Republican leaders in the House of Representatives have unveiled a plan that would allow the GOP Congress to have one week off for every two weeks of work. While relatively common to have fewer workdays during an election year, the 2012 schedule would only have the House convene for a miniscule 108 days. That’s down from 127 days during the last election year in 2010 when Democrats controlled the House. Democrats in the House quickly decried the light schedule as rancorous debates have led to few legislative results in the current session.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said in a Thursday press conference that “the American people deserve better… it really makes you wonder about the schedule, but particularly at this time, when the American people are feeling so much pain.” Democratic House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer complained that “the House has struggled to get even its most basic work done.”

The schedule calls for only six work days in January, eight days in April and three days in August. After returning on September 10 from their August recess, the House will only be in session for 13 days before the elections in November 2012. To make sure that lawmakers do not have to wake up too early, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor has said that he will schedule votes no earlier than 1 p.m. and that they will end before 7 p.m.

Voters of all political stripes should be outraged by this lack of respect for the public. Can you think of any other place than Congress where you get 7 days off for every 14 days of work? Working class Americans wouldn’t know what to do with all of that free time even if they had it. They wish that they could have a single vacation in a year. Of course the Congressional vacation time is just in-between fundraisers and campaigning.

I would recommend passing a bill that would require both chambers of Congress to remain in full session for at least 3/4 of the year instead of the 1/3 that is planned. That gives them plenty of time to do their campaigning without devoting their entire schedule to it. Just like everyone else that doesn’t show up for work, members that miss the mandatory sessions would be docked pay. Of course it would never pass the GOP Congress because it makes too much sense.

For a party that loves to effusively talk about the wisdom of the market, the past month’s stock slide should be a wakeup call. The Hoover economics that Republicans in Washington have subscribed to, cutting spending at a time when job growth is at best anemic, is putting the country at risk of a double-dip recession. Don’t take my word for it though. I am only a Political Science major. Take the word of economist and Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman.

He warned in July that the debt ceiling deal envisioned by Republicans would “damage an already depressed economy; it will probably make America’s long-run deficit problem worse, not better; and most important, by demonstrating that raw extortion works and carries no political cost, it will take America a long way down the road to banana-republic status.”

Krugman warns that focusing on reduced deficits during a period of slow economic growth is essentially like throwing water on a fire that’s barely burning anyway (the economy). He writes:

The worst thing you can do in these circumstances is slash government spending, since that will depress the economy even further. Pay no attention to those who invoke the confidence fairy, claiming that tough action on the budget will reassure businesses and consumers, leading them to spend more. It doesn’t work that way, a fact confirmed by many studies of the historical record.

Indeed, slashing spending while the economy is depressed won’t even help the budget situation much, and might well make it worse. On one side, interest rates on federal borrowing are currently very low, so spending cuts now will do little to reduce future interest costs. On the other side, making the economy weaker now will also hurt its long-run prospects, which will in turn reduce future revenue. So those demanding spending cuts now are like medieval doctors who treated the sick by bleeding them, and thereby made them even sicker.

The bottom line is that the economy is in rough shape. Instead of treating the problem and attempting to stimulate growth, Republicans are the medieval doctors treating the sick by bleeding them. The stock market has reacted by contracting. At first stocks dove on fears that the United States might default due to Tea Party extremists holding the debt ceiling hostage. Now the stock market is tanking because of an uncertain economy that the debt ceiling deal did nothing to solve. In fact it only made matters worse.

The latest ad specifically claims that “America’s economy is hanging by a thread” thanks to “reckless spending, a failed stimulus and a $14 trillion debt.” The ad goes on to say that it is time to stop giving President Obama a blank check. The message of the ad is clear: Obama is the reason that we have a beleaguered economy, a large (and rising) national debt, etc.

The only problem, of course, is that it is not true. President Bush and Republicans in Congress racked up $5.07 trillion of debt from tax cuts for the rich, wars, a Wall Street bailout, Medicare prescription drug bill, and other spending. During the eight years of George W. Bush’s presidency, the federal budget increased by an average of 3.81% per year.

