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.

The importance of this election goes beyond controlling national legislation; the controlling party also has charge of the redrawing of congressional districts for fair representation of voters, but many times resulting in attempts to manipulate district lines that favor the re-election of the ruling party (gerrymandering). 

The exit polls show that voters are not happy with the economy as it is or the slowness of its growth.  And many are not happy with the extensive unemployment in the country. 

Some candidates tried TV ads that painted their opponent in an extremely negative light, or tried to paint Latino immigrants as menacing invaders.  Many times these ads backfired and the candidate lost. 

The anti-incumbent feeling ran high.  Voters in this country are mostly swing voters.  They will swing to the candidate who promises the most and away from the one who has not performed miracles in the last two years.  An example is Wisconsin, who unseated an 18-year incumbent and elected a senator who was so new he was unclear as to what he would do because he had not even studied the issues. 

Many states showed displeasure with the mandated health care act.  Some legislators lost their seats because of their support of health care in Congress.  Some states passed state amendments to their constitutions prohibiting mandated health insurance.  The Supreme Court will certainly visit the constitutionality of the state amendments especially Article Six. 

What was the impact of the Tea Party on the election?  It drove people to vote, and that is a good thing even if they didn’t vote the way some readers wanted. 

Some exit poll findings for voting Republican for the House and GOP gains from 2008:

Overall, in a voter population of 47% men and 53% women, 57% of men voted Republican, up by 10%; 51% of women, up by 8%. 

By race and ethnicity, in a voter population of 78% white, 10% black, 8% Hispanic and 1% Asian, the Republican vote was 62% white, up by 8%; 41% Asian, up by 8%.

Blacks are still high at 91% Democratic; Hispanics are at 66% Democratic. 

By voter age (adjusted for those too young to vote in the last election), 42% of those 18-29 voted Republican (58% voted Democratic), up by 7% and steadily rising to 58% of those 65+, up by 10%.

First-time voters were evenly split.

By voter location, 61% of those in the south (31% of the population) voted Republican, up by 10%.

By religious preference, in a population of 54% Protestant, 61% voted Republican (up by 7%). 

By family income for the 18% voter families earning less than $30,000, 43% voted Republican, up by 11%; steadily rising to 57% for families earning more than $100,000, up by 6%. 

By financial situation, in a population where 63% have a family income of $50-100,000, and 41% said their family situation had worsened over the last year, 65% voted Republican, up by 37%.  In contrast, the 57% who said their family situation was better or had stayed the same, 46% voted Republican, down by 8.5%.

By ideology, in a population where 42% claim to be conservative, 86% of them voted Republican, up 9%. 

By location population, rural areas voted 64% Republican, up by 15%.  Voters in areas having more than 500,000 people, 34% voted Republican, up 7%. 

Comparing 1994 and 2010 elections, Republican votes by women (53% of the population) went up from 2% to 8%; Hispanic votes (8% of the population) went up less than 1994, from 11% to 4%; voters 60 years and older (34% of the population) went up from 7% to 10%; college grads (28% of the population) went up from 1% to 9%; voters in the south (31% of the population) went up from 6% to 10%; people with family incomes less than $30,000 (18% of the population) went up from 6% to 11%; people whose financial status is better than last year (14% of the population) went down from -26% to -22%; union households (17% of the population) went up less than 1994, from 7% to 3%; and people in rural communities (13% of the population) went up from 8% to 15%. 

There were some interesting excerpts from interesting states in the exit polls. 

AL:  Republicans also took all but one of the state’s seven seats in the House.  Republicans won a majority in the State Legislature for the first time in the 136 years since Reconstruction.

AK: The fiercest political battles in Alaska in recent years have not been across party lines but within the Republican Party.  The majority vote went for Senate write-in candidate Lisa Murkowski-R (41%).  The victory by Murkowski was a stunning upset, as no senator has won a write-in campaign since 1954. It also represents a significant setback for Republicans, who took her off the ticket and Sarah Palin, the former Alaska governor who strongly backed Joe Miller-R.  Miller’s conservative stance on issues like the growing budget deficit worried many Alaskans, whose economy is highly dependent on federal spending. 

Even though write-in incumbent Lisa Murkowski is claiming victory in Alaska’s Senate race, Republican tea party candidate Joe Miller is not giving up until all the absentee ballots have been counted and the write-in votes have been reviewed.

 AZ: Passed a state constitutional amendment preventing mandated health insurance.  Governor Jan Brewer has agreed to eliminate a health insurance program for low-income children. 

AR: A Republican will represent Arkansas in the Senate for only the second time since Reconstruction.  Defeated Sen. Blanche Lincoln-D appears to have lost due to her support of the president’s health care bill. 

CA: Meg Whitman’s-R personal $140 million went for nothing as her negative ads turned off independent voters and elected Jerry Brown-D as Governor by 13 points, along with a host of Democratic veterans instead of Republican newcomers.  Voters said they were not eager to make huge changes and a majority said they supported the job President Obama is doing.    A majority of voters early in the day said, in general, they preferred “an insider who knows how to get things done” rather than an “outsider who would shake things up.” 

Whitman’s personal unlimited wealth worked against her as she overdid it in ads and began to annoy voters.  How she turned against her undocumented immigrant housekeeper and said she should have been deported was the killing blow.  Didn’t she think that comment would affect the votes of 13.4 million Hispanics that make up 37% of the California population?  Personality is a large part of election, and Whitman failed.   

CO: Exit polls showed that the economy was a central issue for the state’s voters, with 4/10 saying their family’s financial situation had worsened in the previous two years. A majority of voters disapproved of President Obama’s job performance, and about half said that Congress should repeal the new health care law.  After a tight race and a recount, the incumbent Michael Bennet-D claimed victory.

CT: Connecticut voters defied the national trend by electing Democratic candidates in several close races.  Worries over the nation’s economy drove Senate support for Richard Blumenthal-D.  According to exit polls, 9/10 of voters expressed concern about the country’s economic future, with a clear majority of those voters backing Blumenthal.  The seat became open when Christopher J. Dodd, a Democrat, announced his retirement. 

The race for governor was too close to call as of Wednesday morning.  The Connecticut Secretary of State declared that Dannel P. Malloy-D had won, while Thomas C. Foley-R declined to concede.

DE: Chris Coons-D won a closely watched race on Tuesday. The contest became a national sensation after Christine O’Donnell-R, who has tried several times for elected office, defeated the mainstream Republican candidate, Michael N. Castle, in the primary election. Republicans had been counting on Castle to win the DE seat as part of the party’s strategy for gaining a Senate majority. 

As it turned out, Mr. Castle’s former Congressional seat — the state’s only House seat went to Democrat John C. Carney Jr.  Exit polls suggested that Coons won easily, thanks in part to the continued popularity of President Obama and Vice-President Joe Biden, the native son. Two-thirds of those surveyed said they had a favorable view of Biden, and nearly 60 percent said they approved of the job that Obama is doing as president. 

Surveys showed that Sarah Palin’s enthusiastic support for O’Donnell may have hurt more than it helped: 46% of the state’s voters expressed opposition to the Tea Party, and two-thirds held an unfavorable impression of Palin.

FL: Marco Rubio-R, a Tea Party favorite, rode a wave of voter concern over the economy to win a three-way race for the Senate.  In the waning days of the race, many Democrats, including Bill Clinton, had urged Kendrick Meek-D, a distant third in the polls, to drop out to improve the chances of Charlie Crist-I. But Meek stayed in the race, and exit polls showed that Crist and Meek hurt each other’s results as the votes split between them. 

25% of those surveyed said they were angry at the government, and 75% of these respondents voted for Rubio, according to the surveys. More than 8/10 respondents who described themselves as Tea Party supporters voted for Rubio.

HI: President Obama’s birth state gave him a rare sweep of Democratic victories.

ID: Republicans swept Idaho and unseated Walt Minnick-D, one of the most conservative Democrats in Congress.  He had backed away from his party’s agenda on economic issues and voted against the health care overhaul and the federal stimulus package.  And ads against his opponent seemed to have backfired.  Even some Democrats found them unfair.

IL: Voters narrowly elected a Republican to the Senate seat vacated by President Obama and three Republicans to House seats currently held by Democrats.  The Senate race held symbolic meaning for both parties because it was for Mr. Obama’s former seat.

IN: Indiana was a surprise victory for Barack Obama in 2008, and Republicans set their sights on bringing the conservative-leaning state back to them.  They succeeded in part, winning the Senate seat vacated by Evan Bayh-D. Republicans also took two House seats from Democrats, that left Democrats with control of only three of Indiana’s eight Congressional districts. 

