As a note, the 2010 count includes legal and illegal immigrants as well as citizens who call the U.S. their home.

Compared to other countries in rough percentage terms over the last ten years, Canada’s population grew by 10 percent, France and England increased by 5 percent, Japan stayed constant, and Germany decreased.

Although China grew by only 6 percent, their population grew to 1.3 billion or 20 percent of the world population. One in five of the people of the world now live in China.

Big shift U.S. population increases per 2010 Census

Michigan (-0.6)(-54K) was the only state to lose population.

In the previous census, these states were also big percentage increases with Nevada (66.3), Arizona (40.0), Utah (29.6), Idaho (28.5), Texas (22.8), Colorado (30.6), North Carolina (21.4), South Carolina (15.1), Georgia (26.4), and Florida (23.5).

This shows a big shift in population over the last twenty years to the Southeast and the West.

So why is the Census important and how does that affect our lives?

We get Representation:

There are 435 seats in the House of Representatives that are reapportioned among states with each new Census according to population. The goal is an even distribution of voting citizens across all states. In other words, the total population is divided by 435, or 710,767 as a goal for the size of a congressional legislative district starting in 2013.

From the 2000 Census, the average district population was 646,946 starting in 2003. States with population increases add new districts, and those with population decreases lose districts. And there are seven states whose population only entitle them to the minimum single district because they don’t have enough people living there for more.

District Gains:

Texas (+4), Florida (+2); Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina, Utah and Washington (+1) each.

All but one of the gaining states (Washington) were won by Republicans in November 2010.

District Losses:

New York and Ohio (-2) each; Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey and Pennsylvania (-1) each.

Seven of the losing states were won by Republicans in November 2010.

Knowing where people live in the country allows the federal government to channel funding down to the states in a fair manner. It would be no fun if some states got all the road and bridge repairs, all the airports, all the post offices, all the disaster and college funding and all the other things the government pays for. Knowing where people live in the state allows the state to fairly distribute the federal money it receives to the cities and towns so schools can stay open and garbage can be collected.

And that all comes from the Census.

Congress:

When the 435 congressional districts meet in Washington, they generally discuss and act on national matters and enact national laws. That representation tries to insure that every person in the country is fairly spoken for.

Each district is represented by a member of a political party, mostly Republicans and Democrats. They vote the way their party leadership tells them to vote or how they think their district will want them to vote. When there are more Republicans in the 435 seats, things go the way the Republican leadership wants. When there are more Democrats, it goes their way. The 435 all come up for reelection every even-numbered year, and they are in their job for only two years at a time.

Electoral College

Every four years, a president is elected by the Electoral College. The Electoral College is made up of representatives of our congressional representatives. There are 535 members; the number of House representatives in the state plus the two Senators from each state.

While national elections focus mainly on electing friendly party representatives for each district and redrawing districts to their advantage, the Electoral College, in most cases, is a state-by-state, all-or-nothing voting system that protects the value of the individual state by choosing its own method of electing members without interference from other states or national parties.

The job of the Electoral College is to choose the most powerful executive leader in the world across the expanse of the nation by ignoring population concentrations, contested elections and voter turnout in other states.

The Electoral College was never meant to reflect the national popular will. It was designed to vote the individual state’s choice for the presidency. It gives as much weight to rural areas as urban centers. It enhances the status of minority groups concentrated in states with large electoral vote counts. It prevents nationalization of the government and enhances the collective opinion of the individual states. It promotes cohesion of the nation by requiring a distribution of popular support to elect.

Redistricting:

As the voting population moves South and West, new legislative districts are formed in those states to keep the population similar in all districts across the country. Constitutional law says that each district must contain approximately the same number of voters.

When a state adds or loses districts, the entire state population must be redistricted by drawing new maps to include similar populations in all districts.

The task of redistricting a state is a happy opportunity for the majority party in a state. The ruling party has the final vote (sometimes subject to governor approval) on new district lines. Shrewd politicians make every effort to redraw district lines so voters favorable to them will carry elections in all districts. And they can’t help being creative to reduce the competition.

Computer-generated simulations have made this job a lot easier and much more effective.

In June 2006 the Supreme Court issued an opinion that allowed states to redistrict at any time.

Some favored techniques are:

• “packing” where district lines are drawn to pack political opposition voters into as few districts as possible
• “cracking” or fragmenting the opposition voters thinly out into different districts so their votes become minimized or ineffective
• “kidnapping” involves redrawing the district so two strong opposition candidates reside in the same district and must run against each other. No matter who wins, one strong candidate is eliminated (see “Gerrymandering” > In Pennsylvania… further down on this page)
• “spoiler effect” provides candidates that cannot win, but draw votes away from contenders
• spreading the opposition voters thinly around a large district, causing campaign coverage expenses as high as possible for opposition candidates attempting to cover wide areas.

The purpose for the ruling party is to have as many “wasted votes“ as possible.

States such as California, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and Texas have already reduced competition by skewing their district maps to prefer ruling party favorites so that competition for congressional House seats has been virtually eliminated.

