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.

No matter the outcome of the midterm election, it is indisputable that the last Congress was one of the most productive ever. For all of the Pelosi haters out there, Speaker Pelosi accomplished a great deal in the past four years, including many things that Republicans would have supported in the past (such as tax cuts). Her image as a “San Francisco liberal” did not make her many friends in the nation’s mid-section and President Obama rarely defended her, despite the fact that she was carrying his bucket in the House. Here are just a few of the many accomplishments that Pelosi managed when she was House Speaker:

*Extending unemployment benefits. The roughly 10-15% of people unemployed in this area (depending on which county you live in) would not have unemployment benefits if the GOP had their way.
*Expanding health care coverage to all Americans by 2014 (unless Republicans de-fund it, which is quite possible)
*Regulating the banks to make sure that future bailouts do not happen.
*Ending the bank bailouts from the Bush years.
*Increasing funding for financial aid to college, including Pell Grants and reducing the cost of student loans.
*Creating an estimated 3.7 million jobs with the Recovery Act

I would stand by that record any day of the week. The Republicans got us into the ditch and the Democrats got us out. It wasn’t easy and times are still tough, but we are on the path to recovery. Going down the Republican path of de-regulation and tax cuts for the rich will only ensure a future economic collapse.

House Races

Out of all the states where Republicans are looking to capture House seats, perhaps Indiana is the best indicator of whether Republicans will win the House and by what margin. For starters, it will be the first state to report its vote totals. Polls close at 6 Eastern, although part of the state is on Central, so the results won’t begin coming until 7 p.m.

Indiana 9 is a district in Southern Indiana that straddles the Kentucky border along the Ohio River and includes college towns like Bloomington, home of Indiana University. Democrat Baron Hill is the incumbent here. He voted for the stimulus package and health care bill, but against the Wall Street bailout and cap-and-trade.

The district has swapped between parties a number of times this decade. Hill was elected in 1998 51% to 48%, re-elected in 2000 and managed to survive in 2002, a rough year for Democrats when they lost seats to the president’s party (this rarely happens, even though both 1998 and 2002 were exceptions). Hill lost in 2004 by 2,000 votes to Mike Sodrel, his opponent from 2002. Two years later, in 2006, Hill ran again and won against Sodrel as Democrats captured the House. Not satisfied with defeat, Sodrel ran a fourth time in 2008, losing to Hill by 20 points.

It is expected that this will be a tight race. Polls show that Hill is essentially tied with his opponent at 45 percent. While that is not where an incumbent wants to be in a year like 2010, it isn’t an insurmountable challenge, either. If Hill wins, the Democrats probably hold on to the House. If he loses, the Republicans will likely win the House; the only question is by what margin. That’s where the next district comes into play.

Indiana 2 is a Northern Indiana district that voted for Barack Obama in 2008 by 10 points after supporting Bush in 2004. This is a swing district at the presidential level, but favors Democrats at the Congressional level. Blue Dog Democrat Joe Donnelly has represented Indiana 2 since 2006. After losing in 2004 to Republican Chris Chocola, he succeeded by an impressive 8 point margin in 2006. In 2008, Donnelly won with 67 percent support as Obama carried Indiana for the first time since 1964. While Republicans do not need to win Indiana 2 to win the House, it would signify a sizable wave in the range of 55 to 60 seats.

The bottom line: It is hard to see how the Republicans can win the House if they cannot manage to win Indiana 9. While Obama improved his performance over John Kerry in every single county in Indiana, Southern Indiana was still McCain territory. These voters should be among the more skeptical of the current administration and more likely to vote Republican. Indiana 2 is anchored by St. Joseph County, which is strongly Democratic. If Republicans win this seat, it will be a barometer of how many seats their majority is, not whether they will win a majority.

Senate Races

The Senate will be a lot easier to monitor than the House whether it is about to switch party hands or not. For one reason, the House has 435 individual races, around 100 of which are truly competitive to any degree. The Senate has around a dozen truly competitive races, making it that much easier to track. The races that you will want to watch are the Toss-Ups. To make things easier to track, we are assuming Republican advantages in a number of states (Arkansas, Indiana, North Dakota, etc.). The “Must Win” states are ones that Republicans must win in order to have a chance at a majority. Instead of listing each of them, we are going to focus on the two most crucial. The “2 out of 3″ states are named such because Republicans will need to win 2 out of 3 to gain a majority, assuming they win the “Must Win” states:

Must Win

Illinois is the best early indicator of whether Republicans have a chance of winning control of the Senate. Republican Mark Kirk and Democrat Alexi Giannoulias are in a tight race for President Obama’s former Senate seat. The president was in Chicago on Saturday to rally the Democratic base near his home in Hyde Park at the University of Chicago. Losing this seat will mean that Republicans are having a good night. On the other hand, if Democrats manage to hold onto Illinois, it will shut the door on Republican chances at capturing the Senate.