KY: A majority of voters in this state want the federal government to get out of the everyday lives of its citizens and let the private sector create jobs and provide health care to workers, and they elected Rand Paul, to take its message to Washington.  Paul ran as a Republican, but he made it clear that his allegiance was to the Tea Party.

LA: Voters chose prostitution involement over presidential policies as they elected Incumbent Senator David Vittner-R to a second term.  Vitnner’s number showed up on telephone logs of a Washington prostitution ring. 

 ME: Paul LePage-R, a conservative favorite of Tea Party activists, won as governor in a three-way race whose outcome was uncertain until Wednesday morning.

MD: Republicans barely touched this increasingly Democratic state.  Senator Barbara A. Mikulski-D won a sweeping victory, for her fifth term. In January, she will become the longest-serving woman in the history of the Senate.  Democrats won six of the state’s eight House seats.

MA: Tuesday’s results served as a sobering reminder that Democrats still have the advantage in Massachusetts.  Governor Deval Patrick-D held off his Republican challenger and Democrats retained an open House seat in the 10th Congressional District.  The state is overwhelmingly Democratic.  Republicans had hoped to gain ground in Massachusetts after Scott Brown-R won the Senate seat long held by Edward M. Kennedy-D. Voters in many low-income, heavily Democratic areas turned out in far greater numbers than they had in Brown’s special election.

MI: Rick Snyder-R, a moderate and former CEO of Gateway computer, won the race for governor by talking more about jobs than about divisive social issues. 

MN: After a seven-month recount after a deadlocked 2008 Senate election elected Al Franken-D voters face more uncertainty. The governor’s race remained undecided on Wednesday, with Mark Dayton-D clinging to a narrow lead.  A recount is likely as Dayton’s 9,000-vote lead was less than half of 1 percent of the 2.1 million votes cast.  A frequently debated issue in the governor’s race was how to lessen the $6 billion deficit. Dayton said he would raise taxes on the wealthy, while his opponent pledged to cut government spending.

MS: Two of the state’s House representatives were ousted, perhaps in reaction to the Gulf oil spill since Gene Taylor-D was well liked and had held the office since 1989 and his opponent, Steve Palazzo-R was not well known. 

MO: Vicky Hartzler, a Republican backed by many Tea Party members and endorsed by Sarah Palin, scored a stunning victory over Representative Ike Skelton, a 17-term Democrat, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.  Hartzler said Skelton had lost touch with the district. She criticized him as an ally of President Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. 

NV: In a heavily Latino state that elected a Latino governor, defeated Senate challenger Sharron Angle-R was a loud voice against big government, against high taxes and against illegal immigration.  She ran negative ads portraying Latinos as menacing invaders which pushed 2/3 of Latinos to vote for Senator Harry Reid-D.  Reid promoted his support of  immigration legislation and economic recovery of housing which employs many Latinos and led a big push to register Latinos to vote. 

NH: There is reason NH is known as a swing state.  After swinging heavily Democratic four years ago, Republicans won both House seats and kept the Senate seat.

NM: Susana Martinez-R drew great support from Hispanics who usually vote Democratic.  She will be the first woman governor in this state. 

NY: In a survey of voters leaving polling places, 6/10 New Yorkers described the economy as the top issue.  Although NY remains a strongly Democratic state, Republicans took 5 Congressional districts away from Democrats, tying with Ohio for the biggest shift in House seats.  Andrew Cuomo-R won the race for governor by one of the widest margins in history (61.4%-34.1%).  Both incumbent Senators won strongly; Charles Schumer-D (65.4%) and Kirsten Gillibrand-D (62.0%) who was appointed in 2009 to replace Hillary Clinton and will finish out the two-years remaining in the term.  Despite facing ethics charges, Congressman Charles Rangel-D was re-elected by a wide margin (79.9%).

NC: Senator Richard Burr was re-elected to a seat that has not had a two-term member since 1967.  In House races, Bob Etheridge-D was the only incumbent to lose, but is asking for a recount of the 2,000 votes separating him from Renee Ellmers-R who was endorsed by Sarah Palin and helped by ads featured a mysterious video showing Etheridge grabbing a young man, demanding “Who are you?” 

ND: The state shifted parties as the popular governor, John Hoeven-R was elected Senator (76.2%).  The race for the only House seat saw Earl Pomeroy-D, seeking a 10^th term, defeated, just two years after he was re-elected by 24 percentage points. 

OH: The defeat of Governor Ted Strickland-D was one of the most painful outcomes of the election forth Democrats after campaigning by the president, vice president and former president Bill Clinton.  Democrats also lost 5 out of the 10 seats held in the House delegation.  Republicans are looking forward to redrawing district boundaries to their favor as well as suing to block health care. 

OK: The state elected their first female governor, Mary Fallin-R.  Voters also approved a constitutional amendment to prohibit “forced participation in health care systems” and another to prohibit state courts from considering international or Islamic Shariah law when deciding cases.  A Muslim group has already filed suit.

PA: Registered Democrats outnumber Republicans in swing state, but it swings with national trends.  People voted Democratic in all five presidential elections from 1992 to 2008 but swung Republican this year with voters concerned over joblessness, the economy and the health care overhaul.  Republicans won the governorship, Senate seat, five seats in the House, and too control of both state chambers. 

RI:  The state elected its first Independent governor, Lincoln Chafee-I.  Democrats held on to both House seats.  The president withheld his support from Democratic candidate Frank Caprio-D as a favor repaid to Chafee who had endorsed him in 2008.  Caprio announced that the president could “take his endorsement and really shove it.”  In a state where Obama’s popularity is really high, it cost him the election. 

SC: The state elected its first governor who is not a white male.  The election went to an Indian-American woman, Nikki Haley-R.  Tim Scott-R will be the first black Republican to represent SC in more than a century.  The election affirmed Republican rule in SC.  All but one successful candidate were Republicans.  SC is now a one-party state. 

SD: The anti-incumbency wave swept the state, voting in all Republicans. 

TN: Republicans gained control of the state legislature and governor’s office for the first time since Reconstruction and gained a majority in the state’s Congressional delegation.  The results underscored a distinct political shift in the state as the Republicans turned the election into a referendum on the economy. 

UT: Although largely Republican, the state shifted sharply to the right.  Senator Robert Bennett-R was defeated in the Republican state convention, leaving a Tea Party candidate, Mike Lee-R who won the Senate seat (61.6%). 

VT: In a razor-thin victory, the state elected Peter Shumlin-D as Governor. The prior governor was a Republican.  The state has alternated governorship parties for nearly 50 years. 

VA: Democrats lost to Republicans in 8 of the 11 Congressional districts.  One district is still undecided. 

WS:  Anti-Incumbent sentiment unseated three-term Senator Russ Feingold-D, defeated by Ron Johnson-R, a first-timer selected by the Republican party, who admitted that he couldn’t be specific on the issues because he hadn’t studied them very well. 

Voter concerns:

The first topic on people’s minds is the growing perception that the best days of America are past, and China is growing to be number one.  We were generally raised that America was the best and would always be the best, but now people are afraid our sun is setting. 

Americans see a slow slide from world dominance and prosperity and know it demands a new approach. 

Republicans seek to soothe us our fears with their confidently delivered, glossy promises of smaller government and lower taxes, the ones with the greatest appeal to those economically lower than the upper class. 

However, in Joe Klein’s entire trip, he did not meet a single political candidate who has broken through the fog around the nation’s problems with any striking solutions that sound fresh and plausible.

There is a growing feeling among voters that America has taken a wrong turn along the road to where we are today.  Piled on top of the anger of the constant drain of American manufacturing jobs to other countries, is the growing realization that the same cartel that are now raking in the profits from those moves are the same ones who scammed the system with artistic financial schemes and were bailed out when the juice ran out. 

One voter said, “I really don’t know what’s happening to us in this country. I used to be able to have civil conversations with my friends who are Republicans, but I can’t anymore. We argue about Obama constantly. He’s socializing medicine. He’s raising taxes. It’s very upsetting. I try to tell them the facts, that those things aren’t true. But they won’t listen. A whole part of my life, talking to friends about politics, no longer exists. It’s very upsetting.” 

Financial community:

The bailout of the banks by Congress is understandably the most infuriating recent action taken by our government.  The reprehensible behavior of the financial community over the last 30 years and its crippling effect on the American economy was the issue that raised the most anger by far.

The arrogant financiers of today are the same bankers who made a killing by funding the leveraged factory buyouts of the ’80s and ’90s, then shut them down, unemploying thousands of Americans, then restarted the factories in overseas countries where labor rates were more profitable. 

They were the same financiers who funded mortgages in the ’90s and early 2000′s for people without sufficient financial resources, who later defaulted by the thousands causing the value of middle-class housing to plummet.  But everyone seems to “know” that now.