The nation’s debt is not a product of President Obama. The 2010 budget passed by a Democratic Congress and signed by President Obama was an increase of only 1.4%. Emergency measures that he did take were only temporary. When he entered office the nation was losing nearly a million jobs a week and he took action by passing the Recovery Act, which created as many as 3.6 million jobs. This is his largest contributor to the debt to date.

The healthcare reform bill that passed in 2010 was paid for, despite repeated lies by Republicans that it added to the deficit. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the “Affordable Care Act”, which Republicans love to call “Obamacare”, will reduce the deficit by $1.3 trillion over the course of the next two decades. Again, that is a reduced deficit thanks to the actions of our president and a Democratic Congress.

Republicans might not like the numbers, but they don’t lie. The bulk of our country’s debt problems lie on the shoulders of George W. Bush and a Republican Congress that went on a spending spree at the same time that they unloaded the Treasury Department with tax cuts for the wealthy. Now they hold our economy hostage, claiming that President Obama is spending too much money, when they themselves are the main reason that we have a deficit problem.

The Democratic and Republican Party are comprised of many, sometimes conflicting, constituencies. Labor unions, minorities, and blue-collar workers are just some of the Democratic Party’s base. Big business, evangelical Christians, and white-collar workers largely comprise the Republican Party. While this is a bit of a simplification, it largely holds true from one election to the next. The people who do not rigidly identify with one party or the other, independents, will decide who wins Congress and the White House in 2012. They largely sit out midterm elections, which are low turnout elections driven more by partisans.

The independent vote, by all accounts, is up for grabs in 2012. There is no doubt that they were dissatisfied with the slow pace of the economic recovery and perceived overspending by Washington. The Republican Party did a great job of characterizing, vilifying even, the Democratic healthcare plan as “socialized medicine”, despite the fact that it essentially left the structural system unchanged. Near universal healthcare? Yes, but far from the single-payer systems of Europe and Canada.

Whatever the case may be, Republicans have gone in the opposite direction and pursued a far more radical agenda than the Democrats could ever imagine. The Republican plan to end Medicare, replacing it with vouchers for seniors that would result in over $6,000 a year in out-of-pocket expenses, is just one example of their overreach. It has long been a wet dream of Republicans to dismantle Medicare and Social Security. George W. Bush attempted a similar approach in 2005 with his failed plan to privatize Social Security. Voters rejected that and they are going to reject this Republican Congress’s plan as well.

As far as building coalitions goes, though, the Republican Party is in a real bind. Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich displays this quite well when he called the Republican plan “right-wing social engineering”, only to backtrack the next day when he was met by outrage on the right. A Republican presidential or Congressional candidate will find it difficult to win a primary without supporting the Republican plan to end Medicare, but at the same time, this makes them virtually untenable in a general election. It’s a catch-22 that could very likely end the Republican majority in 2012.

The bottom line of this is that the Republicans in Congress, with the exception of only four in the House and five in the Senate, voted for a plan that is toxic to a majority of their constituents. Even Republican voters have reservations about dismantling a program that they have invested in throughout their entire lives. Elections are won with coalitions and the Republicans just gave the middle finger to the two largest and most reliable voting groups in the country: Baby Boomers and seniors. Unless Republicans can distract voters away from their vote to dismantle Medicare, they can kiss their majority goodbye.

By proposing a spending freeze over the next five years, the president is sure to upset Democrats and not please many Republicans that would rather see huge cuts in federal spending. His middle-of-the-road position makes him appear to be serious about tackling problems while others nitpick in a partisan fashion. He noted that if Republicans are serious about cutting the deficit, then they should support letting tax cuts for the wealthy expire and getting rid of subsidies to oil companies.