Colorado is expected to be one of the closest of all the contests on Tuesday. Senator Michael Bennet was appointed by Governor Bill Ritter to fill the seat of Ken Salazar, whom President Obama tapped to be his Secretary of the Interior. Had Salazar been on the ballot, winning his seat in 2004 against the odds, he probably would have easily won re-election. Bennet has run a good campaign, though, and is facing a far-right candidate in Ken Buck. If Republicans win Colorado and Illinois, it means that they are well on their way to knocking off Harry Reid in nearby Nevada and could gain control of the Upper Chamber. If Democrats win Colorado, it once again shuts the door on that possibility.

2 out of 3

Washington could be the state that decides whether Democrats or Republicans control the Senate. Democrats may lose Illinois, Colorado and a number of other states, but hold on to Washington. The reverse will not hold true, though. If Democrats hold on to Illinois, Colorado, West Virginia, etc., Republicans will not win in Washington state.

Even with a win in Washington, Republicans will need to sweep the board in every other Toss-Up state, and win in California or West Virginia. The math would look something like this: Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Nevada, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

The bottom line: The Republicans essentially have to sweep everything in order to gain the majority: seats that Lean Republican, Toss-ups, and Lean Democrat. They need a net pick-up of 10 seats to get the 51 seat majority that would be needed to break Vice President Joe Biden’s tie. A 50/50 split in the Senate is not out of the question, as is what happened in 2000, although Democrats would retain the majority in that situation instead of Republicans.

California

Meg Whitman dumped over $150 million into the governor’s race this year, yet she trails Democrat and former governor Jerry Brown by double digits. She came out against employers that hired undocumented workers, but had a maid for ten years that was in the country illegally. This basically killed any chance she had of becoming governor.

In the Senate race, Democrat Barbara Boxer has consistently held a narrow lead over conservative Republican Carly Fiorina. A Republican has not won a Senate race in California since Pete Wilson in 1984. With polls moving towards Boxer in the final days, it is hard to see this 26 year old streak ending in 2010. As a result, Democratic House candidates can expect a bump from a strong top of the ballot.

This could help with races in California 11 and California 20 where polls show tight races for Representatives McNerney and Costa. Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez, who finds herself in a tough fight in traditionally Republican Orange County, may also benefit. The only Republican that looks vulnerable is Dan Lungren of California 3 near Sacramento.

Connecticut

As I posted yesterday, Connecticut’s Senate seat currently held by retiring Democrat Chris Dodd is now strongly favored to remain in Democratic hands. The race has moved into a double-digit advantage for state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal over former WWE CEO Linda McMahon. Democrats are also favored to win the governor’s mansion, which is currently held by a Republican. Winning both of these races should boost Democratic Representatives Murphy and Himes.

New York

Andrew Cuomo is the overwhelming favorite to win Tuesday’s gubernatorial race against Tea Party candidate Carl Paladino, who suggested that he would “take out” a reporter on tape. His over-the-top style is likely to hurt Republicans down the ballot and possibly cost Republicans a pick-up of 2 or 3 House seats in the state. The two Senate races (one of them a special election for the seat formerly held by Hillary Clinton) are blowout races as well.

Republicans are certain to pick-up the seat of former Congressman Eric Massa, who resigned in disgrace last December. Democrat Scott Murphy of New York 20, John Hall of New York 19, Bill Owens of New York 23, and Michael Arcuri of New York 24 all find themselves in close races. They could benefit from strong top-of-the-ballot performance on the Democratic side.

Pennsylvania

Polls had Republican Senate candidate Pat Toomey up by double-digits not more than a couple weeks ago. Today, the two are virtually tied. While Toomey may yet win this statewide race, he will likely benefit most from a Republican surge in districts where the party is already the strongest. The fact that Democrat Joe Sestak has managed to close the gap means that Democrats in marginal districts around the Philly suburbs could see a boost as well.
Democrats are currently likely to lose at least two seats in Pennsylvania, districts 3 and 11, where incumbents trail by double digits. The Democrats most likely to benefit are ones in close races: Chris Carney of Pennsylvania 10, Patrick Murphy of Pennsylvania 8, Mark Critz of Pennsylvania 12.