Many voters understand that homeownership for all was an agenda promoted by both Democrats — through agencies like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — and Republicans.  And many understand how financial organizations obscenely enriched themselves by playing with unregulated credit-default swaps, in which fortunes were made on tiny fluctuations in the value of mortgages. 

Free trade: 

Every president since Ronald Reagan has made an argument that free trade and globalization was unavoidable.  They argued it was part of the natural process.  The economies that were more advanced with a better-educated workforce will produce goods that are better and more advanced. 

Americans never foresaw that some other country’s workers would produce the more advanced goods. 

Bill Clinton said that manufacturing jobs that went away weren’t coming back, and he was correct. 

It came about as the natural process of free trade sold workers out, replacing millions of jobs with millions of jobs in countries with lower costs.   Voters are angry that their children will never work for a good company for their entire career to retire on a pension. 

That part of the American dream no longer exists, and they are angry with the government that allowed that to happen. 

Many people believed that if you followed the basic Pilgrim compact, worked hard and played by the rules, we would have the highest standard of living in the world, but now we are stuck and China is pulling ahead.

In part it is also the American education system that has proven deficient and incapable of taking students to the higher level where China and India have surpassed America in high-tech sectors.  

A voter expressed his opinion; “How is a young person who isn’t a genius nuclear physicist going to get a job?  We need manufacturing jobs for the non-geniuses.” 

Recently, a Wall Street journal poll result showed that 86% of the American public believes that job outsourcing to foreign countries was a major cause of the recession.

The young grads:

Recently a Princeton grad with a Ph.D. in aeronautical engineering considered which Wall Street firm he should work for.  When asked why he didn’t take a job with a firm like Boeing, he replied his career track in manufacturing would peak at $90,000, while he could make that virtually overnight on Wall Street.

Another recent grad with an advanced degree and an impressive resume has been looking for a job for 8 months.  She has received a job offer in India and is seriously considering moving there. 

Our country’s best young minds have been lured from industry into finance with the promise of lucrative careers and to other countries with the promise of a good life.  Most voters believe that our leadership has no clue as to how to stop the diverting of mental talent. 

Rethinking values:

More than a few people are rethinking their basic assumptions and values.  

Even though their parents would never have walked away from their mortgage, people are questioning their own moral standards if they did.  The voters who stayed are angry with the ones who walk away.  They see it as trying to beat the system. 

People were especially annoyed about the help Obama was giving to people who were facing foreclosure.  People who were responsible when it came to buying a house are watching people who weren’t responsible getting help.  If we still had rules that made you put down 25% cash to buy a house, this problem wouldn’t have happened. 

Health care: 

If voters are angry at one thing with health care, it is the forced enrollment.  A recent poll shows that 61% of likely voters “somewhat” support repeal of the new health care law.  The majority believe the law has increased and will increase their health care costs and the federal deficit. 

Voters are annoyed that big issues are being ignored and assorted silliness is stuffed into the 2,000 page bill, like requiring businesses to have a separate private room designated for nursing mothers to use their breast pumps (Section 4207 of Subtitle C). 

Businesses are worried about the uncertainty of tax credits and purchasing exchanges affecting their bottom line when those provisions activate in 2014.  The currect environment is very negative for small businesses with health care premiums rising 15-30% this year.  Thankfully, a provision in the health care law already in effect gives businesses the right to challenge preemptive premium increases. 

Jobs:

The Republican position on jobs is clear: stimulate the private sector with lower taxes and fewer regulations. The Democratic position on jobs is unexplainable. 

Small businesses don’t hire strangers.  People get hired through friends and connections.

One voter said, “If America really knew how much encouragement companies get to move jobs out (of the country), people would really be outraged.” 

There are jobs available; but they are the minimum wage, backbreaking jobs. Illegal immigrants are the only people willing to work the agriculture jobs, with long hours, rough conditions and no benefits.  Owners of farms report that not one American ever applied for one of these jobs—not one. 

“It’s an insult to me to hear that Americans won’t do this work,” said ranking Republican member Steve King, an Iowan congressman.

However, study after study shows that people would rather have no income than work at these backbreaking jobs.  Unemployed workers would rather wait for the “ideal” job than take the first one available.  As long as unemployment benefits continue for the long-term unemployed, these choices will be made. 

By the end of this year, unemployment benefits will commence ending.  This will have a positive  effect on the national unemployment numbers because those workers will be dropped from the Civilian work force if they have not actively looked for work in the last four weeks.  With fewer people “out of work,” the unemployment rate will go down. 

It’s all in the numbers. 

The stimulus:

The $787 billion stimulus package seems slightly less abstract and porky now because of the constant, if annoying, presence of road crews on highways all over the country.  One candidate pointed out that there are 7 times as many highway construction workers at work in Wisconsin this year as there were last year. 

So, the great Washington stimulus vs. deficit reduction debate is not so hotly contested in America anymore. Taxpayers hate wasteful spending, but when asked to choose between deficit reduction and the government’s New Deal style public-works programs, they overwhelmingly choose public works.   

One candidate reported, “The Democrats in the House used the opportunity to fill out a laundry list of things that shouldn’t have been there–like $2 billion for Head Start, without any reforms to make it work better.” 

Auto industry bailout:

The hottest of all topics is government bailouts and the way people are reacting to these hard times. 

The people who understand it best are the MidWesterners.  They are grateful for the bailout, grateful for Obama who was there for the workers, and grateful for the UAW that pays “sub” pay to laid off workers.  One worker summed it up as “Obama has definitely been for the working people. If it hadn’t been the auto bailout, the whole industry would have gone under. The whole midwest would have gone under. It would have been catastrophic.” 

In Lordstown, Ohio, Chevy opened a new plant to produce a limited number (1260 copies) of the Chevy Cruze rated at 40 miles per gallon highway.  The plant hired 4500 workers. 

“That wouldn’t be happening if the President hadn’t helped the auto industry.” 

Ed. Note: Our government, along with the Canadian and Ontario governments took ownership stakes in GM last year to help it survive bakruptcy.  The American share was $50 billion.  With a strong third quarter and an impending IPO, theU.S. Treasury will sell its 264 mllion shares and make a profit of around $7 billion (14%).  Good business.    

The economy: 

The economy is ranked as the most important issue by voters, but no one seems to know exactly how to fix it.  All voters feel is that whatever is being done now is not working.   

Voters are against the raising of their own taxes, but are willing to allow tax cuts for the wealthy if it means their taxes will not go up.  Recent polls show that 56% believe tax increases will hurt the economy; 59% believe Democrats want to raise taxes; 25% believe the Republicans want to do the same. 

The war:

Americans are frustrated and confused by the war, continuous since the 9/11 terrorist attacks and now entering into our tenth year. But worries about the economy completely overshadow the war, and China is mentioned 25 times to each mention of Afghanistan.

There is little support left for the war in Afghanistan.  Responses are half-hearted.  People see the need for strong national security, but most have grave doubts about Afghanistan and the enormous amount it was costing.  

The president:

The fire that elected Barack Obama was that he was the anti-establishment candidate.  He promised change.  For that matter, so were John McCain and Bill Clinton.  But none of them were able to do anything to change the reality of what is making people angry. 

The president occupies an illusory, ethereal place right now, somewhere above and apart from the hostilities.  He is respected and sufficiently popular that Republicans hardly mention him.  But he is a mystery, even among his most passionate supporters.  He doesn’t tout his accomplishments; he doesn’t trade blows or even challenge Republican claims; and he shows little passion on the country’s primary issue: jobs. 

The prevailing sentiment about Obama is disappointment; he has worked hard without achieving meaningful results.  The impact of the reforms passed by the Democrats are beyond most people’s understanding.  What does it mean to them in terms they can understand?  The Wall Street financial bailout is detested.  People cannot see how it helped America move toward recovery.  The bailout of Chrysler and GM is less offensive because people can see the thousands of jobs saved.  

He would be cheered if he showed some assertiveness with China’s currency manipulation.  He must have reasons for not backing recent House legislation giving him rights to attach tariffs to Chinese goods. 

Voters feel Obama’s lack of experience is showing.  He is doing what he can, but conservatives feel he is leading the country away from private enterprise toward the Big Government model popular in Europe.  Voters feel this is undermining American values. 

The Washington machine:

There is a unanimous sense that Washington is a mess, broken beyond repair.  Voters are more than critical of government at all levels.  They are fed up.  Why can’t Washington get anything done?  Have they done anything for us lately? 

One candidate for re-election admitted her frustration with the partisan atmosphere: “One of the best experiences I had came at the very beginning, when all the freshmen went on a retreat together. We started talking, sharing ideas, we were making good connections, getting to know each other—but then as soon as we got to Washington, the leadership started pulling us in our separate directions.” 