The president proposed getting 80% of the country’s energy from clean sources by 2030. Investments will have to be made and prioritized. Not only is it a matter of smart economics, it is a national security issue as well. This should be our Sputnik moment, where the country rallies behind a cause like we did during the Space Race over 50 years ago. President Obama made the case that we need a similar race towards energy innovation.

The president laid out an optimistic, yet realistic, plan for the future tonight. Smart investment in clean energy, reforming our education system and continuing the recovery in our economy through infrastructure upgrades and exports. It’s something that all Americans can stand behind.

10:13 p.m.: “The state of our Union is strong.”

10:12 p.m.: America was founded on being a nation of big dreams. “We do big things.”

10:06 p.m.: “Starting this year no American will be forbidden from serving the country they love because of who they love.” Repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell was passed during last year’s Congress.

10:03 p.m.: The people in South Sudan voted for independence with American assistance. The United States “supports the democratic aspirations of all people.”

10:02 p.m.: President will visit South America in March to build new alliances.

10:01 p.m.: The New START Treaty reduces nuclear arms between the United States and Russia. It also re-instates inspections.

10:00 p.m.: “American Muslims are a part of our American family.”

9:58 p.m.: “Nearly 100,000 brave young men and women” have left Iraq “with their heads held high.” Combat missions have ended, violence is down and a new government has formed. “America’s commitment has been kept. The Iraq War is coming to an end.”

9:57 p.m.: Promises to veto any bill with earmarks in it. That’s a pretty small and symbolic promise, Mr. President.

9:55 p.m.: “We need to think bigger.” Small, symbolic budget cuts will not solve any problems.

9:54 p.m.: “We shouldn’t just give our people a government that is more affordable, we should give them a government that is more competent.”

9:53 p.m.: Proposes simplified tax code.

9:51 p.m.: To tackle the deficit “we simply cannot afford a permanent expansion” of tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

9:48 p.m.: President proposes freezing government spending for next five years. Already froze federal worker pay.

9:43 p.m.: President mentions passing health care with Democrats in the chamber standing up. Vows to protect the bill from Republican attempts at repeal, but is willing to work with Republicans to improve the bill. “Instead of fighting the battles of the last two years, let’s fix what needs fixing and move forward.”

9:39 p.m.: President proposes investments in transportation and infrastructure. Goal is to have high-speed rail accessible to 80% of Americans. Projects are already under-way in California, Florida and the Midwest. High-speed rail is cheaper, better for the environment, and in some cases faster than flying on a plane.

9:36 p.m.: Children of undocumented parents go to our colleges, but “go back home and compete against us”. President argues that it is time to address the issue of immigration. “Let’s stop expelling talented young people… who could be further enriching this nation.”

9:34 p.m.: “Higher education must be within the reach of every American.”

9:32 p.m.: President argues it is time to treat teachers with respect. Reward good teachers and punish bad ones.

9:30 p.m.: “We need to teach our kids that it’s not just the winner of the Super Bowl that needs to be celebrated, but the winner of the Science Fair.”

9:28 p.m.: “By 2035, 80% of America’s energy will come from renewable sources”

9:27 p.m.: “Instead of subsidizing yesterday’s energy, let’s invest in tomorrow’s.” Proposes paying for new technology by eliminating tax cuts to big oil.

9:26 p.m.: “We can be the first nation to have a million electric vehicles by 2015.”

9:24 p.m.: Obama argues that Clean energy should be the next Space Race.

9:23 p.m.: President references Sputnik and how the U.S. surpassed the Soviet Union in the Space Race.

9:22 p.m.: “We need to out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build the rest of the world.”

9:21 p.m.: “The future is ours to win. But to get there we can’t stand still”.

9:19 p.m.: Technology and automation has led to fewer jobs needed.

9:16 p.m.: Corporate profits and the stock market are up, but we measure progress by average citizen.

9:14 p.m.: “What comes of this moment” depends on not whether we “sit together tonight, but whether we work together tomorrow.”

