Many of us remember last year’s showdown over raising the federal debt limit.

What could be some reasons behind it the line drawn between the Capitol building and the White House?

The debt ceiling increases, as well as federal spending, the staggering national debt and President Obama’s fiscal stewardship are all issues the GOP is campaigning on.

The last debt ceiling standoff in 2011 worked very well for the Republicans.  They got huge spending cuts that slowed the economy and drove the president’s approval rating into the basement.

It also drove Congressional ratings down, but eight months later, everyone has forgotten the particulars of the fight and approval ratings are once again reasonable.  This was such a good political weapon that it will be brought out repeatedly until someone connects responsibility with the crises and makes them accountable.

Mitt Romney will certainly be the Republican standard bearer in the fall of this year.  The post-election battles like managing the debt ceiling and the expiration of the Bush tax cuts at the end of the year as well as their ensuing messy cleanups would not be something a political party wants to leave for an incoming Republican leader.  And they don’t.

My best guess is that the Washington D.C. Republicans believe that Mitt Romney will not win the election.  The Republicans are putting their hopes into taking over Congress by maintaining control of the House and capturing the Senate which will severely weaken the influence of the existing president.

The debt limit position doubtlessly comes from the Tea Party portion of the Republican caucus.  Those members still believe that they have an unwavering mandate from their electorate to reduce the federal budget by a huge chunk, even if it puts the United States into default.

And John Boehner wants to keep his job and survive a GOP vote for the next Speaker of the House.

The sizable Tea Party faction of the GOP caucus, combined with the unruly and nearly uncontrollable members of his party has kept Boehner in a cage since his first day of speakership, releasing him only when they need a bloodthirsty champion.  They are still angry with him for trying to cut a deal with the president last summer.  He will not let that happen again.

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. 

The legislation provides $10 billion to state school districts, to rehire and save 300,000 state employee jobs, more than half of them (160,000) teaching jobs. 

The remaining $16 billion will help states pay their share of Medicaid, public health for the very poor.  State budgets have been decimated during this recession as Medicaid costs have soared. 

Analysts say the latest cash infusion is essential to preserving the fragile economic recovery.  The last thing our current economy needs is more people out of work.

States are experiencing the largest revenue drop that they’ve ever faced.  This rescue package contains funds that must be spent rehiring teachers and sustaining state payrolls. 

This funding is fully paid for from closing a business tax loophole and will not add to the federal deficit.  As reported by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, it will actually lower the deficit over the next 10 years.

The Senate approved this critical funding by a vote of 61-39 on August 5, 2010, with only two Republicans (Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, both of Maine) breaking with party orders to vote in favor of saving teacher jobs.

Considering the impending school year start, Nancy Pelosi,(D-CA) Speaker of the House of Representatives, called House members back from their August recess to vote on the measures approved by the Senate. The bill passed 247-161 on August 10, 2010, with only two Republicans (Michel Castle (R-DE) and Anh Cao (R-LA)) in favor of saving teacher jobs.

The fast track passing of this bill will allow the U.S. Department of Education to begin distributing this funding to the states’ governors by September using a formula based on population.

A chart was created by The Center for Budget Policy and Priority showing the funding each state is expected to receive for both education stabilization and Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) for Medicaid.

Republicans are not happy about the federal funding.  Some governors are reluctant to accept the money because federal conditions stipulate using the funding for education only and they want the money for other programs.  

Wisconsin Democratic Governor Jim Doyle, welcomed the stimulus money to his state to handle the urgent needs states and residents have right now.  “We cannot ask a second-grader to come back and complete their studies five years from now when the economy has turned around,” … “The education we provide now will be the strength of our state and nation for decades to come.”

It is officially known as the Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010. 

Purpose and content

The purpose of the new law strives to protect both consumers and economic stability.  It awards the government new powers to dissolve failing companies or break up companies that threaten the economy, creates a new agency to shield consumers, and focuses more light on the financial markets that previously escaped the oversight of regulators.

The president attempted to put the complex law in consumer-oriented terms for the average person.   He said it would help root out fine print and hidden fees for people, and provide deeper analysis of the sophisticated financial transactions on Wall Street. 