People are skeptical that all the Washington spending is doing any good.  They are resentful, with so many Americans unemployed that public employees aren’t taking any of the hits that private sector employees are, and in some cases, receiving raises in pay. 

In that frame of mind, voters are highly susceptible to Republican arguments about waste and Republican promises about change.  Now they are the anti-establishment. 

The political parties: 

There is a great diversity and divisiveness among factions in this country.  There are Republican candidates and Democratic candidates; there are Tea Party candidates and then there are the Democratic incumbents looking to distance themselves from unpopular programs backed by the president and the president himself. 

One candidate seeking to distance himself from Democratic leaders in Washington crafted an ad saying, “We’re a long ways from Washington out here — just the way we like it.”

It is not a formula for a Democratic win.   

There is also the intense anti-incumbency mood spread throughout the country.  People are tired of the partisan squabbling in Washington.  Veteran politicians and freshmen politicians are being targeted for their veteran or freshman status.  Voters are looking for change.  Change out the veteran for his involvement in problems past.  Defeat the freshman for not accomplishing change. 

Lisa Urias, a Latina businesswoman in Phoenix related, “People say to me, ‘I don’t like the Democrats because I don’t know what they stand for,’ I tell them, ‘I don’t like the Republicans because I know exactly what they stand for.’”  This is no longer a Democrat or Republican football Jersey matter, it’s simply a matter of who is going to stand for the hard working families of America, not for campaign contributions. 

One voter complained, “Both the Republicans and Democrats have screwed us in pretty good. They’ve outsourced millions of jobs. Both parties allowed this to happen. Clinton started it and Bush continued it. Now those millions are getting welfare checks. You can’t have a great country without manufacturing. We have to find a way to bring those jobs back or we will be second to China.” 

Voters don’t believe that Democrats have any discipline.  If Democrats want their constituency to trust them, they will have to manage the government far better than they’re doing it now. 

Voters are sick of Republicans proposing bills that they know will not pass (because they also vote against it) so half-truths can be constructed to indicate that Democrats voted against popular voter positions.  They are disappointed by the Republican refusal to negotiate on big issues like health care and the stimulus. 

The Republican “Pledge to America” like the 1994 “Contract with America” has been a non-issue.  No Republicans are holding it aloft in a Patrick Henry stance of defiance.  In it, Republicans still advocate supply-side economics as a way out of recession. 

Supply-side economics advocates lower taxes and tax cuts for businesses so they will have extra cash to expand, hire, and produce lots of goods more cheaply, which will encourage the public to buy the goods simply because they are such a bargain. 

One of the most important lessons of the past 30 years is this: supply-side tax cuts don’t increase national revenue and in general don’t work.  Reagan tried it, Bush #41 tried it and it failed.  

My guess is that the mid-term elections will not be a sweep for either party, but a redistribution to either force both parties to work together to prove they are competent to run our country, or prove to the voters that we need to totally sweep out elected officials, especially partisan leadership. 

My opinion as to the way out of this recession is to add industries in areas Americans can excel in, concentrate on manufacturing that Americans can specialize in, and encourage brilliant minds of all nationalities to spend their careers in this country, adding to the American GDP.  This will require extensive research funding by the government.

It consists of standard Republican proposals to slash taxes, cut spending and cut down on government regulation, as well as repeal the health care law and end the stimulus program.

Republicans listened to some America Speaking Out responders and included promising to change procedures, so every bill must be made public for three days before Congress votes and cite its Constitutional justification.

There ends the specifics and begins the grass-roots vague rhetoric so popular with politicians. 

The pledge promises to “put government on a path to a balanced budget” meaning zero deficits and perhaps no borrowing, but doesn’t offer any plan on how Republicans will approach the issue. 

The pledge makes a vague promise: “We will make the decisions that are necessary to protect our entitlement programs.”  In regards to Medicare and Social Security that account for a giant portion of the soaring deficit, protecting those programs with a balanced budget means slashing benefits.  Seniors will still be protected, but with less.   

“Regarding the policies of the current government, the governed do not consent.  An arrogant and out-of-touch government of self-appointed elites makes decisions, issues mandates and enacts laws without accepting or requesting the input of the many.” 

That statement is just a blatant lie, one of several along with many half-truths throughout the manifesto.

The pledge commits House Republicans to repeal Obamacare—not to fix it, not to repair issues, but repeal it.  Republicans are giving Americans a glimpse into their character.  Who cares about people with pre-existing conditions and the more than 11 million children without health care?  Who cares about seniors who might live a little longer with cost covered preventative checkups and without the Medicare “donut hole” of no coverage?  

Apparently Republicans think those people cost too much to live.  Republicans consider them a financial burden, standing in the way of a balanced budget and government spending.  

The document offers a Republican pledge to reduce the debt burden on future generations by cutting government spending.  And if they offload healthcare costs to private companies without government regulation, only the healthy and those who can afford to be sick will survive to have future generations. 

What does a few hundred thousand lives matter when we’re trying to reduce our debt? 

The last time Republicans published a manifesto in 1994 and were swept into office they pledged to cut government spending.  But a November 13, 2000 article by Edward H. Crane, president of the libertarian Cato Institute, stated, “… the combined budgets of the 95 major programs that the Contract with America promised to eliminate have increased by 13%.”   So they spent more. 

I have tried to analyze the document point by point without prejudice.  Republicans are entitled to their point of view, but no one is entitled to promote lies and half-truths to make their point.  It should be realized that Republican priorities are power, reelection, and the organizations that fund their campaigns, and not necessarily the good of the American public.  As a note, this does not make them any different from any other group of politicians. 

Be forewarned that this is a long post.

The Pledge 

“Washington’s heavy-handed approach is not working” (opinion).

“Jobless claims continue to soar, (false) and the only parts of the economy expanding are government and our national debt.” (false)

According to the BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics), the private sector has gained a net total of 763,000 jobs this year.  Backing this figure up, Recovery.gov claims 750,045 Recovery Act funded jobs reported by recipients April 1 – June 30,2010. 

Jobless claims do not continue to soar; in fact they are down eight percent from their worst levels. 

The Republican Pledge to America claims the stimulus bill did not create any jobs, yet the nonpartison CBO (Congressional Budget Office) estimates the stimulus bill created between 1.4 million and 3.3 million jobs compared to what would have been otherwise.

According to the BLS, the civilian labor force was at 153.9 million in December 2007 with 146.2 million employed.  When the Obama administration took office, there were 142.2 million employed and that number dropped to 137.8 million in December 2009.  At the end of September 2010 the civilian labor force is 154.2 million with 139.4 million employed. 

Using BLS figures, in 2010 employment has grown by 1.6 million. 

“It is time to end this liberal Keynesian experiment and stop the attacks on our employers that prevent them from investing in our economy.”

It is difficult even for economists to understand what they are talking about here.  Keynesian economics is not an experiment; it is the process that ended the Great Depression. 

Keynesian economics relies on the circular flow of money, where what one person spends becomes part of another person’s earnings.  In a recession, the flow of money stops, and it will not end until the flow begins again.  Unemployment causes people to save money rather than spend it.

To begin the flow again, the government must spend on projects that create jobs (defense, infrastructure, etc.) and encourage businesses to spend as well through tax breaks.  But businesses will not spend to hire and expand if demand is not increasing for their goods and services.  

Uncertain demand for goods and services is preventing employers from investing in our economy.  Demand is not improving because people are conserving their money.  People are conserving their money because they fear that tomorrow there will be no job and no money coming in. 

It is neither the Democrats nor the Republicans that are holding economy from fully recovering; it is the fear of a dark and dismal future gripping Americans.  Who can blame them? 

“WHAT WE’RE UP AGAINST”

“The trillion-dollar “stimulus” spending bill has made “where are the jobs?” a national rallying cry after failing to live up to the specific promises made by its architects. Instead of remaining below eight percent, unemployment has been above nine percent for 16 consecutive months.  This is a far cry from the recovery the American people were promised.  Undeterred by dismal results, Washington Democrats continue to double-down on their job-killing policies.”

The stimulus bill was only approved for $814 billion over 10 years (CBO), not $1 trillion; this is a sample of “fish tale” exaggerations common among Republicans. 

Republicans need to be reminded that 4.4 million jobs were lost under their administration.  The employment slide started in June 2007 with a Republican administration.  Within 10 months into the current administration, the employment slide was stopped in October 2009 and employment is starting to gain ground.

Currently, there are 845,000 fewer unemployed than in October.  Historically, return to normal employment takes about twice the time (28 months) unemployment took to reach its peak. 

From Factcheck.org : “the original projections from President Obama’s economic advisers on what would happen with and without the stimulus plan are still off — and significantly so.  But nobody “promised” that unemployment would remain below 8 percent.” 