9:12 p.m.: The President notes an empty chair in the Chamber reserved for Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.

9:11 p.m.: President Obama begins to speak with Vice President Joe Biden and new Speaker of the House John Boehner sitting behind him.

Tonight I will be liveblogging the State of the Union address by President Obama. Refresh frequently for live updates.

The first thing that people should know about polls is that they are not a predictor of what will happen in the future. A poll taken in August is worthless (or certainly in May). Why is that? Most people do not begin to pay attention to races until after Labor Day, the unofficial kickoff to the election season. Another reason is that undecided voters tend to make up their minds relatively close to Election Day.

Let’s take a look at where we stand right now on the generic ballot for Congress:

Republicans peaked in late August/early September and have been coming down ever since. Their one point lead is relatively meaningless when undecided voters overwhelmingly voted for Obama in 2008, indicating that their preference leans towards the Democrats. Once you remove Rasmussen from the poll average (a polling firm that has skewed heavily towards the GOP this cycle) and Zogby (which conducts its polls online and has a poor track record), we find that Democrats have actually surged into a one point advantage over the Republicans:

This is a significant change from just a few weeks ago. The trend lines are clear no matter whether you choose to include Republican-leaning Rasmussen or not. Democrats are climbing fast and Republicans are diving. Several explanations can be made as to why this is happening, but certainly the intensification of a fall campaign has a lot to do with it. Democrats, who were largely unmotivated throughout most of this year, appear to be getting out of their funk. A lot of this undoubtedly has to do with alarming victories by far-right Tea Party candidates across the country.

Also, while some in the media have declared that President Obama is a liability for Democrats, his approval rating stands in the mid to high 40s. When Republicans lost control of the House and Senate in 2006, President Bush’s approval rating stood in the low 30s. Democrats will undoubtedly still lose some seats. History tells us that the president’s party almost always loses seats in a midterm election. Whether it will be a blowout or not appears to be leaning in favor of the Democrats holding both chambers of Congress – if current trends continue and Democratic voters show up to the polls.

It’s also interesting that the media has already lost interest in the story. CNN.com has it neither on their front page, nor on their Politics page as of Thursday morning. Just a few months ago we heard about the Eric Massa resignation non-stop for several weeks amid accusations of sexual harassment. Republicans at the time demanded to know what Speaker Nancy Pelosi knew about his conduct (she had heard only rumors), yet such demands are not forthcoming towards their own party’s leadership when one of their members has an actual affair. Politics as usual from the GOP.

Not only will his affair cost him his seat (and potentially the Republicans the seat as well), it will also cost taxpayers. It is estimated that the special election to replace him will cost counties in Northeastern Indiana approximately a half million dollars. Allen County alone, which includes Fort Wayne, will need at least $275,000 in order to fund the special election. This is despite spending cuts and freezes in most Indiana cities, counties and state government.

“Congress is not operating as it should,” Bayh said at a news conference in Indianapolis. “The people’s business is not getting done.” He blamed this on increased partisanship and strident ideology in Congress. “I do not love Congress,” Bayh said. “I’m an executive at heart. I value my independence.”

Bayh cited two recent examples of issues that should have garnered bipartisan support, yet were defeated due to political reasons. The first was a deficit reduction commission that Republicans said they supported, but at the last minute 7 of them pulled out even though they co-sponsored the bill. The second was a jobs bill that failed to pass despite the still high unemployment rate.

While a lot of outsiders are going to say that Bayh retired due to an increasingly anti-incumbent mood in the country, the facts do not bear this out. Not only does he continue to be enormously popular in Indiana, he led both of his potential opponents by substantial margins (not to mention both of them are flawed candidates). Finally, Bayh had $12 million in his campaign warchest to spend as he pleased. That’s a ton of money in a medium-sized state like Indiana. He could have saturated the airwaves with ads from July until Election Day and still had money to spare. I take him for his word that his motivation was due to gridlock. Ultimately, if Bayh wants to return to Indianapolis to serve as governor, he has that opportunity now in 2012.