There are still 36 states where the state legislature has the primary responsibility to create a redistricting plan. In many cases, this is subject to approval by the state governor. Seven states (Arizona, California, Hawaii. Idaho, Minnesota, New Jersey, Washington) use either a bipartisan or independent commission to create a plan. Three states (Florida, Iowa, Maine) use independent commissions to propose a plan which must be approved by the legislature.

Although the November 2010 elections put Republicans in full control of 35 state legislatures, their ability to redistrict in their favor is somewhat limited by population location (all districts must have roughly the same population and form one enclosed figure) and the 1965 Voting Rights Act which protects ethnic minorities (race or color) from voter bias.

There will still be redistricting plans that wind up in the courts.

“Gerrymandering” is the setting of electoral boundaries to establish political advantage. Some past examples are :

California’s 23^rd congressional district is an example of the packing style of districting. It is moderately to heavily democratic and confined to a narrow strip of coast so thin it is referred to as “the district that disappears at high tide.”

Illinois’s 4th congressional district is drawn like a pair of earmuffs “packing” two Hispanic areas (Puerto Rican in the north, Mexican in the south) while remaining connected (legal requirement) by narrowly tracing a small portion of Interstate 294. It completely surrounds the Illinois 7^th congressional district.

North Carolina’s 12^th congressional district is an example of “packing” a 64 percent African-American liberal majority into a single district by following Interstate 85 almost exactly in a long and thin and in some points no wider than a single highway lane. The boundaries were contested in the Supreme Court three times and redrawn. The current version has a small plurality of whites.

In Pennsylvania, the Republican-controlled state legislature used gerrymandering to defeat Democrat Frank Mascara representing the 20^th congressional district. A large portion of his district was moved into the newly-drawn 12^th congressional district including most of his neighborhood. The district split streets down the middle to form a thin tendril that ended at his house, but not where he parked his car. Mascara was “kidnapped” into the 12^th district and had to run there against another strong Democrat. He was defeated, but whoever won, Republicans eliminated a strong opposition candidate.

In Texas, the Republican majority redistricted the state in 2003, diluting the voting power of the heavily Democratic Travis County, Texas by “cracking” or distributing the voters out to more Republican districts.

The United States Supreme Court in 2006 upheld most of the Texas congressional district map engineered by former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. The decision allowed state legislatures to redraw districts as many times as they like and not just after the Census. This allows them to protect their political parties’ standing and number of seats, as long as they don’t harm racial and ethnic minority groups voting influence.

Ed.Note: Former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, once considered among the nation’s most powerful and feared lawmakers, representing Texas’ 22^nd congressional district from 1984-2006 was found guilty of money laundering for campaign financing, on a felony conspiracy charge to move $190,000 in corporate donations to Republican candidates in the Texas State Legislature in 2002.   He was sentenced to three years in prison for the scheme to influence elections that already cost him his job, leadership post and millions of dollars in legal fees.

How they work it:

In districts where the ruling political party is in the voting minority, districts can be redrawn to make the loyal voters the slight majority for most districts; an attempt to insure continuing congressional majority domination for the state, and the casting of all the state’s electoral votes for the presidential candidate of the ruling party’s choice.

Since any challenging candidates have little or no chance of winning, voter turnout diminishes to the point where the dominant party may run uncontested. The “wasted vote” ploy succeeds and the American citizen loses his ballot.

Partisans drawing district lines, however, face challenges between protection of their incumbents and maximizing their party’s campaign potential. Many times, the only way to increase their party’s campaign potential is to shift boundaries so reliable partisans are moved out of their districts, cutting margins of safety for incumbents, but making elections more competitive. Incumbents, finding new voters in the district, must establish their personal relationships with them if they hope to get reelected.

As a note, it has been found that when commissions or courts draw district boundaries, elections are more competitive compared to those drawn by legislatures. In 1992, statistical analysis showed that incumbents benefited from bipartisan redistricting which produced reduced competition.

How it has worked:

Favorable redistricting did not come easily. After the 1990 Census, 20 states had suits in state courts concerning redistricting plans; 28 states had suits in federal court. Eleven states had suits in both state and federal courts on the same district plan. New York had cases in four different federal courts and three different state courts.

Republicans under the leadership of House Minority Whip Newt Gingrich worked for 10 years setting up state legislatures as a basis for the 1994 Republican sweep of the congressional House of Representatives.

Gingrich worked with state party chairmen to find candidates who could win congressional districts and were aligned with favorable state and district issues such as lower business taxes, term limits, welfare reform, pro-choice and clean energy. These candidates received the most party funding, and many won their elections.

The Republican Revolution started in the 1992 elections when Republicans gained 9 congressional seats, leaving the balance at 258D-176R (+1 Independent), but it really delivered the message in the 1994 elections when Republicans gained 52 congressional seats and won two special elections, leaving the House balance at 230R-204D (+1 Independent).

Nearly one-third of those defeated by Republicans had been in office only for one term. Republicans carried the country with less than a 7 percent majority.

The “Republican Revolution of 1994″ was caused mainly by national voter discontent who showed their displeasure of Democrats, the issues they supported and their alleged corruption. Republicans built on the general voter perception that the House Democratic leadership was corrupt.