From Factcheck.org : “for the record, CBO’s experts calculate that the stimulus has had a positive effect on employment. In its most recent report on the measure, the agency estimated that in the second quarter of 2010, stimulus spending lowered the unemployment rate between 0.7 and 1.8 percentage points and increased the number of people working between 1.4 million and 3.3 million.”

The delaying issue is business confidence, that will take some time to restore whatever the makeup of Congress. 

 “President Obama is proposing spending billions more on government “stimulus” projects.”

This no doubt is in response to the president’s new pitch to spend another $50 billion on “roads, railways and runways.” 

The American infrastructure is crumbling, with more than 150,000 structurally deteriorating bridges, and 3,500 unsafe dams.  In the past 18 months, the federal Department of Transportation allocated $38.6 billion to accomplish 14,600 projects.  Most of the money (70%) is going for highway repair and to recondition crumbling dams, dikes, sewer pipes and bridges.  Most of the remainder is for new mass transit projects like rail and buses, with a billion each for airport runways and for Amtrak to repair rail beds. 

This repair effort alone will create thousands of jobs. 

This stimulus funding work has already supported nearly 46,000 jobs in the last year, and many more over the 2010 summer.  Republicans will cancel the stimulus and those 46,000 jobs if they have their way.   

Repair work eases future deficits and backlogs, and according to Smart Growth America, repair projects generate 16% more jobs than new construction work. 

We shouldn’t forget the stimulus has already cut taxes for 95% of working Americans, and distributed record amounts of unemployment benefits (which all Republicans voted against).

By Republican complaints and Congressional votes, we can conclude they are against further unemployment benefits, saving jobs for teachers, improving education for all of our children, and keeping America’s roads, bridges, rails, runways and tunnels safe.   

Republicans and Democrats are both in favor of government accountability, and the stimulus program Race to the Top awards grants to promote accountability in public schools.  So far 35 states and the District of Columbia have enacted reforms to qualify for the program. 

Without getting into the health care issue, the stimulus will greatly improve the current health record system, moving it from pencil-and-paper to a secure computer system, that will at the same time make consistent medical records available to a patient’s medical provider without having to deal with illegible handwriting and duplication of expensive testing.  It will also prevent patients from “doctor shopping” to receive duplicate fills of drugs for their own purposes.  This alone will reduce the costs of health care for employers and Americans and create thousands of jobs in technology and health care. 

The CBO has estimated that health reform will reduce the deficit by $143 billion over the next ten years. 

The stimulus will also make Americans much less dependent on imported oil by promoting energy gathered from sun, wind and earth.  The number of hybrid cars in the government auto fleet will be quadrupled, and smart electric meters in American homes will triple. 

It will help to expand the use of wind turbine and solar products, funding practical research into product improvement.  It will upgrade the nation’s power grid to support the anticipated greatly increased usage of power, protecting against nationwide electrical failure.  Expansion of green technologies will create thousands of jobs to manufacture, install and maintain the products. 

It will also fund the refitting of federal buildings in Washington D.C. to cut energy usage by 55% from their current $24.5 billion annual energy bill. 

Regardless of how the Republicans talk down about the stimulus bill, it has created jobs and will create thousands more.  It will reduce future deficits by affecting repairs now.  It will save money for Americans by reducing their energy bills.  It will improve health records, preventing duplication and mistakes; and it will help our children get a better education.

Read: How the Stimulus Is Changing America

“He also wants to raise taxes on roughly half of small business income in America. Raising taxes on anyone in a struggling economy – especially family owned businesses – is precisely the wrong thing to do. Economists agree, as do the American people.”

This is a pretty safe editorial.  No numbers or survey results.  It could be true with two economists and two Americans. 

Raising taxes on “roughly half the small business income in America,” is a manipulative exaggeration. Much of the income the GOP is counting actually comes from big businesses making over $50 million a year.

Statistics about Business Size (including Small Business) from the U.S. Census Bureau (Compiled by Enterprise Receipt size-U.S. all industries) shows that in 2007 (latest survey) there were 7.7 million single location establishments in the U.S.  Of those, 6.0 million were multi-location in the same state (firms). 

Note: About three quarters of all U.S. business firms have no payroll and account for about 3.4 percent of business receipts. 

There are 1.2 million single-location establishments and 41 thousand firms (multi-location establishments) with income greater than $50 million per year.  They average 54 locations per firm (within the same state), 50 employees per location, account for 51.5% of the workforce and 73.2% of the nation’s business revenue. 

On the other side, there are 6.4 million single-location establishments and 6.0 million firms (multi-location establishments) making less than $50 million per year.  Almost all are single location establishments but some go up to 4 locations.  They average 29 employees per location, account for 48.5% of the workforce and 26.8% of the nation’s business revenue. 

Single location businesses account for 67.2% of employment for firms making less than $50 million per year.  These are the family-owned businesses, not those with revenues excedeeding $50 million per year. 

From Factcheck.org : “This is an exaggeration. Republicans are equating “net positive business income” reported on individual returns with “small business income,” which isn’t correct. They rely on a report from the nonpartisan staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (p. 12), which estimated that about 3 percent of taxpayers who have any business income on their personal returns would see a tax increase under Obama’s proposal, and that those 750,000 taxpayers account for about half of all the business income reported.

But some of that income is from big businesses raking in tens of millions of dollars a year. The JCT stated quite clearly that “These figures for net positive business income do not imply that all of the income is from entities that might be considered ‘small.’” Some in fact are quite large, and those big businesses account for a good chunk of that income.” 

This uses an incorrect source for accusations (in spite of being warned away by the source itself).

My question is, can we trust a party that is so manipulative of numbers?

“In addition to punishing businesses (only the 41,000 firms making more than $50 million), these looming tax hikes will hurt every family in America”

Republicans are connecting the possibility of a tax increase on 0.53% of the businesses in America and the Bush tax cuts that will be continued.  

“During the 1990s, a Republican (-controlled) Congress (there were others there, too) enacted pro-family policies such as marriage penalty relief and the child tax credit.” 

Actually, it was not during the 1990s, it was the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 signed into law on June 7, 2001 to help America recover from the recession of 2001.   

The vote was 58-33 in the Senate and 240-154 in the House.  Among Democrats, 28 voted Yea in the House and 12 voted Yea in the Senate. Evidently, this was before Supermajority,  bloc voting, and bitter animosity came into fashion in our Congress. 

“Rein in the Red Tape Factory in Washington, DC”

“Excessive federal regulation is a de facto tax on employers and consumers that stifles job creation, hampers innovation (??) and postpones investment in the economy.”

Incorrect.  If investment in the economy has been postponed, how did the Dow Jones Industrial Average, which reflects investor value, climb to 11,000? 

Federal regulations prevents sweatshops, employing small children, paying a minimum wage, providing decent working conditions like adequate lighting, clean air and temperature control.  Regulations have been passed because businesses are unable to put their employees before profit.  

“Unless action is taken, a $3.8 trillion tax hike will go into effect on January 1, 2011 that will unravel these policies. A family of four with a household income of $50,000 a year will have to pay $2,900 more in taxes in 2011, according to a new analysis by Deloitte Tax LLP, a tax consulting firm.  The same family making $100,000 a year will see its taxes rise by $4,500. In addition, the marriage penalty will return, the child tax credit will be cut in half, and the Alternative Minimum Tax will ensnare more than 25 million taxpayers.” (scare tactic-boogeyman images) 

From Factcheck.org : “Misleading. What the Pledge fails to note is that Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress have consistently promised to extend the Bush tax cuts for all families making less than $250,000 a year, and singles making less than $200,000. It’s true that hasn’t happened yet, but the reason is that several House and Senate Democrats are agitating to extend the cuts for everybody, even those with the highest incomes.”

There is no doubt that the Bush tax cuts will continue.  Both Democrats and Republicans agree on that.  The difference is where the cutoff should be. 

In truth, Congress may possibly come to a stalemate, but regardless of the election outcome, Democrats will still be in the majority until January. 

“Washington-focused economic policies have failed to put people back to work (false) and have pushed our nation to the brink of a fiscal crisis.” (false)

“The American people know that to boost the economy, spending must be slashed, tax increases must be prevented, and small businesses must have certainty that the rules won’t change every few months (every few months?) so they can get back on their feet.” 

I’m curious to know where the survey is that shows the American people know what to do to boost the economy.  Where is the economic basis for these predictions?  These are all half-truths.    

“The constant threat (??) of new taxes and new regulations prevents investors and entrepreneurs from putting capital at risk.” 

Is that why the stock market climbed to 11,000?

“These private sector employers must be given the certainty that if they take a risk to expand their company or hire a new employee, Washington won’t yank the rug from under their feet.” 

Here is something we can agree on.

