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.

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?

More than half of all Republicans in the House and nearly half in the Senate happily took credit in their home districts for the stimulus money they voted against.

As of the end of August 2010, $289.4 billon has been paid out to the states.  Many Americans think that at least half the money has been wasted.  Economists have a higher opinion, but no one thinks it is a home run. 

The big concern of Americans is the high unemployment numbers.  We seem stuck in the 9.5% range, but what people don’t realize is that every year, 1.8 million new workers enter the Civilian work force, and just filling these jobs leaves the unemployment rate stuck.  

Many agree the stimulus bill has created jobs.  Economists say it has generated salaries for as many as 2 million workers who would have been out of work without the stimulus, and the government on Recovery.gov points to nearly 750,000 jobs funded by the bill. 

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office calculated that the stimulus package saved or created between 900,000 and 2.3 million jobs.

Although the Republicans point to tremendous job losses, it would have been 2 million jobs worse without the stimulus that they voted against as a bloc.

These paychecks, in addition to unemployment benefit extensions and tax cuts have all done their part to advance the economy.  But with only about 35% of the stimulus money spent, it is difficult to say whether it will work or not.

Before the stimulus bill was passed, unemployment insurance was cut off at 26 weeks.  After that time, unemployed workers were dropped from the Civilian labor force unless they had looked for work in the previous 4 weeks.  If they said they had looked for work in the last 12 months, they were considered marginally attached to the labor force.  As of the end of August 2010, there were 2.37 million workers in that category.  Within the marginally attached workers, were 1.1 million discouraged workers, who are no longer looking for work.   

The stimulus bill extends unemployment benefits to 33 weeks, and raised the government payment by $25 per worker per week.  Under the stimulus bill, the government also provides 65% of health insurance cost for the workers for up to 9 months after separation.  This provides much of the employer cost portion that ceased when their jobs were terminated. 

Economists have long expressed that unemployment benefits are a core motivation for economic stimulus by giving people some small discretionary income.  One of the possible side effects is that the financial “cushion” encourages workers to spend their efforts to find an “ideal” job rather than the first one that comes their way. 

In another job-saving effort, stimulus money has been sent directly to states and local governments to help them balance their budgets and avoid mass layoffs of teachers, police officers and firefighters, since states are restricted from deficit budgets. 

Instead of deficits, states and local governments raise cash through the sale of municipal bonds.  During the recent financial crisis, the bond market froze, forcing the municipal issuers to face big budget cuts and cancel programs.  Under the Build America Bonds program, the federal government subsidizes bond payments made to investors, raising the yield to very attractive rates, stimulating the economy and lowering the municipality’s borrowing costs. 

Close to half of the stimulus funded jobs are those that keep states and local governments running.  Those salaries provide money that families can spend into the economy.  

To encourage home sales in an economic sector that was at the heart of the financial meltdown, first-time homebuyers were offered an $8,000 tax credit until the end of November 2009. 

Although home sales rose during much of 2009, as soon as the tax credit expired, home sales plummeted.  The analysis was that people who would have purchased a home anyway moved up their purchase date to take advantage of the tax credit.

There are huge numbers of programs being funded simultaneously in the stimulus bill.  Many of the programs are slow to mature and show benefits.  These are investments in the country’s future rather than a stimulus. 

The stimulus bill provided $100 million for improving and repairing infrastructure items like roads and bridges sorely needing those repairs.  It would also put people to work.  This was the image of the stimulus presented to Americans, and it stuck.  It was, however, a proverbial “drop in the bucket.” 

Although money was allocated for “shovel ready” building projects, there weren’t that many projects ready to go, and a lot of the money has not yet been spent.  The reason?  States are planning and proceeding carefully, trying to get the best value for the money they receive. 

On Labor Day 2010, the president proposed allocating $50 billion to repair 150,000 miles of roads, 4,000 miles of rail lines, and 150 miles of airport runways.  These are expected to create jobs immediately as well as invest in easier transportation of goods and people for the future.  Congressional approval is needed.

The president also intends to urge Congress to permanently extend a research and development tax credit that expired in 2009, and allow companies to write off all of their investments in plants and equipment through the end of 2011. 

Other investments already in the stimulus bill are $40 billion for upgrading the nation’s energy grid.  That should come in handy as solar activity peaks in the next five years and can potentially burn out electrical grids and satellites.  This program will provide many jobs but is still in the early planning stages. 

Another investment drive is green technology, meant to minimize our dependence on foreign oil and minimize potential threats from the Middle East.  The problem is that green technology is still in its infancy; it will provide jobs, but maybe for our children.  It is an investment, not a stimulus. 

With the midterm elections coming up on November 2, and historical evidence that impatient voters will try something new and vote out the “ins”, the president and his council are scrambling for something that will get the notice of American voters.  It is not enough that this president has passed massive reform legislation that will alter the future of this country and its citizens for the better.  When American voters get in that booth, they ask, “What have you done for me lately?”  If nothing comes to mind, they’ll vote for promises. 

The $850 billion will do a lot of good rebuilding America’s future, but the voters need jobs today, and jobs in sufficient quantities are not in view.  The problem is that many stimulus benefits are far into the future. 

Dinner for the family is needed tonight. 