Issues causing dissatisfaction with the president was Clinton’s push for massive healthcare reforms and the 1993 tax hikes.

Foretelling the Democratic trouncing were off-year election losses of heavily Democratic mayoralties (Jersey City, Los Angeles, New York) state governorships (New Jersey, Virginia), and special elections (one Texas Senate and two House).

The Southern response to Supreme Court rulings to redraw district boundaries allowed the Southern states to draw maps that concentrated black voters in districts surrounded by white voter districts, increasing by far the white Republican dominance in those districts and those states.

As a result, Republicans swept the South, formerly a Democratic haven, at congressional and statewide levels, and in gubernatorial and special elections. It remains a Republican stronghold today.

Republicans also gained 3 out of the 7 new districts in California, 2 out of the 4 new districts in Florida and 2 out of the 3 new districts in Texas.

The Republican Revolution of 1994 was based on the preparation by the minority party, choosing candidates who could win, with platforms everyone favored, redistricting and shifting blocs of voters, waiting for the majority party to alienate the voters.

And that all came from the Census forming a way for voters to vent their displeasure at how the country was being run.

Gaining and holding:

There are two major parts to control – gaining it and holding it. In the 1996 elections, Democrats made gains in 13 states, while Republicans made gains in only 9. Republicans lost the popular vote, as well as 9 of the 54 seats they had held for only one term. Republicans were still the ruling party in Congress, but Democrat Bill Clinton was elected for a second term as president with 379 Electoral College votes (270 votes elect) and 49 percent of the popular vote.

Leading up to the 1998 elections, Republicans again tried the corrupt leadership ploy against the president for his embarrassing affair with Monica Lewinsky. Newt Gingrich, now House speaker, was in the lead of the attacks. After all, it had worked in 1994.  But voters turned against the Republicans, and another 5 (net) House seats were lost.

In Florida, in the worst possible outcome of redistricting and “wasted votes,” there were only 6 races for 23 districts; 12 Republicans and 5 Democrats ran unopposed. These 17 Florida districts had their right to vote virtually eliminated. They now lived in “why bother” districts.

After the election loss, the Republicans in Congress turned against Newt Gingrich. He resigned his House seat, took his pension and went home. This was his legacy.

The 2000 Census saw Arizona, Florida, Georgia and Texas gain two congressional districts each. The rush to California had abated, and that state only gained one district but still remained the largest state with 53 districts. Republicans lost another 5 seats in California with no wins. They lost a total of 2 (net) seats in the election, were hanging on to a majority by only 9 seats and won the popular vote by only 340,000, or some 0.3% out of 93 million votes.

Florida had only 6 unopposed races. This was the last election based on the 1990 census and Republican George W. Bush from Texas was elected President.

The 2002 elections were the first election using the reapportionment from the 2000 Census. Voters were still moving South and West with two districts each added to Florida, Georgia, Texas and Arizona. Republicans gained back 8 seats to reinforce their thin majority, but mostly on national solidarity after the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York City. Most of the states saw no net change. Republicans won California’s new district 21 and the two new districts in Texas. Florida had 8 unopposed races out of their 25 districts.

In the 2004 elections, Republicans gained 5 seats in Texas, making it a solidly Republican state, with control over 21 out of 32 districts. Florida had 9 unopposed races. The partisan image of the country remained mostly red.

Voter Anger Builds:

By 2006, voters were fed up with the president and the Republican Congress. Democratic candidates fed the country’s dissatisfied voters. They campaigned against the Iraq War during its bloodiest phase. They called up fears that the country was about to fall into recession in spite of the low 4.5 percent unemployment rate which consisted of low-paying occupations. They charged that the high-paying jobs were being outsourced by big business to countries where labor was cheap. They claimed the ranks of the uninsured and those in poverty were growing, and that the anemic government response to help the powerless victims of Hurricane Katrina (2005) was too weak and too late.

The Democrats won 31 seats to take control of the House 233D-202R. Republicans still held control of most of the states, but the lead was razor-thin (25-23, 1 tie). Even with their lead, they could not have mustered enough electoral votes to elect a president if this was a presidential year, but the Democrats could.

The predictions of the economic recession came true at the end of 2007. This recession was more widespread than anyone thought, encompassing many countries around the world. Unemployment climbed to more than 10 percent nationally, and is currently locked at 9.6. Millions of Americans are out of work and many have been for more than a year. Home values have plummeted, and remain low, facing homeowners with paying a debt on a home worth half as much. Many people walked away, discouraged, with no jobs.

The Stimulus Act of 2008, valued at $152 billion and signed by Republican president Bush was the first attempt to funnel cash directly to the people through tax refund checks. This “trickle-up” effort helped the economy somewhat, increasing spending by those receiving the check by 3.5 percent.

In 2008, the first year of the recession, Democratic Senator Barack Obama was nominated to run for president. He campaigned mostly on hope for the future and bipartisanship in Washington. The historic presidential election solidified the Democratic majority with a net gain of another 21 seats (257D-178R).

But the promise of hope came while the economy was still plummeting. Job losses climbed and the government spent huge amounts of money trying to stem the flow.