“Permanent (??) bailouts, government takeovers (??), threats of tax increases (??) and “stimulus” spending sprees (??) have combined to create uncertainty for private investment in our economy and keep employers on the sidelines.  The longer our government refuses to wake up and abandon its job killing agenda, the longer it will take to turn things around and get people working again”

This is faulty logic; wrong reasons and boogeyman scare tactics.  The real reason is uncertain sales of goods and services looking forward. 

“Since the trillion-dollar (there’s that exaggerated amount again) ‘stimulus’ was signed into law in February 2009, the unemployment rate has climbed and is stuck near 10 percent. Despite the ‘stimulus’ and Democrats’ promises the unemployment rate would remain below eight percent, the unemployment rate climbed from 7.7 percent in January 2009 to 9.5 percent in August 2010.” 

As I recall, when the Stimulus bill was passed on February 13, 2009 (with every Republican except 3 Senators voting against it), the current administration had been in office 24 days.  Unemployment growth started in June 2007 with a Republican administration, and peaked in October 2009. 

Republicans need to be reminded that 4.4 million jobs were lost under their administration.  Within 10 months of the current administration, the employment slide was stopped and is starting to grow again. 

Once again, from Factcheck.org : “the original projections from President Obama’s economic advisers on what would happen with and without the stimulus plan are still off — and significantly so.  But nobody “promised” that unemployment would remain below 8 percent.”

“OUR PLAN TO END THE UNCERTAINTY AND CREATE INCENTIVES FOR JOB GROWTH”

“If we’ve learned anything during the recession, it’s that we cannot tax and spend our way to prosperity.”

“The best way to get people working again is to rein in the growth of government and end the uncertainty facing small businesses. By addressing both issues, our plan revives free enterprise and moves America away from a debt-driven economy.”

Rein in the growth of government and allow the certainty of doing whatever business wants.  Repeal the minimum wage and we will have plenty of jobs in poor conditions at less per hour. 

“Permanently Stop All Job-Killing Tax Hikes” 

“We will help the economy by permanently stopping all tax increases, currently scheduled to take effect January 1, 2011.  That means protecting middle-class families, seniors worried about their retirement, and the entrepreneurs and family-owned small businesses on which we depend to create jobs in America.”

Once again, there is no doubt that the Bush tax cuts will continue.  Both Democrats and Republicans agree on that.  The difference is where the cutoff should be. 

From Factcheck.org : “Misleading. What the Pledge fails to note is that Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress have consistently promised to extend the Bush tax cuts for all families making less than $250,000 a year, and singles making less than $200,000.”

A spokesman for Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada said, “Democrats believe we must permanently extend tax cuts for the middle-class before they expire at the end of the year, and we will.”  Hopefully, Republicans will join them. 

“Give Small Businesses a Tax Deduction”

“We will allow small business owners to take a tax deduction equal to 20 percent of their business income. This will provide entrepreneurs with a much-needed infusion of capital for investment and new hiring.”

This is a plan.  Unfortunately, small business owners will not expand until their sales figures give them reason to expand.  Expanding first is “supply-side” economics that doesn’t work under these conditions.

 Federal regulations prevents sweatshops, employing small children, paying a minimum wage, providing decent working conditions like adequate lighting, clean air and temperature control.  Regulations have been passed because businesses are unable to put their employees before profit. 

“When the game is always changing, small businesses cannot properly plan for the future. To provide stability, we will require congressional approval of any new federal regulation that has an annual cost to our economy of $100 million or more. This is the threshold at which the government deems a regulation “economically significant.” If a regulation is so “significant” and costly that it may harm job creation, Congress should vote on it first.”

Sounds OK for government transparency as well. 

“Repeal Job-Killing Small Business Mandates”

“One of the most controversial mandates of the Democrats’ government takeover of health care requires small businesses to report to the Internal Revenue Service any purchases that run more than $600. This 1099 reporting mandate is so overbearing that the IRS ombudsman has determined that the agency is ill-equipped to handle all the resulting paperwork. We will repeal this job-killing small business mandate.”

It sounds a little low for business purchases, when a single desktop computer can cost that much.  The IRS 1099 is used for reporting income to contractors and temporary help that are not employees.  This is nothing new. 

Perhaps the Republicans do not know this.

From Factcheck.org : “It repeats a bogus assertion that the Internal Revenue Service may need to expand by 16,500 positions, an inflated estimate based on false assumptions and guesswork.”

I am reminded that the last time Republicans published a manifesto in 1994 and were swept into office they pledged to cut government spending.  A November 13, 2000 article by Edward H. Crane, president of the libertarian Cato Institute, stated, “… the combined budgets of the 95 major programs that the Contract with America promised to eliminate have increased by 13%.”   So they spent more. 

Read Fact Check.org’s report on The Pledge

The Pledge draws a dismal picture of an economy sputtering toward ruin; with increasing  joblessness (grossly incorrect), and a federal budget wracked by record deficits and ballooning debt.

Many claims are incorrect and exaggerated and any facts that brighten the future picture are omitted.

Previously we looked at the Republican 1994 Contract with America that coincided with the takeover of Congress by Republicans due to dissatisfaction, scandal, and redistricting. 

GOP Pledge—1994 Contract with America

Next, we’ll continue to look at the actual GOP Pledge to America document Republicans published in 2010.  What are the promises they make in the Pledge, what are the truths and the half-truths, and what has already been accomplished?

The latest Associated Press-GfK poll found nearly three-quarters of survey respondents disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job, with 68 percent disapproving of Republicans compared with 60 percent disapproving of Democrats. 

On September 23, 2010, Republicans issued their new manifesto, although they are careful to avoid referring to it as such (negative connotation).   Republicans are calling it their “Pledge to America,” a 21-page document (plus photos) composed to show the American voters that they are listening to an angry public fed up with Congress and both parties.    

Since May, Republican leaders have been asking for input from American voters who logged in to a taxpayer funded Republican web site called America Speaking Out. 

According to the three-month Alexa traffic rankings, the AmericaSpeakingOut.com audience and visitors to the site view an average of 2.5 unique pages per day. Its audience tends to be aged under 25 and over 45; they are also disproportionately childless, moderately educated men earning over $30,000. Almost all its audience is located in the U.S.  

As I looked at the Pledge and the history leading up to it, I realized that covering the subject would be too long for a single blog entry, so it will be divided up into several consecutive parts. 

The America Speaking Out Survey

The number of responders was quite small in relation to the number of voters, but they should be commended for taking the time to respond. 

For the 2008 election, there were 146 million registered voters.  That was 71 percent of voting-age citizens.  131 million people voted (64 percent).  Normally, about 50 percent vote.   

There is no guarantee that the responders to the survey were all voters, or that they were U.S. citizens, or lived in the U.S. or that they were not part of the Republican team loading the survey.  For that we must rely on their honor. 

There was one suggestion under Fiscal Responsibility / Waste that stated the Republican platform almost word for word. 

The counts of people submitting ideas and voting in the subcategories far exceeded the total counts given in the overall categories. 

One responder was identified as the most active, with nearly 100,000 activity points given for submitting ideas, responding to ideas, and voting on ideas.  There were no other profiles mentioned, but a handful of super active participants could have loaded the response balance.  I could elect whomever I wanted if I was allowed to vote an unlimited number of times.

There were a fair amount of opinions from people with incorrect information, such as thinking that public officials get full salary and benefits for life after serving one term, or thinking that candidates don’t want to offend illegal aliens, because they will vote them out of office. 

As a note, most states require a picture ID to register to vote, and in a few years, federal law is expected to require citizenship for licenses.   This may handicap the elderly, the challenged and other citizens who may want to vote, but most have a Social Security card that requires proof of citizenship, and Medicaid recipients must now prove citizenship.  If there are illegal aliens voting, it’s a small percentage that would risk being discovered and deported. 

There were complaints that some ideas that were submitted several times were rejected with an “inappropriate message.”

Survey Summary

Ed.Note: I reviewed the website, and extracted those ideas that had the most votes, as well as the essence of the comments I felt were the responders’ hot buttons.  Some items were relocated from their website category and condensed for reading clarifty.

Job creation and Fiscal responsibility were the top two hands-down winners. 

Job Creation

Responders suggested stopping both the outsourcing and insourcing of jobs.  Tax breaks should be eliminated and taxes increased for companies who outsource to compensate for lost American worker revenue.  Heavily fine companies employing illegal immigrants (estimate 12 million living in the U.S.) and deport the immigrants. 

Responders suggested making unemployment eligibility mean “I can’t find a job I am qualified for” and not “I can’t find the job I want”. If a person is deemed physically fit to work, they should not simply be able to reject a job and get unemployment because it’s not what they want to do.  Too many people have reached a comfort level on unemployment. 