He claimed that this crippling recession was primarily caused by a breakdown in the financial system that cannot happen again.

There are many good provisions in the bill. The best characteristic of the bill is the provision to permit free markets to work and allow mismanaged financial firms to fail rather than require taxpayer bailouts adding to the federal deficit. 

The law assembles a council of regulators to look out for risks across the finance system.

• On the consumer level, borrowers will be protected from hidden fees and abusive terms, but must provide evidence that they can repay their loans.  Retailers will have a choice of at least two networks on which to run debit cards, introducing competition where there was none.  Retailers may also decline debit card use for small purchases where fees exceed profit. 
• On the banking level, a council of regulators will monitor bank solvency levels, make them increase their reserves when necessary and move the reserves into investments easily converted to cash.  They will also identify failing financial institutions, dissolve them before they trigger a crisis, and spread the costs incurred across surviving peers. 
• On the government level, the Federal Reserve will be awarded new powers through a consumer protection bureau that will write new rules to protect consumers from unfair credit card and mortgage terms, but also live under expanded congressional oversight.  The bureau will also establish procedures for liquidating giant financial firms where necessary, so there are no more “too big to fail” financial institutions. 
• The law restricts banks owning hedge funds (3% maximum of capital) from trading for themselves in their own accounts (which allows betting against themselves if more profitable).  This has become known as the “Volker Rule” (proposed by former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volker. 
• Financial institutions must separate their commodity derivatives trades into a separately capitalized entity completely walled off from federally insured deposits.  This will moderate the amount speculators profit when trading crude and heating oil contracts. 
• Other provisions include the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) authority to regulate swaps, OTC, energy-related and electronically traded transactions by closing the so-called “Enron swaps” and “London” or “foreign-exchange” loopholes. 

Many of the law’s features won’t be in effect until regulators write new rules and implement them.

Obama explained them all as common sense reforms that will help people in the financial aspects of their daily life, from being made aware of risks, to understanding fees and signing contracts.  He called the reforms “the strongest consumer protections in history,” and said, “Because of this law, the American people will never again be asked to foot the bill for Wall Street’s mistakes.” 

“I proposed a set of reforms to empower consumers and investors, to bring the shadowy deals that caused this crisis into the light of day, and to put a stop to taxpayer bailouts once and for all,” Obama said to supporters. “Today, thanks to a lot of people in this room, those reforms will become the law of the land.”

Republicans against

The House first passed a bill in December 2009. After months of disagreement, the Senate passed a bill in May 2010 pretty much along party lines with only four Republicans joining to gain the required votes.

It took the whole month of June for the House and Senate to work out the differences.  The conference committees voted strictly along party lines, 20-11 with House negotiators and 7-5 for Senate negotiators, . 

The House passed the final bill on June 30, by a vote of 237-192, with all but three Republicans in opposition. 

The Senate passed the bill on July 15, by a vote of 60-39 with all but three Republicans voting against the legislation.

One Democratic Senator, Russ Feingold (D-WI), opposed the measure, saying it did not go far enough.

In spite of some misgivings, Republican Senators Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Scott Brown (R-MA) joined with Susan Collins (R-ME) as three crucial votes for passage.

“While not perfect, the legislation takes necessary steps to implement meaningful regulatory reforms, create strong consumer protections and restore confidence in the American financial system,” Senator Snowe said in a statement. 

Republicans are attempting to capitalize on the wave of voter disillusion with current Members of Congress with regard to the slowness of recovery and the growing debt and deficit of the government.  By voting against any issue that increases debt (and implied to raise taxes), Republicans are hoping to unseat their opponents. 

A few of those issues are state education, unemployment benefits and health care.

It is a well-known fact that the Republicans have been receiving their instructions from the health insurance companies, who heavily fund their re-election campaigns and who do not want a health bill at all.  Revision means forcing them to insure millions of marginally healthy people as well as those with bad health records (pre-existing conditions). 

This time, the House passed the Senate bill without any changes.  Healthcare became law when the president signed it on Tuesday, March 23. 

To fulfill promises made to House lawmakers, reconciliation to the main healthcare bill was passed first by the Senate, then the House.  Republicans offered 40 amendments to the bill, in a final desperate attempt to change the bill enough to force the House to vote again, but Democrats steadily rejected each amendment. 