In a classic example of “trickle-down” economics, banks, mortgage companies, and large businesses were bailed out to prevent bankruptcies and resulting job losses for millions more.

Mistakes were made. Businesses that were supposed to use the funding to hire workers after stability was regained, kept the money or used it to absorb struggling smaller businesses.

In a classic example of “trickle-up” economics, unemployment was extended to the long-term unemployed, jobs were created through the repair of the nation’s transportation infrastructure, states were funded to continue teacher salaries and many other examples.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, also known as the Stimulus Recovery Act, valued at $787 billion included federal tax incentives, expansion of unemployment benefits and other social welfare provisions, and domestic spending in education, health care, and infrastructure, including the energy sector.

The bill was voted against by the entire Republican membership, who in later weeks appeared smiling in photo-ops handing out the checks in their districts.

The deficit got larger, and the population kept any extra money close, skeptical the economy would improve. Businesses, responding to slow sales, did not hire. Banks had money to lend but were cautious, so relatively little business expansion occurred. Layoffs slowly abated.

Unemployment continued to hover just under 10 percent, based mainly on that just under two million new people per year enter the Civilian labor force. If just those two million get jobs, the unemployment rate stays the same.

Businesses are still outsourcing jobs to cheaper locations outside the U.S. Those jobs will not come back. The solution to employment is the implementation of new industries based and dependent on American labor.

Americans just want their lives back, and are angry at the president and congress for not fixing things. Besides jobs, voters want a better economy, a repaired housing market, a smaller deficit, and no tax hikes. They want to end to the war and its enormous expense, and have the government do more about terrorism.

Approaching the 2010 midterm elections, Republicans publicly announced their main goal was to destroy the president and his programs and elect a president that will not veto their legislation. They intend to dismember and de-fund the landmark Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (that all Republicans voted against, in addition to many more bills benefiting our citizens).

During the 2010 election, voters expressed their anger with the size of the deficit, the lack of jobs, and the state of the economy. In the 2008 presidential election, 117.4 million votes were cast. In the 2010 election, 84.1 million people turned out, 25 percent of the voters were over 65 years old (who tend to be Republican and fiscal conservatives).

Republican red spilled across the national map for the last election based on the 2000 Census.

Where from here?

In the 2012 elections, considering the mood of the voter stays the same and giving weight to the majority party in each of the 18 states, it is likely, with redistricting, that Republicans will pick up another 3-6 seats from the Democrats, making the balance around 247R-188D (currently 242R-193D).

If all else stays the same, Republicans will seat a new president, carrying 35 states with at least 350 Electoral College votes (270 are needed to win).

Something we should remember; in 1994, Republicans swept into office promising fiscal reform and accountability. By 2000, the 95 programs they had promised to cut, all remained and increased in total cost by 13%.

What Americans are dealing with is similar to the five stages of grief. They have passed the Denial and Discouragement stages and appear to be in the Anger stage on the way to Acceptance of a new economy and way of life.

What is the future? Will the Democrats be able to erase enough of the 350 electoral votes to reelect Obama? How will the continuing shift to the West and Southeast affect the 2012 election?

Is John Boehner the new Newt Gingrich? He helped write the Contract with America in 1994.

Will John Boehner run? Will Newt Gingrich run? Will Sarah Palin run? Will Jim DeMint run?

Some people say that to disagree with the government in power is unpatriotic. I disagree. It is the highest form of patriotism in the spirit of our founding fathers, as they disagreed with England. Voters have only their vote, and they should use it.

Are politicians using the population shift for their own ends?

Today, some other indicators work in the GOP’s favor. The measurable enthusiasm gap between Republican voters and Democrats means that House districts, gerrymandered to include as many members of a single voting bloc as possible, may limit the number of seats gained in the House, but the increased voter turnout will undoubtedly affect the statewide Senate races.

In an article from ChattahBox Political News

“October 27, 2010– Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) admitted in a National Journal interview that the Republican Party has no intention of finding solutions to America’s many problems. And the Party of No has no intention of legislating to make the lives of ordinary Americans easier. What is on the top of McConnell’s to do list for the next two-years? Besides rolling over for special interests and giving their rich friends tax breaks, McConnell plans to lead his party on a campaign to destroy the presidency of Barack Obama, to ensure a return to power in 2012. And he has no problem saying it out loud. The Democratic National Committee released a video today shining a light on McConnell’s plan for America, asking the question “What does that mean for you?”

When asked by the National Journal to name the top Republican legislative strategies for the next two-years, McConnell responded that he has his sights set firmly on toppling the Obama administration.

“The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president,” McConnell said, adding, “Our single biggest political goal is to give [the Republican] nominee for president the maximum opportunity to be successful.” ”

And I learned all that from the Census.

Obama’s alienation of independents and white voters, along with the gap between the right and the left, means that it is possible that Republicans not only may pick up many seats, but also even regain control of Congress.

Washington strategists are focusing on how the president can make a political comeback in 2012, abandoning the 2010 elections to fate.  The White House has different ideas, with a strategy to win or minimize the damage in 2010. 

Even though Senator Scott Brown has proven himself a Republican independent, breaking ranks with his party to pass important legislation for the good of the country, he is still in the Republican caucus. 