Employer tax breaks follow the “trickle-down” economic theory that says tax breaks given to employers will allow them to save enough money to hire more people who in turn will spend their income on retail goods that will improve the economy and lead to more jobs.  It does not work in a wealth-driven society like ours, but instead causes an ever-larger wealth gap between the “haves” and the “have-n0ts”.  

Tax breaks fall on deaf ears, when an employer is worried whether his goods will sell today and provide a tomorrow for his company and his family.  He will conserve his cash and restrict production in case of a downturn, and therefore unintentionally causing a downturn.  The cash stays with the employer and improves his profit.

The opposite of trickle-down economics is the “trickle-up effect.”  This approach give the tax breaks to the people.  They have more money left over from supplying their basic needs and with their disposable income they stimulate retail trade by buying goods that will improve the economy and lead to more jobs.  

The key to recovery is stimulating retail.  The only way to do it is to put more cash in the wallets of consumers.  An economy runs on cash circulation; as with people, stop the circulation and the patient dies.  

The modification of the Bush tax breaks proposed by the president is a step in the right direction.  By continuing the tax breaks for those earning less than $250,000, it will not cut off their disposable income. 

What the country also needs is an employment incentive; the opportunity for the unemployed to perform work and feel accomplished. 

There is still a lot of money to be spent and a lot of people unemployed.

What if unemployed workers were offered the education they needed to work at a trade, or get their high school diploma?  It is a fact that unemployment is twice as high for those without a high school education.  It is a fact that graduates in fast growing fields like health care and technology are hired much faster than those unskilled. 

What if unemployed workers were encouraged to volunteer as part of their workweek?  People generally don’t like to be charity recipients.  We live in a fair trade society – when we receive something, we have been taught to feel we should give something in return. 

What if?

President Franklin Roosevelt in 1935 had the right idea, employing thousands in public service under the Public Works of Art Project (PWAP), Federal One and others. 

Writers, artists, musicians and other unemployed workers wrote, painted and performed for the depressed public and were paid.  They brought the country’s records up to date by recording and cataloging historical information; they worked on building projects; they repaired bridges and roads; they painted murals in public buildings.  If they had a skill, they used it and taught it to others; if they had no skill, they used their muscles.   The PWAP program failed because of mandated “guidance” from Washington D.C. and the unemployment problem was solved with the outbreak of WWII, but the idea is still compelling. 

There are many opportunities to volunteer in our own backyards.  Every town has Habitat for humanity, food pantries, libraries and other organizations always looking for help.  The requirements are generally simple; just show up and work “friendly.”  It also looks good on a resume. 

What if we suggest a scenario and make an assumption that many business owners need the help, but don’t have the money to hire new employees.  What if they put out a call to the local unemployment office describing their needs? 

What if the issue of salary and benefits never came up – they would be provided by the state unemployment agency.  Perhaps during their “unemployment” employment, the worker would learn a new skill, something of value to put on their resume.  Perhaps their “unemployment” employer would see the value of hiring that person, or provide a glowing reference to their next interview. 

What if?

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.

Metaphorically, I can see the president looking hard at other firms in financial trouble who have asked for large handouts to continue their mismanagement, and saying, “Anyone else?”

The Obama administration has sprinkled the “weed and feed” of bailout money liberally across the land, in the hopes that American business acuity would use those lifelines to restore their businesses to health.

They offered a choice to financial health – the easy way where companies would recover on their own with government-offered help, or the hard way with the government snapping the whip.

Some thought they were bluffing.  Rick Wagoner, General Motors CEO considered the government a “well of money” asking the government for another $16 billion in loans, with up to $30 billion held out as a near future possibility.

Howard Wheeldon, senior strategist at BGC Partners, said ” … Wagoner’s appointment as both chairman and CEO in 2003 was little more than an act to ensure the dynasty of GM boardroom arrogance and failure continued.” 

This was driven home to Americans when Wagoner arrived in Washington by private jet November 19 in his first plea for public funds.

Wagoner had run the company since 2000, and as CEO for the last five years, presided over the automaker’s rapid decline, losing $82 billion since 2005, and 95 percent of its value since Wagoner took over.  GM has lived with problems that date back decades with a costly surplus of models and unprofitable brands like Saab and Hummer.

Both GM and Chrysler were mandated to submit turnaround plans to the White House autos task force panel, headed by former investment banker Steve Rattner.  After reviewing the plans, a senior administration official was quoted as saying, “We have unfortunately concluded that neither plan submitted by either company represents viability and therefore does not warrant the substantial additional investment that they requested.”

GM president and Chief Operating Officer Fritz Henderson was named as the new CEO.  The administration pledged funding for ongoing operations only for the next 60 days while the new management develops sweeping restructuring.

Most of GM’s board of directors will also soon be replaced.

The autos panel also warned that both GM and Chrysler could be put through bankruptcy to slash debts.  GM investors and creditor were betting on a softer line.

GM bondholders have been offered a 33 cents-on-the-dollar payout for their investment, and will receive less if the company defaults.  There will be no government guarantee on those bonds.

GM shares plunged 20 percent in Frankfurt and are expected to be followed on the New York Stock Exchange today with the prospect of failure of two major U.S. producers.

With GM at least, it’s the hard way.