This is not to suggest that the top of the ballot will save all of these candidates or even benefit the Democratic Party universally across the country. There are some states where gubernatorial races may hurt Democrats (Arizona for instance) and the same for Senate races (Republican’s expected win will drag down House Democratic candidates in Indiana). It may, however, make the difference in close races where more high profile races for statewide office help House incumbents.

Two Democrats voted against the bill, Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Maria Cantwell of Washington, saying that the bill did not go far enough in regulating Wall Street. Republicans opposed the legislation, saying that the government overstepped its reach. Sen. Robert Byrd, (D-WV) and Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) missed the vote.

“Those who wanted to protect Wall Street, it didn’t work. They can no longer gamble away other people’s money,” said Majority Leader Harry Reid. “When this bill becomes law, the joyride on Wall Street will come to an end,” he added. The bill now goes to the House of Representatives where it will be reconciled with a previously passed House version.

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.

In other words, while Democrats will have to defend their vote in tough districts, nearly double the number of Republicans find themselves in similar situations. Worse yet for the GOP, there is evidence that support for the bill is significantly improving from where it was just a couple months ago when Democrats lost the Massachusetts Senate seat long held by Ted Kennedy.

President Obama’s approval rating on health care stood at 36-54 opposed in January (according to CBS) and was up to 41-51 by this past weekend before the vote took place. That’s a shift of 8 points in about a two month period and that is before the House even passed the bill. Undoubtedly, those numbers will continue to improve as the positive coverage from the bill’s passage continues. The president’s overall job approval is at 49-41 positive, an improvement from 46-41 in January.

What these numbers show is that the negative feelings towards this bill have peaked and the positive feelings are on the way up. As various aspects of the bill begin to be felt relatively quickly, such as kids being able to stay on their parent’s insurance plan until age 26 or the ban on pre-existing conditions, approval will continue to improve. Americans will realize that the Armageddon that Republicans literally said would take place after the bill passed was nothing more than scare tactics.

Not only are calls for repealing the bill ridiculously unrealistic (President Obama would veto any repeal), they also will ring hallow in November. Voters will question why the Republican Party is campaigning on a platform of repealing a ban on pre-existing conditions, filling the Medicare prescription doughnut hole, extending health insurance to 32 million Americans and reducing the deficit by over $1 trillion over the next two decades.

Let’s get back to those 32 House Republicans that voted against health care in districts that President Obama won. Below is a list of all of them:

Judy Biggert IL-13
Brian Bilbray CA-50
Mary Bono Mack CA-45
Ken Calvert CA-44
Dave Camp MI-4
John Campbell CA-48
Anh “Joseph” Cao LA-2
Michael Castle DE-AL
Charles Dent PA-15
David Dreier CA-26
Randy Forbes VA-4
Elton Gallegly CA-24
Jim Gerlach PA-6
Mark Kirk IL-10
Leonard Lance NJ-7
Tom Latham IA-4
Frank LoBiondo NJ-2
Daniel Lungren CA-3
Donald Manzullo IL-16
Thaddeus McCotter MI-11
Howard “Buck” McKeon CA-25
Erik Paulsen MN-3
Thomas Petri WI-6
David Reichert WA-8
Mike Rogers MI-8
Peter Roskam IL-6
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen FL-18
Paul Ryan WI-1
Lee Terry NE-2
Patrick Tiberi OH-12
Fred Upton MI-6
Frank Wolf VA-10
Bill Young FL-10

Two are running for the Senate, Mark Kirk of Illinois and Mike Castle of Delaware. Both of those districts are favored to be won by Democrats. Representative Cao sits in a heavily Democratic New Orleans district and was only elected because the sitting member was a convicted felon. He voted for the House bill last November, but opposed it on Sunday. You can count him as a lame duck. Democrats are sure to win that seat back.

Go down the list and you can see some vulnerable names in Democratic or Democratic-trending districts: Peter Roskam and Judy Biggert in the Chicago suburbs, Jim Gerlach whose failed bid for governor has undoubtedly put him behind the game in his suburban Philadelphia district, Dan Lungren of California went from 62% support in the 2004 election to 49% in 2008.

With the right challengers facing each of these vulnerable Republicans, Democrats have a good chance at winning a few of these seats. The Republican takeover of Congress that conservatives are talking about seems a long way away when you add that to the Democrats which are already favored to pick up Mark Kirk’s seat in Illinois, Mike Castle’s in Delaware and Cao’s in Louisiana.