Brown was elected by a landslide in the special election to complete the term of Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy, an office he held for nearly 47 years.  His campaign announcement said that the state “needs an independent thinker” and the anti-Obama, anti-incumbent sentiment carried him to office. 

It was a wake-up call for Democrats. 

The stakes

In November, there are 36 Senate seats and all 435 House seats up for reelection.  Democrats need to capture 39 additional seats to regain control of the House and one additional seat for the Senate.  The key states focused on for Senate races by Republicans are:

• Connecticut (Senator Christopher Dodd – Dem)
• Delaware (seat formerly held by Vice president Joe Biden – Dem)
• Illinois (Rod Blagojevich’s appointee Roland Burris is retiring – Dem)
• Massachusetts (Scott Brown – Rep)
• Nevada (Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid –Dem)
• New York (seat formerly held by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton – Dem)
• Pennsylvania (Senator Arlen Specter – Dem – lost primary).

Loss of all those Senate seats would reduce the upper house to a near tie vote on every piece of legislation, and considering the infighting and hostility between parties now, there may very well be nothing accomplished until 2012 ends.  This would play into Republican hands who would like nothing more than to campaign against a president who accomplished nothing in the last two years of his first term.  

The strategy

The Democrats plan a two-part strategy that includes softening sentiments against Washington, the Democratic side of Congress, and the president. 

Part One

First, Democrats can be expected to intensify the accomplishments of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (health care reform), and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (economic stimulus), as well as the Credit CARD Act of 2009 and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (financial reform). 

This will be to demonstrate that Democrats can accomplish positive things for the American middle class in spite of bloc voting to defeat all actions.  Voters are upset, however, on the health care provision that requires everyone to have health care by 2014 or face penalties. 

Democrats might be advised to address modifying that portion of the health care bill. 

Obama disappointed his anti-war support base, when he lengthened troop withdrawal from 16 months in campaign promises to 19 months after he took office and backloaded his campaign promise of withdrawing one to two brigades per month. 

The president has now officially committed to ending our military involvement in Iraq by August 31, 2010, removing all U.S. combat troops.  Of course, 50,000 troops will still remain to train and advise Iraqi security and conduct counter terrorism operations.  Those troops will be likely at times to engage in fighting at the request of Iraqi commanders, but all troops will be out of Iraq by the end of 2011. 

Democrats are also looking to regather environmentalists with the president’s push to replace our black economy (fossil fuels) with a green economy (renewable energy sources). 

They will highlight to environmentalists the strong (if not somewhat tardy) handling of the Gulf oil spill with the promise of restoring the Gulf environment, backed by the $20 billion escrowed by BP.  The passage of the H.R. 4213 bill, extending unemployment benefits, also increased the tax on oil to 34 cents per barrel to fund against future spills (H.R. 4213 (p286) Title IV: Subtitle D – Sec. 431). 

That bill, however, does not address a federal law that caps corporate liability at $75 million for economic damages beyond direct cleanup costs. Democratic Senators tried to pass a bill that would have increased the cap to $10 billion, but Republicans blocked them.

There are certainly items the Republicans can snipe at, like accusing Democrats of tax-and-spend, while they support lower taxes for all – with no responsibility for any of it, unless they are trapped into talking about their history of running up the deficit when they held the power. 

Republicans have established a glaring very public record of voting as a bloc against every major proposal, including equal pay for all and the extension of unemployment benefits for the millions of workers without jobs. 

Recently, Obama was the first sitting president to appear on a daytime talk show.  The president needs more appearances on The View and other daytime shows with large homemaker followings who can influence their family members to see him as a regular family man with a tough job.

Part Two

The second part of the Democratic strategy involves recruiting strong candidates for open Congressional and Senate seats, while playing up the divisions between the Tea Party and the traditional Republicans.  This is meant to split the Republican electorate and increase the chances of less electable candidates edging out strong moderates.  Then extensively research the candidates to help moderate voters reject them – just politics as normal.

It also involves using the White House and strong Congressional members to raise more campaign funds than the opposition. And the final step is to coordinate with Democratic allies like environmentalists and labor unions to mount a get-out-and-vote effort for young, first-time, and non-white voters.  These are the people who swept Obama into office. 

The opposition

Republicans believe that concern over the lack of jobs and resentment over the big-spending ways of the Administration will prevail in voting preferences over the merits of the stimulus and economic recovery, as well as health care and financial regulation reform.

They will trash the health care bill and the compulsory coverage, saying they will, if elected, repeal the bill, start over and do it right.  

Republicans will talk about coming tax increases and how they will hold or reduce taxes to put more money in voters’ pockets, allowing small businesses to create jobs.  They will try to kidnap the platform of change. 

Issues afloat

One significant item the Congress must deal with is the tax cuts implemented by President Bush that are due to expire at the end of 2010.  Read What to Expect if the Bush tax cuts expire. 

Democrats have already planned to extend some of the tax cuts, but are planning to let them expire for citizens with incomes over $250,000, saying they are the rich and their income that would go to taxes would not stimulate the economy anyway.  It will save $67.5 billion per year from being added to the deficit. 