Fiscal Responsibility

Responders targeted members of congress, suggesting they reduce staff, eliminate postal privileges, close office gyms, eliminate travel budgets, sell their limos, and revoke their military aircraft privileges.  Require all Congressional travel expenses to be public within 30 days of travel. 

In other words, these angry citizens want the members of congress to have citizen job benefits like “normal” people. 

Prohibit legislators and their employees and families from receiving money and other gifts from businesses and lobbyists. Our representatives should be accountable to one and only one interest, their constituents.

An example of the anger people have with Congress  is “I think we should quit giving the resigned politicians a pension, Most times they have done nothing to deserve it. Think of the money the government would save. They are not entitled to it.”

Responders suggested reducing the size of our military spending drastically.  It’s currently over 50% of our national budget and doesn’t need to be so gargantuan. Our carrier fleet alone is several times larger than the entire world’s fleets put together. If you cut that by itself you’d save the American taxpayer quite a bit of money and even have some left over for infrastructure improvements, better schools and social programs that will make this nation stronger over all.

Welfare in the United States has been transformed to the point where it’s no longer designed to help people get by during bad times. Instead, welfare is used as a permanent crutch for the recipient and as a political advantage to one political party or another.

Government Reform:

Responders suggested a complete audit of federal agencies and programs, assessing their Constitutionality, and identifying duplication, waste, ineffectiveness, or better left for states or local authorities.  Streamline Government; there are 100 Agencies doing substantially similar things. Government should be managed more like a company.

No unrelated spending amendments should be allowed.  Americans HATE the ‘earmarks’ that Washington pushes through.  Too often spending amendments are attached to unrelated bills. If the spending can’t pass on its own, don’t pass it.  Make a rule that each bill put forth in the house and senate only deal with the bill, no add-ons for pork or other pet projects that don’t deal with the crux of the bill. 

Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does.  All legislation must be read in full on the floor of Congress. Everyone voting on a bill must certify having heard the entire reading or that they have read it personally in it’s entirity.

Transparency / Open Government:

Transparency – American taxpayers deserve to see where their tax dollars are going, on the way into the legislative process and on the way out. This means ending the practice of rushing bills through Congress at the speed of light by requiring legislation be posted online for five days before it can be scheduled for a floor vote. This gives taxpayers the opportunity to read bills and offer feedback and potentially devastating legislation.

We also must demand that ALL government expenditures, down to the line-item expense, be put online in a searchable, easily accessible format so taxpayers can track, dollar-for-dollar, where their hard-earned money is going. The only way to stop the spending is to keep representatives accountable – American taxpayers deserve the tools that will empower them to become good fiscal watchdogs of the state.

Require an on-line, instant update website listing what lobbyist’s are courting what politicians and for what reason.  

Tax Reform:

Replace all taxes with a simple flat income tax on all individuals and corporations.  This way every one is taxed at the same rate, no more of the “progressive” tax scale.

ENACT THE FAIR TAX. collect taxes from EVERYONE here (including tourists and illegal aliens), at the point of consumption where it is clear, straight forward and visible, they are obvious every time you purchase something at the retail level.  

American Values / Life:

Abortion is not healthcare. Abortion is a complex, difficult moral issue. It is not the proper role of the government to make our moral decisions for us. Let people make up their own minds and take responsibility for their decisions. If we are to be the party of small government, less government intrusion, and personal liberty, we must stop trying to legislate abortion away. It’s not the government’s place to be a nanny that chooses our morality for us.  The sanctity of life should support whatever a woman wishes to do with her body. Without this right freedom is meaningless

Illegals are giving birth in the USA just to have an American child and stay here illegally (known as ‘anchor babies).  If an illegal gives birth in the USA, the mother and child should be deported back home and the child not recognized as an American citizen. They need to go back to their home country and follow the legal process of becoming an US citizen. Modify the 14th Amendment allowing anyone born in the United States citizenship.

Health Care:

Repeal Obamacare and allow companies and individuals to purchase insurance across State lines.  We need to return to one deductible, maximum deductible per family, and then 80/20 coverage with the exception of 80/20 from the start for prescription drugs.  Make health care and insurance more affordable by enabling a competitive, open, and transparent free-market health care and health insurance system that isn’t restricted by state boundaries. 

The federal government shouldn’t be in the business of forcing you to buy health insurance and taxing you if you don’t.  Make health a right, not a privilege. Treat protection from injury or disease just like protection from crime or fire. Imagine if the police and fire departments were a for profit industries. Wealthy neighborhoods that could afford top quality protection would prosper, middle class neighborhoods would become slums, and poorer neighborhoods would simply deteriorate from crime and burn to the ground. Take the profit out of healthcare. 

InfraStructure:

Building a modern, safe and efficient infrastructure is critical to creating U.S. jobs.

We need to vastly improve our power grid as a part of any new energy initiative. A large percentage of our energy is lost due to an outdated power grid.

Government needs to invest more in mass transit in the cities and develop realistic mass-transit between urban hubs. Stop spending our tax money to create new streets and infrastructure in outlying areas.

There was a small but consistent thread of suggestings regarding term limits for all members of Congress. 

Republicans have said that the America Speaking Out program was about the short term, not about an election, but there is no denying the project bears a strong resemblance to the Contract with America, the 1994 document that laid out what the party would do if it took control of the House. 

Next, we’ll look at the last Contract with America Republicans published in 1994.  Although they swept into control of Congress, was it the contract or were there other reasons? 

GOP Pledge—1994 Contract with America

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

They saw our two-house legislature as reflecting the will of the people, but with checks and balances to prevent “the tyranny of the majority” (James Madison). 

While the House with its 435 members representing the popular opinion of the nation’s voters, the Senate, with its two members per state, was visualized as a thoughtful and reflective body, like a modern think tank, where heated issues could cool somewhat and consequences could be considered before new laws were enacted. 

The Constitution provides for both houses to pass legislation with a simple majority vote of those present.  To prevent the “tyranny of the majority,” it also provides a method for the minority to delay a majority vote and gather support for its point of view.  That method is called the ‘filibuster.’ 

The Constitution allows each house to set its own rules.  Each piece of legislation allows a debate on the subject.  Senate rules allow a Senator, or series of Senators (each yielding the floor to the next), to speak for as long as they wish on any subject they choose.  The filibuster can be ended by a 3/5 or 60-Senator vote for cloture (end debate). 

The 60-Senator vote is known as a supermajority. 

It is also possible to end debate through a legal maneuver known as the Nuclear Option, where a Senator brings up a point of order, reminding the Senate that its rules are not being followed with the filibuster.  If the presiding officer makes a ruling to uphold the point of order, and if a simple majority of the Senators vote to uphold the ruling, the debate is ended and a vote on the issue is held immediately.   

Without the threat of filibuster, the Senate needs only a simple majority of 51 votes to pass legislation and uphold rulings.  But when filibuster is threatened on major bills and issues, 60 votes are needed to move past debate to the vote. 

The party-line divisiveness of the modern Senate has made almost all legislative issues require a supermajority to pass.  Although the supermajority vote to end debate is not a bad thing, its use as a weapon in the trench warfare between parties has left the voters as victims. 

An additional use of the 60-Senator vote is used to modify budgeting, authorization, as well as appropriation guidelines and restrictions. 

Each year by October 1, Congress must construct a budget it can stick to, considering government income as well as expenses.  It must authorize new and ongoing programs and agencies that come into being as the result of bill passage or already exist, with non-binding recommended spending levels to carry out the program’s policies.  And it must pass appropriation funding bills, providing the legal authority to use funds from the U.S. Treasury.  

The annual Congressional budget is simply an outline of anticipated federal spending for the coming year, setting limits on discretionary spending if everything works out according to plan.  It also allows procedural points of order for bills that exceed their spending caps.   

When a bill, chugging its way through the enactment process, generates a program or agency budget that will violate its Congressional appropriation, a Senator may raise a point of order.  That appropriation point can be waived by a 60-Senator vote. 

On the saving side of the government ledger, the Congressional budget resolution may include a “reconciliation” figure.  This is assigned to a congressional committee with directions to produce legislation that lowers spending by that amount. 

Passage of a reconciliation bill is an express train with a limit of 20 hours of debate and only a majority of Senate votes for enactment. 

We may learn more about reconciliation in the near future, with pressure building in Congress to pass a health reform bill and the recent upset in Massachusetts, where Republican Scott Brown was elected to serve out the remainder of Senator Ted Kennedy’s term, ending in 2012.  Although a proponent of health care reform, Brown has come out against President Obama’s health care plan in its present form as fiscally unsound. 

With the health care reform bill now in the merging process between House and Senate, we can be sure the 60-Senator rule will be in place, and the Democrats are now one Senator short of the necessary 60 votes for their plan.   

