government could or could not do?” The “rigid ideas” that limit government action are found in the Constitution. The President would do well to remember that those ideas were enshrined by those who knew the threat of powerful oppressive government to free society, the countless Americans who shed their blood to protect them, and a people who have agreed to amend them only 27 times over more than 200 years.

When the President of the United States takes such a jaundiced view toward fundamental restraints on the federal government, Americans should be outraged. The Constitution’s limits on government are there SPECIFICALLY to prevent the federal government from becoming too powerful. Even when they are not convenient, those limits are extremely important.

Parts of the President’s plan for stimulating the economy make sense. Stabilizing and reducing costs for Medicaid and Medicare as well as authorizing free trade agreements are music to the ears of many Americans. Unfortunately, these are conspicuously absent from the American Jobs Act which the President called on Congress to pass.

Many components such as new unemployment benefits and “shovel ready” infrastructure projects are simply another chorus of an all-too-familiar tune. Rather than engaging in common sense tax reform, the President’s tax credits fail to reduce the overall tax burden on job creators by borrowing against Social Security and putting conditions on the types of workers those businesses must hire to obtain the credits. To be sure, America needs a real infrastructure plan for the future, and tax reform has been put off for too long. But the President’s political “Hail Mary” falls far short of meeting those requirements.

The President also failed to mention the $450 billion cost of his plan. While he assured America that “everything in [his] bill will be paid for,” the White House summary of the American Jobs Act states that “the President will call on the Joint Committee [on Deficit Reduction] to come up with additional deficit reduction necessary to pay for the Act and still meet its deficit target.”

Relying on the highly divided “supercommittee” to come up with another $450 billion in cuts on top of the $1.5 trillion already assigned seems highly unlikely.

Even if that substantial cost could be offset, the Congressional Budget Office projects a $1.3 trillion deficit for 2011 alone. Should Congress could find a way to “pay for” the President’s proposals, they would almost certainly be doing so with money the American people do not have.

With unemployment at more than nine percent, Americans definitely need jobs. They also need representatives and a President who understand their limits.

[Since Smith wrote this article, President Obama has proposed paying for his jobs bill by “closing the corporate tax loophole and asking the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share.” In other words, he wants the rich to pay for government screw ups. It’s federal government monetary policies that aid the development of financial bubbles and busts. It is the federal government that has increases the national debt to unsustainable levels. If enough Americans buy Obama’s tax increasing strategy, the middle class will end up paying for it through increased prices on goods and services, which is also known as trickle-down inflation.]

Cameron Smith is General Counsel for the Alabama Policy Institute, a non-partisan, non-profit research and education organization dedicated to the preservation of free markets, limited government and strong families, which are indispensable to a prosperous society.

The Price of Being the Enemy

by Gary Palmer

The evidence is undeniable – global warming is now a major problem for practically every person in America, including the people of Alabama. If you don’t believe it, check your monthly utility bill or the price of gasoline to see that global warming is a big problem in terms of what it costs you.

Technically, the problem is not global warming. It began with cooked up statistics that leftist politicians and environmentalists used to push an agenda that will devastate our economy and do nearly nothing to impact the global temperature. A formidable array of politicians and scientists have bought into the proposition that human activity is bad for the planet.

This belief is not new. In their book The First Global Revolution published by the Club of Rome in 1998, authors Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider make the case for using predictions about worldwide environmental catastrophe to force nations to change economic and governing policies.

King and Schneider wrote, “In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together.” They concluded, “All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy is humanity itself.”

Hmmm. Based on that statement it would be logical to conclude that, if people are the enemy, policies that punish people are not necessarily bad as long as the policies can be billed as helping save the environment.

Needless to say, that would not go over well with most Americans who are opposed to such schemes as Cap and Trade. Even though the Cap and Trade bill died in the U.S. Senate last year (after passing in the House), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), with the full support of the Obama Administration, is in the process of implementing it anyway. If the EPA succeeds in this effort, the impact on the American economy will be devastating.