What Democrats are missing is that voters who make above $250,000 see themselves as the upper middle class who would spend their disposable income in ways to stimulate the economy.  Drawing an arbitrary income line will drive those above it to the other camp.

If Democrats voted an extension of the Bush tax cuts for all, even short term, they could defuse the Republican election rhetoric that Democrats will raise taxes for Americans.  If they were really shrewd, they would also lower other taxes like the corporate income tax from 35 percent to the 23.5 percent par level with Europe. 

The Deficit

An issue separating Congress and American voters is the size of the deficit.  It is a subject that may, along with unemployment, sway elections to challengers. 

Many Members of Congress and voters misunderstand the role federal deficits play in managing the economy.  Major economists have taken the position that federal deficits are an integral part of a global economy based on trade deficits and dollar reserves.   Congress has yet to realize there is no advantage in being too “fiscally responsible.”

Let Republicans talk about balancing the budget and keeping taxes low.  They will have to avoid being trapped into talking about their own history of running up the deficit when they held the power.  Perhaps Dick Cheney was right – deficits don’t matter. 

Primary scorecard

In his address, there were many other accusations.  Personally, I prefer government lawmakers who accurately quote facts rather than half-truths, as opposed to working to sway their audience by half-truths and mud slinging that attempt to create fear. 

I respect that both sides have their own agenda and arguments, but I prefer to make up my own mind based on facts and findings.  Politicians rely on people adopting what they tell them without checking anything out, like that TV commercial where the car salesman says, “I have a note from the previous owner that this car runs great!”  

I am independent when it comes to politics, but I took exception to the content of this video.

It should be kept in mind that Senator Coburn manipulates his audience in this speech written for him by his party speechwriters.

It should be noted that Senator Coburn is also a medical doctor. 

A transcript of the address and a link to the video are included at the end of this post.  Make up your own mind. 

Coburn said, “By an overwhelming margin American people are telling us to scrap the current bills …”

“Public opinion on health care reform in the United States is mixed. A majority of Americans express a desire for health care reform because they see it as too expensive and because they perceive that insurance companies avoid meeting health costs through coverage exclusions, caps, and co-pays. They also express concern that the system as a whole does not cover everyone and that many people are under-insured or uninsured. A majority support the creation of a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers, known as a public option, and a significant majority support a single-payer health care system.”

2010 polling results: “Rasmussen Reports found Americans opposing the Congressional bills by a 15-point margin, 56% vs. 41%.  According to Rasmussen Reports in January 2010, 10% of the American public have withdrawn their support from leading Congressional proposals since June 2009, with a majority opposing them since November 2009. In June 2009, 50% were in favor vs. 45% opposed, but in January 2010, support had dropped to 40% and opposition had increased to 55%.

Hardly an overwhelming margin, and an unfounded inference that the plans should be scrapped.

Coburn said, “… will lead to a government takeover of Health Care …

This is a scare slogan, a tactic raising specters of communism and socialism and is simply untrue.  However, history has shown us, a lie repeated often enough will eventually be perceived as the truth. 

The legislation under discussion would extend coverage care to tens of millions of uninsured Americans while cracking down on insurance company practices such as denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions.  This is what Republican critics attack as a government takeover of health care.  Insuring these “not-so-profitable” peopel will financially hurt their big business sponsors.    

Coburn said, ” … even before the summit took place the majority in Congress signaled its intent to reject our offers to work together.” 

I would be happy to hear what those signals were to make up my own mind.  What I continually hear is the majority asking the Republicans for input and ideas. 

Coburn said, “they want to use procedural tricks and backroom deals to ram through a new bill that combines the worst aspects of the bills the Senate and House passed last year.” 

Here is an introduction to the infamous “they,” meant to suggest the dark forces, linked to the previous specter of communism and socialism. 

Here also is the well-established three-punch rhetoric trick, meant to reinforce the evil things the dark forces will pull; (1) “procedural tricks and backroom deals”, (2) “ram through a bill”, (3) “combines the worst aspects of the bills … passed last year.” 

New York Times columnist Bob Herbert wrote almost the exact phrase. 

There are no procedural tricks in passing a bill according to Senate rules; just wailing from those who don’t get their way.  A procedural trick is a lone Republican, objecting to and stopping the extension of unemployment benefits to thousands, because he doesn’t like what it adds to the deficit.  A wave of procedural tricks are being prepared by Republicans to stop further progress on healthcare.  

As far as passing a bill that “combines the worst aspects of the bills … passed last year,” would it be too much to tell Coburn’s audience what they are?  No, because they are the worst to the Democrats, and perhaps only them.  

Coburn said, “The American people have rejected the majority’s plan for good reason.”

There’s that reinforcing rhetoric reference to the falsehood of the overwhelming rejection again.

 Coburn said, “Their plan includes 1/2 trillion dollars in new tax increases, a 1/2 trillion dollars in cuts to Medicare, job-killing penalties for employers, taxpayer-funded abortion and new boards that will ration care to American citizens.”

A half trillion sounds like much more than 500 billion, and it is meant to.  New taxes?  It depends on which vrsion of the healthcare plan that will be written into law.