Options for passage of the health care reform bill in some form include

• convincing at least one Republican to vote their way
• scaling down or revising the plan to make it more agreeable to opponents
• requesting the House to pass the Senate bill intact
• using the reconciliation process to pass budget item portions of the bill (that will expire in either five or ten years)

As aggravating and as slow as the Senate process is using the 60-Senator hurdle, perhaps James Madison was right.  Perhaps it does protect us.

The House version of the economic stimulus package was passed 244-188 almost entirely on party lines (so much for bipartisanship) with every Republican voting against it.

Republicans wanted to strip spending for rebuilding roads and bridges and upgrade healthcare and schools, and instead provide only tax cuts of about $478 billion.

Ed.note:  I didn’t think so during the campaign, but Obama was right.  The Republicans are out of touch.  The members of Congress don’t see the need for upgrading health care, since they are part of the Federal Employees Health Benefits program that gives them top-level health care with many choices, mostly paid for by the government.  They can’t see roads and bridges in need of repair from private jets and limousines.  And they don’t need jobs, but what good is a tax cut to the millions that are out of work and have no income to tax?

There are also aggressive groups against the stimulus, collectively known as the “Do-Nothings.”  Their arguments include that the stimulus money is aimed at getting consumers spending and borrowing again where spending and borrowing were the problem in the first place.  I would feel better if they understood the problem was centered on borrowing to spend, not spending by itself. 

Our economy relies on the balanced and even flow of money.  For the individual, this boils down to monthly payments.  The economy collapsed because the supply of money in paychecks, etc. suddenly failed to keep up with the speed of the stream of capital required to pass from debtor to creditor.  Since everyone is both a debtor and a creditor, the flow slowed to a trickle for all, and creditors stopped extending credit.

The opponents quote the government regrets spending in crisis, quoting the Iraqi war (preemptive strike against a dictator with a history of attempted genocide by poison gas?), the Patriot Act (more than 700 thwarted terrorist attacks?), and the $700 billion bailout plan (still in process, but judged a failure by opponents).

Many of the Do-Nothings argue that a painful recession is the best way to cure American’s runaway culture of irresponsibility and debt and the government should allow the economic chips to fall where they may.  It is brutal but it is called capitalism and it works, where the alternative is socialism and it doesn’t work.

Ed.Note: These are all Republicans speaking who would do anything, including the destruction of America to make the other party look bad.  And Socialism is not an all or nothing policy – that’s called Communism.

Full-page ads against the stimulus will include the names of 250 economists who oppose the stimulus.  According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are 12,740 working economists (SOC code 19-3011) in this country, at an average annual salary of $86,700.  That is less than 2% that have a dissenting opinion; hardly a mandate. 

The Do-Nothings advance that it is morally improper to deliver a crushing debt load to the next generation.  The thought passes my mind that the next generation will be a lot fewer if people feel they have no economic future and refuse to bring children into that world. 

It is also historical fact that these bailouts are mostly recovered by the government over a period of time through an increased tax base and compliance from working Americans.  What better way to spend our money than to attempt to provide for our children’s future, especially by improving the educational system, which is the lion’s share of the spending.

The Do-Nothings point out that housing sales rose 6.5 percent from November to December and this could be an indication that lower prices will draw buyers into the system.  They minimize the point that the increase for that month was based on the strength of bargain hunters picking up foreclosed properties. 

Ed.Note:  I am not sure I trust an economist who considers a single month a trend.  I know two young couples, both with high-paying jobs and no children who have purchased five foreclosed properties with the intent of renting them.  They are not exactly a portrait of the average American family.

On the other hand, to be fair, the Do-Nothings point out that without the stimulus, corrections are being made naturally.  Weak companies are going bankrupt.  It is hoped that the stronger ones will pick up their market share and laid-off employees.  Other companies, like the automakers are facing the facts that they haven’t been making the products that customers really want. 

American families are paying down their enormous debt.  This helps the economy because the money is paid to the credit card company or bank, where it can add to its reserves and extend more credit to those who need it.  When backs are against the wall, Americans know the right thing to do.

“Our standard of living must come down to the point where it can be supported by organic output,” quoting an interview with an investment consultant.  Weren’t those guys some of the ones who helped topple the economy in the first place?

The Do-Nothings fully expect to lose their argument, but put out the ads because they feel they have to Do Something.  And even though they are against it, they think it won’t work because it is not enough.  ??

His two-year $820 billion economic recovery blueprint includes plans for computerized medical records, a national electricity grid to distribute renewable energy, lower taxes for everyone under his ‘affluent’ income line, modernized schools, and education initiatives.  The House bill includes roughly $550 billion in domestic spending and about $275 billion in tax cuts.

The goal is to advance the policies the president laid out in his campaign, including education improvement, health care cost reductions, moves toward energy independence and aid to low and middle income workers.

When passed, the legislation will require all business funding recipients to publish a plan for using the funds, along with purpose, cost, rationale, net job creation, and contact information about the plan to a new website Recovery.gov so that the public can review and comment.

About $275 billion is designated for tax cuts sent directly to the states to protect the jobs of firefighters, local government employees and public health workers as well as tax credits for education and first time homebuyers.

Job-creating road and bridge funds ($90 billion) will favor repairs to existing structures rather than funding new ones.  Repair jobs can be initialized faster, quickly injecting payroll spending into the economy, as well as curtailing urban sprawl leading to increased fuel consumption.

There will also be jobs created for clean energy development ($58 billion), a national electric grid, and funds to weatherize homes and public buildings.  It is hoped the recovery plan will spark energy efficient thinking and building as well as renewable energy technologies.

There is close to $142 billion allocated for education to protect the jobs of teachers as well as attempt to stop the “dropout crisis” and provide an easier path for many American youth to become productive taxpayers.  Studies have shown that cutting the dropout rates in half would pay back $9 for each $1 invested, representing new tax revenues and savings in welfare and incarcerations.

Funding will also go toward expanding wiring providers and implementing universal broadband service to extend Internet service to rural areas.  Internet access will allow companies to hire remote workers to work at home, saving on office expenses as well as allow individuals the opportunity to run small businesses on the Internet.  It will also be a vehicle for coordinating expanded health care records.  It is estimated that for each $1 invested in this area will return about $10 in increased productivity to the economy.

Health care investments ($111 billion) to the states to expand Medicaid will result in cost reductions connected to the medical industry’s expanded use of information technology.  The expanded use of technology to coordinate medical records ($20 billion) will minimize duplication, re-entering the same data, and “doctor shopping” for multiple issues of the same prescriptions.  On the negative side, this technology expansion has people concerned over privacy on a national network, but tight encryption methods are readily available.

President Obama’s election mandate, along with a party majority in Congress, presents him with an opportunity to spend and cut taxes more than any president in our history, with the possible exception of Franklin D. Roosevelt in the Great Depression. 

To highlight the momentum of the recovery proposal, we can compare it to the $16 billion stimulus Bill Clinton asked the Democratic-controlled Congress for in 1993 when he had just come into office, and they turned him down.

So far, this Congress has only cut out a $3,000 tax credit for businesses for each new hire.

The size of this package is annually nearly half as much as the total federal annual discretionary spending budget with the exception of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. 

The package is expected to be on the president’s desk by February 13, a scant three weeks after he took office.

He soon expects to sign legislation against gender pay discrimination (signed 1/29/2009) and for low-income child health care.  He has already issued an executive order removing the ban on federal abortion funding and expects to soon revive federal financing for embryonic stem-cell research.

Ed.Note: The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Play Act of 2009 was signed into law after passing both houses almost strictly along party lines.  The Republicans are acting like spoiled brats, voting against any Democratic legislation, no matter how it advances the causes of right and good for the country.  This was a vote by Republicans against Democrats, but it comes across as a vote against women and minority equality. 
I am ashamed of the Republican party.

President Obama will spend a lot of time himself lobbying for the passage of this bill.  He wants to go to the American people and report that this is a package passed by both parties in Congress.  However, Republican ‘nay Sayers’ claim this package will not work, so they are voting not to do anything with regard to government spending and have no positive suggestions of their own, except tax cuts.  The Republican approach is to offer tax cuts, and let the social economy recover and advance at a natural pace, a process that could take decades.

The package passed the both the House Appropriations committee and the committee on Ways and Means strictly along party lines and it is likely the bill will pass Congress along party lines as well.  This is another example of one Party driving while the other becomes a dragging anchor.

In addition to the $820 billion stimulus package, better known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment plan of 2009, the president will oversee the distribution of the second half of the $700 billion TARP program.  He has said he will have a strong message for bankers about sitting on any taxpayer bailout money, reminding them of their commitment to restart credit to both business and individual and work with struggling homeowners to avoid foreclosure.