In the end, Republicans voted unanimously against the reconciliation, threatening to take the issue to their election campaigns to win enough seats to repeal healthcare.   

Every November, the entire House and one-third of the Senate are re-elected.  Many of the Republican amendments were specifically aimed for votes that could be made to sound embarrassing for Democratic lawmakers running for re-election. 

The main points of the healthcare legislation include:

• New consumer protections for denial of coverage based on pre-existing conditions (effective for adults in 2014, but children in 2010).  Adults currently with pre-existing conditions uninsured for a minimum six months can enroll in a temporary high-risk pool with subsidized premiums (effective June 2010).
• Lifetime coverage limits—eliminated (effective 2010).
• Coverage dropped after a sickness—prohibited. 
• Waiting period for coverage limited to 90 days.
• Child coverage under parents plan—extended to age 26 (effective September 2010).
• Individuals under age 30 without insurance can purchase catastrophic coverage on the new health insurance exchanges. 
• Coverage will be portable for employees that leave a job.
• Health insurance exchanges (effective 2014) will be created with minimum standards and competing plans available to pool risks for small businesses and uninsured individuals.
• New policies issued after September 2010 will fully cover preventive care visits and screenings.  Doctors will get paid for seeing uninsured patients they are now treating for free.
• Businesses with fewer than 25 employees will be eligible for tax credits for up to 35 percent of health insurance premiums paid.  Pooling risks with other small businesses will stabilize costs. 
• Employers will disclose the cost of workers health insurance on their W-2 (starting 2011)
• Medicare beneficiaries with the Part D drug benefit who fall into the coverage gap (“donut hole”) will receive a $250 rebate in 2010. Starting 2011, they will receive a 50% discount on brand-name drugs, with the gap closing by 2020. 
• Medicare members will not pay more than three times the average premium paid by a healthy younger person, even though middle-aged Americans use more than five times the amount of health services.   
• Medicare Advantage plan reimbursements will be cut back from benefits currently offered, which give members more choices than standard Medicare plans and cost about 15 percent more than the average Medicare plan. Some of these cuts would be offset by a new deal with drug companies to sell medications not covered by Medicare at half price.
• Medicaid will be expanded, making it available to an estimated 16 million more people with incomes up to one-third above the poverty income line, including adults without dependent children.  Community health centers will receive enhanced funding.
• Subsidies provided over the next 10 years for low to moderate-income people without employer health benefits will enable about 32 million uninsured to buy plans on health-insurance exchanges.
• Medical expense tax deduction threshold will be raised to 10% of adjusted gross income (effective 2013). Seniors (age 65 and older) would be able to claim an itemized deduction at the current standard of 7.5% (through 2016).
• Flexible spending health account rules remain the same for three years. A $2,500 cap on contributions (with cost-of-living adjustments) appears likely to go into effect in 2013.
• Health savings account penalty for withdrawing funds for nonqualified medical expenses increases to 20% (effective 2011).
• All citizens and legal residents will be required to have health insurance.  Subsidies will be on an income sliding scale up to 4 times the poverty line.  
• Fines will be imposed on those who decline health insurance (starting 2014); the higher of $95 or 1% of income, growing to $695 or 2.5% of income (2016).
• For individuals with earnings greater than $200,000 and married couples earning more than $250,000 the Medicare payroll tax will rise in the next two years to 2.35%. A new 3.8% Medicare tax will be applied to investment income (including interest, dividends and capital gains) that exceed those thresholds.
• For job-based “Cadillac” plans (annual premiums exceeding $10,200 for individuals or $27,500 for families), plan administrators will be taxed 40 percent (effective in the next few years). Limits are higher for certain high-risk jobs and retirees. 
• Fees will be imposed on insurance and pharmaceutical companies and medical device manufacturers (starting 2014). 
• Health plans will be required to report the proportion of premium dollars spent on clinical services, quality, and other costs and provide rebates to consumers.
• A new federal body will be created that would have power to block insurers from raising rates.
• Higher taxes will reduce the federal deficit by nearly $140 billion over 10 years. 

It does not include a public option to compete with private insurers.  

Read the bill at The Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010

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.