A Heritage Foundation analysis of the Cap and Trade bill that passed the U.S. House of Representatives projected that the GDP for the United States would decline by a cumulative $9.4 trillion between 2012 and 2035. Heritage also projected that net job losses would approach 1.9 million by 2012 and could approach 2.5 million by 2035. The irony of the job losses is that they will hit manufacturing and mining particularly hard, eliminating thousands of union jobs.

Additionally, the Tax Foundation projected that the total burden of the Cap and Trade bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives in 2009 would cost the average family of four over $1,200 per year. Moreover, this burden is regressive across income levels, consuming a significantly higher percentage of low income households’ income. According to the Tax Foundation, the Cap and Trade bill will cost households in the bottom 20th percentile of household income $617 per year or about 6.2 percent of their income.

Even though the U.S. Senate rejected the Cap and Trade bill, the Obama Administration is using the EPA to implement it anyway and at significant cost to low- to middle-income families. Perhaps as a way to justify new, more costly regulations, the EPA released a report earlier this year claiming that the Clean Air Act of 1990 will avert 230,000 premature deaths and add $2 trillion to our economy by 2020. The estimated economic benefits in the EPA report range from $250 million to $5.7 trillion, making it appear that the estimators could not come up with anything close to what the economic benefit might be, so they split the difference at $2.7 trillion.

Claiming that 230,000 lives were spared a premature death as a result of the EPA’s actions is in the same genre as justifying the billions of dollars wasted with the Stimulus Bill by claiming it saved an unspecified number of jobs. No one can prove that environmental regulations have saved lives any more than it can be proved that implementing cap and trade regulations will save the planet, but we can see the proof of the impact that these regulations are having on our household income.

High utility bills and the price of gasoline are just part of the price you pay for being the enemy.

Gary Palmer is president of the Alabama Policy Institute, a non-partisan, non-profit research and education organization dedicated to the preservation of free markets, limited government and strong families, which are indispensable to a prosperous society.

Poll: More than Six in Ten Unhappy with Obama on Deficit

President Barack Obama met with Senate leaders yesterday to jumpstart stalled budget talks, but do voters nationwide agree with how the president is handling the federal budget deficit?

According to this McClatchy-Marist poll, 61% of voters disapprove of how the president is handling the deficit. Fewer than one-third — 31% — approve, and 8% are unsure.

“President Obama is increasingly focusing on and is the focus of budget negotiations,” says Dr. Lee M. Miringoff, Director of The Marist College Institute for Public Opinion. “Once again, it seems the buck stops in the oval office.”

While a majority of Democrats — 56% — approve of the president’s performance on the issue of the deficit, nearly four in ten — 37% — disapprove, and 8% are unsure. True to party lines, most Republicans — 89% — disapprove of the president’s fiscal management while only 7% approve. Four percent of Republicans are unsure. Among independent voters nationally, 65% disapprove of how the president is dealing with the budget deficit, and 26% approve. Nine percent of independents are unsure.

Voters are also voicing their dissatisfaction over the president’s handling of the economy. In fact, President Obama’s rating on the economy has hit an all-time low. Just 37% of registered voters nationally approve of the way the president is handling the economy while nearly six in ten — 58% — disapprove. Five percent are unsure.

When McClatchy-Marist last reported this question in April, 40% gave the president high marks on how he was dealing with the economy while 57% rated his performance as sub-par. Three percent, at the time, were unsure.

However, many voters still don’t blame President Obama for the nation’s current economic conditions. 61% report the president inherited them while 31% think they are the result of his own policies. Nine percent are unsure. Little has changed on this question since McClatchy-Marist’s previous survey. In April, 63% thought the president faced these trying economic conditions when he entered office while 30% said his policies created them. Seven percent, at the time, were unsure.

The McClatchy-Marist report can be read in its entirety by going here.