Despite phony concern coming from Republican leaders over the political impact that health care reform would have on Democrats, most evidence suggests that passing the bill enhances their chances of retaining majority status. The Democratic Party in Congress and President Obama have, without a single Republican vote, passed historic legislation to provide universal health care coverage for Americans. This goal has eluded every president since Tedd Roosevelt over 100 years ago. It’s an achievement that puts them in the history books and on safer political ground than they would have been if Republicans succeeded in killing the bill.

Let me be clear that I do not mean to say that Democrats will gain seats in the midterm election this fall. I believe that we will see modest losses in the House and a handful in the Senate. This falls well within the political history of the president’s party losing seats in a midterm election. Democrats won in places in 2008 that we normally wouldn’t have: conservative districts in Alabama and Idaho, among others. These are likely lost causes in 2010. But the talk of a takeover of both the House and Senate by Republicans is overblown. They will not win either chamber for a long time to come.

Basically, these loans were giant subsidies to private banks. The banks received low interest loans from the government and when they signed loans with students, the risk was passed on to the government, which was responsible for defaults. This bill gets rid of the middle man. “What we have is a miraculous opportunity,” said Secretary of Education Arne Duncan. “Simply by stopping the subsidy to banks, we can plow those savings into our students.”

By voting against the reconciliation package in the House, every Republican member has voted against saving $60 billion in unnecessary spending to banks. The Republicans also voted against removing deals in the original health care proposal, such as the so-called “Cornhusker Kickback”, where money was directed to Nebraska and not any other state. I thought that they were against government waste? They’ve proven, yet again, that they will say one thing and do another.

The bill extends insurance to 32 million Americans that previously did not have health insurance, reduces the deficit by over $1 trillion over the next two decades, bans the insurance industry practice of denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions, and bans insurance companies from dropping coverage due to health. While Republicans have complained about a lack of bipartisanship, the bill includes over 200 Republican amendments.

Percentage wise, the vote was a lot closer in the House than it was in the Senate. The reason that the Senate got all of our attention was because of the Republican’s obstruction tactics, namely the filibuster, which requires 3/5 for passage instead of a majority vote. The President and Democratic leaders in the Senate appear to be ready to break the Republican’s filibuster attempts by passing a “fixed” version of the bill using a procedural device known as reconciliation.

It’s worth noting that Republicans attacking Democrats for using procedural shortcuts are themselves using procedural roadblocks. The filibuster is not in the Constitution and it is not even a law. It is simply a rule within the Senate which can be revised at the start of each Congress. Reconciliation, however, is in fact a law that was passed in the 1970s to reconcile budget issues. This is exactly what Democrats are likely to use it for as they will make changes to their original bill such as how to pay for it.

Going back to the House, though, it is unlikely that Speaker Pelosi currently has the votes to pass the Senate bill. There are two major hurdles that Democrats will need to face before President Obama can finally sign the bill. The first is that Democrats have literally lost three of their members from resignations and a death. Representative Jack Murtha recently passed away, Rep. Neil Abercrombie resigned to focus on his bid for governor of Hawaii and Robert Wexler resigned to head the Center for Middle East Peace and Economic Cooperation. In other words, with these vacancies, the Democrats stand at 217-215, not enough to pass the bill. A majority of the chamber is 218. The sole Republican to vote with Democrats, Joseph Cao, has stated that he will likely vote against it the second time. That puts Democrats two votes short of a majority.

Is it possible for Nancy Pelosi to strong-arm Democrats that voted against the bill to vote for this revised bill? Certainly it is possible, she could threaten everything from fundraising to committee spots, but most of the Democrats that voted no are conservatives from mostly rural and/or Southern districts. She could make the argument that even Democrats that voted against the health care bill are in big trouble – perhaps because they are undercutting their base. In New Mexico, Harry Teague is trailing former Congressman Pearce by two points, even though he voted against the original bill. Would he be in a stronger position if he had voted to extend insurance benefits to the 45 million that currently live without it? Probably, especially in a relatively poor state like New Mexico.

The second problem for Democrats in the House is the issue of abortion. Bart Stupak of Michigan was successful in passing an amendment that would ban any insurance policies from covering an elective abortion in the bill’s insurance exchange, which would include policy choices from both private and public insurance plans. Democrats in the Senate sought to continue the ban on any public funds going towards abortion, but did not want to restrict private insurance plans in the exchange from offering it. It’s questionable whether pro-life Democrats will vote for the House bill if the Stupak amendment is not present and it’s equally questionable whether pro-choice Democrats will vote for a bill that includes it.

*Edit*

According to CNN, due to the vacancies, the majority in the House is now 217.