The estimated cost over ten years per the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) would be $1,050 billion less $138 billion recovered ($912 billion) for the House plan, and $871 billion less $132 billion recovered ($739 billion) for the Senate plan or a middle figure of $825.5 billion.  Coburn plays on $1 trillion ($1,000 billion), but what’s $175 billion when you are trying to sway people’s opinion.

The several versions of healthcare plans moving around various committees in the House and Senate all have different approaches to pay for healthcare.

In the House version, the tax increases are targeted at the wealthy asessing a surtax on earners making from $280,000 to $800,000 (1 percent) or couples making $350,000 to $1 million (1.5 percent).  Earners making more  than those amounts would have a 5.4 pecent surtax.  Less than 2 percent of the U.S. population falls into those cateories.

This top earner tax is estimated to bring in about $540 billion over 10 years.

There is also expected to be a penalty tax on companies and individuals who refuse to buy government-approved healthcare.  This is to get everyone in the game, since the healthcare numbers work only with large pools of enrollees. 

We can assume that this is the “job-killing” penalties for employers.  The thought is that healthcare costs take away money for jobs.  The alternative might be more jobs without benefits, but it has been repeatedly proven that many people will turn down jobs without benefits. 

Ed.Note:  I am personally against forcing people to have health insurance, but one reeason healthcare costs are so high is that many people don’t take care of their health until they are wheeled into the Emergency Room on a gurney, which is enormously expensive, and costs us all.

The “½ trillion ($500 billion) in cuts to Medicare” are subtly presented as if they were to be cuts in benefits.  This purposely scares seniors by rearranging the words.  In truth, there will be reductions in the future growth of overall Medicare spending, which does not mean cuts in benefit levels or services. 

As far as “taxpayer-funded abortion”, in November 2009, the House passed an amendment to the pending health care bill that prohibits federal funds for abortion services in the public option and in the insurance “exchange” the bill would create.  The Senate bill will allow insurance companies to include abortion coverage, but each state will have the option of preventing federal money from funding abortions.  Senator Coburn is incorrect!

Regarding “new boards that will ration care to American citizens”, we can only guess Senator Coburn is talking about the independent advisory panels which will work to make recommendations on Medicare reforms, including reimbursement to contain the future growth of Medicare.  The Senate bill includes a Medicare Commission which could modify Medicare payments in order to keep down cost growth.

Perhaps he is talking also about “new boards” concerned with halting Medicare fraud.  $60 billion per year are paid out for fraudulent claims by phony companies billing for services never performed on valid Medicare members.  This is another scare tactic, presenting oversight boards as threatening to deny YOUR claim. 

As a side note, containing Medicare fraud for ten years would fund $600 billion of the cost.

According to PolitiFact regarding the rationing of care, “private health insurance companies already ration health care by income, by denying health insurance to those with pre-existing conditions and by caps on health insurance payments. Rationing exists now, and will continue to exist with or without health care reform.” 

David Leonhardt also wrote in the New York Times in June 2009 that rationing is a part of economic reality: “The choice isn’t between rationing and not rationing. It’s between rationing well and rationing badly.

This is another scare tactic, similar to Sarah Palin’s claim that end-of-life choices would be dictated by “death panels” rather than the discussions and planning with your personal physician, as it was written.

Coburn said, “The majority (meaning Democrats) now has a choice. We can continue to make progress like we did at the summit or they can try to ram through a partisan bill that will divide and bankrupt America.” 

Now here are “We,” the white knights again trying to do the right thing, while the evil “they” “try to ram through a partisan bill that will divide and bankrupt America.”

What Senator Coburn does not discuss is that without reform, America is well on its way to bankruptcy now.  But the lack of reform will keep his campaign funders in huge profits, draining the resources of the American people.  Coburn is telling an untruth.

Current spending (2007) on health care in the U.S. is about 16% of its GDP which converts to an estimated $2.26 trillion or $7,439 per person.  With its current upward trend it is expected to reach 19.5% of GDP by 2017 which converts to an estimated $2.75 trillion or $9,066 per person. 

Medical expenditure was a significant contributing factor in 62% of personal bankruptcies in the United States. 

“The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has argued that the Medicare program as currently structured is unsustainable without significant reform, as tax revenues dedicated to the program are not sufficient to cover its rapidly increasing expenditures. Further, the CBO also projects that “total federal Medicare and Medicaid outlays will rise from 4 percent of GDP in 2007 to 12 percent in 2050.” “According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, spending on Medicare will grow from approximately $500 billion during 2009 to $930 billion by 2018.” “And in 2009 the Congressional Budget Office found that the inclusion of a strong public option would lower the cost of health care reform in the U.S. by tens of billions of dollars.” 

Coburn said, “Last year dozens of Democrat-only summits were held in secret behind closed doors and produced many unsavory deals.” 

This is an allegation that requires dates and agendas to avoid people thinking it is simply mud slinging (which it is).  I’m sure Republicans don’t hold their meetings on street corners either, but like to portray Democrats as some sinister secret society.

The question arises, what were the unsavory deals?  Without particulars, this again is unsubstantiated mud slinging.  Coburn is working his audience.