Senator Bayh has taken a lot of heat from liberal bloggers across the country for his centrist positions. As a resident of this state, I have to say that some of his positions (particularly on climate change) were disappointing, yet reflect a realization that Indiana stood not to benefit from cap-and-trade, but to potentially face increased energy costs. He was doing his job to stand for the interests of his state just as California’s delegation was pleading for financial assistance as their state was drowning in debt. From some of the postings that I have read on other sites, you would think that Bayh was a total pariah. In reality he voted for the stimulus and for health care reform, either of which he could have stopped had he sided with the Republicans in their opposition. It was Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana that required special treatment in order to win their votes. Bayh was a team player.

As for who will replace Bayh as the Democratic candidate for Senate, the state party will probably decide that, since the filing deadline is tomorrow. Any of Indiana’s Democratic House members would be a good pick, including Congressman Joe Donnelly representing my district (Indiana’s 2nd). The favorites seem to be either Representative Baron Hill or Brad Ellsworth. Both of them come from mostly rural, Southern Indiana districts where Democrats will need to win in order to win statewide. Ironically, if Ellsworth gets the nod, he may face former Republican Rep. John Hostetler whom he beat in 2006. It should be an interesting Senate race in Indiana this year.

The banks instead used the money to buy their competitors. Bank of America, which received bailout funds, purchased Merrill Lynch for $50 billion. They also provided extravagant bonuses to their CEOs and other executives at a time when their companies were on the verge of collapse. As the New York Times reports, “Citigroup’s overall 2009 bonus pool is expected to be about $5.3 billion, about the same as it was for 2008, although the bank has far fewer employees.”

Wall Street simply does not get it. The American people saved the financial system from ruin. Our return is tightened credit policies, high unemployment and bank fees that promise to continue to rise. Without the American taxpayer, many of these institutions would no longer exist. Perhaps that would have been for the better as they are resisting attempts by the Obama administration to prevent a repeat of the 2008 meltdown.

Thankfully, President Obama does get it. He is proposing to Congress a 0.15 percent tax on the liabilities of large financial institutions. “It would apply only to those companies with assets of more than $50 billion — a group estimated at about 50…. The administration expects that 60 percent of the revenue would come from the 10 largest firms. As proposed, the fee would go into effect June 30, 2010, and last at least 10 years,” the AP reports. It is estimated that this tax could result in $100-$150 billion to the Treasury. The rest of the TARP money has already been paid back.

“We are already hearing a hue and cry from Wall Street, suggesting that this proposed fee is not only unwelcome but unfair, that by some twisted logic, it is more appropriate for the American people to bear the cost of the bailout rather than the industry that benefited from it, even though these executives are out there giving themselves huge bonuses,” President Obama said. “What I’d say to these executives is this: Instead of setting a phalanx of lobbyists to fight this proposal or employing an army of lawyers and accountants to help evade the fee, I’d suggest you might want to consider simply meeting your responsibility.”

This is great news. It means that, if Congress passes it, the taxpayer will recover all of the money that we spent to bailout these reckless companies. It also sends a signal to Wall Street that the Obama administration will play hardball with firms that somehow expect to profit off of the generosity of the American people. Passing this proposed tax will recover all of the money that was lent to the banks at the height of the meltdown. This act should only be a first step, though. We still badly need financial reform to ensure that this never happens again.

*Update*

President Obama brought up the new proposed tax on the banks in his Weekly Address. Watch below:

It’s a fair point to make. I think that history will not look back kindly on the antics of the Republican Party over the past year. Democrats won the 2008 election with a mandate for change. Reacting to that, the Republican Party is doing everything that it can do to derail the agenda of President Obama and the Democratic Party in Congress. They are not just a “party of no” for the sake of saying “no”. Their aim is to prevent this president from operating in an affective manner and embarrass Democrats in Congress. The American people should repudiate this detestable behavior.