Coburn said, “Had those meetings been open and bipartisan, I believe Congress could have passed a bipartisan health bill months ago. If the president and leaders in Congress are serious about finding common ground they should continue this debate, not cut it off by rushing through a partisan bill the American people have already rejected.” 

There’s that reinforcing rhetoric reference to the falsehood of the overwhelming rejection by the American people again, but he lends it credibility with his “I believe.”

A bipartisan health bill is an impossible goal.  Republicans want to defeat any healthcare bill and discredit the majority party.  The Republicans are in favor of and are funded by big businesses, which want the existing system to continue.  Continuing the debate will delay the action nearer the mid-term elections, when lawmakers who want to be re-elected will move away from a controversial bill.

Coburn said, “If the majority agrees to work together they will find many Republicans ready to help them pursue our common goal of helping all Americans access quality and affordable Health Care for themselves and their families.” 

It is odd that I hear from Washington, nothing except offers from the majority wanting to work together with the Republicans to pursue the common goal.  The difference is that one side wants reform and the other side wants things to stay the same.

The problem big business has with the healthcare plan is that the legislation under discussion would extend coverage care to tens of millions of uninsured Americans while cracking down on insurance company practices such as denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions. 

The 46 million without health insurance might be less healthy than the people who work and can afford health insurance, and the people with pre-existing conditions certainly are.  This means that they will probably eat away at the bottom lines of the big business insurance carriers, and they will spend any amount of money buying lawmakers through campaign contributions to defeat it.

While there are two major proposals under consideration in Congress, Democrats have authored and passed both.  Republican Party members in Congress have not come together around a single policy of their own for health care reform other than that of opposing both Democratic bills currently in progress. 

Lawmakers were almost finished merging House and Senate versions of sweeping overhaul legislation when a special election in late 2009 in Massachusetts to fill the late Senator Kennedy’s seat cost Democrats their filibuster-proof Senate supermajority of 60 seats.

Republicans immediately united in opposition to both proposals, casting doubts on the outcome.

Lobbying: America’s health care industry has spent hundreds of millions of dollars in 2009 alone to block the introduction of public medical insurance and stall other reforms proposed by President Obama and by others. There are six registered Health Care  lobbyists for every member of Congress. The campaign against health care system reform has been waged in part through substantial donations to key politicians. The single largest recipient of health industry political donations and chairman of the Senate Committee on Finance that drafted Senate health care legislation is Senator Max Baucus (D-MT).

The clock is ticking toward the mid-term elections in November.  Make no mistake that that election day is the focus of our lawmakers – to continue in their prestigious jobs and build their party’s power base, and they respond without question to the big business campaign fund contributions that can get or keep them there – not the 46 million people without healthcare, and not the 100,000 people who die every year for lack of health insurance. 

It is shameful that our elected officials, and I include all, have forgotten whom they represent. 

Senator Coburn was contacted Friday (Feb 26) by the White House and asked to submit details of suggestions he made to tackle waste and fraud in the medical system, Coburn’s spokesman John Hart said Coburn views Obama’s legislation as a government takeover and would not be able to support it even if it includes some of his proposals.

~~~~~

Listen to the broadcast and make up your own mind.

http://news.yahoo.com/video/us-15749625/18361866

The transcript follows for your convenience. 

“This week I had the opportunity to join President Obama and my Democrat and Republican colleagues for a summit on Health Care.  We had a respectful and constructive discussion.  While we listened to one another, I’m concerned that the majority in Congress is still not listening to the American people on the subject of Health Care reform.  By an overwhelming margin American people are telling us to scrap the current bills, which will lead to a government takeover of Health Care and we should start over.

Unfortunately, even before the summit took place the majority in Congress signaled its intent to reject our offers to work together.  Instead they want to use procedural tricks and backroom deals to ram through a new bill that combines the worst aspects of the bills the senate and house passed last year.

The American people have rejected the majority’s plan for good reason.  Their plan includes 1/2 trillion dollars in new tax increases, a 1/2 trillion dollars in cuts to Medicare, job-killing penalties for employers, taxpayer-funded abortion and new boards that will ration care to American citizens.

The majority now has a choice. We can continue to make progress like we did at the summit or they can try to ram through a partisan bill that will divide and bankrupt America.

I wholeheartedly share President Obama’s desire for more civility and bipartisanship in Washington and I’m proud of the work we did together when he was a member of the Senate.

True civility however is measured by actions not words. I was disappointed the president rejected my suggestion that he host another summit; the president himself proposed that such meetings be televised more than a year ago.

Last year dozens of Democrat-only summits were held in secret behind closed doors and produced many unsavory deals. 

Had those meetings been open and bipartisan, I believe Congress could have passed a bipartisan health bill months ago. If the president and leaders in Congress are serious about finding common ground they should continue this debate, not cut it off by rushing through a partisan bill the American people have already rejected. 

If the majority agrees to work together they will find many Republicans ready to help them pursue our common goal of helping all Americans access quality and affordable Health Care for themselves and their families.”

References:

Health care in the United States
Health care reform in the United States
Health care reform debate in the United States
Public opinion on health care reform in the United States
History of health care reform in the United States