So the election is over and the results are in. Now, what does it all mean? This article is a good place to start when trying to look for trends or meaning in the results:

http://nationaljournal.com/democrats-brace-for-angry-wave-20101102

As the article notes, the big loser was Washington. People didn’t necessarily vote for Republicans, they voted against Washington. According to recent polling:

” * More than 70 percent of Americans believe the country is on the wrong track.

* Almost as many believe the nation faces a “leadership crisis.”

* Three quarters of voters disapprove of Congress, a near record low.

* Nearly 6 out of every 10 voters are more willing to take a chance this year on a candidate with little political experience.

* More than a quarter of voters are willing to back a candidate whose views “seem extreme.”

* Surveys consistently show Americans hold the Republican Party in lower esteem than the Democratic Party, even as the GOP stormed to victories.”

That last polling figure is striking. Last night people didn’t give Republicans a mandate, they gave them a second chance. Now the question is: what will Republicans do with it?

Tomorrow is Election Day. And so today my message to all of you is simple: go vote.

Recent history suggests that not quite half of all registered voters will show up because it’s a mid-term election (meaning it’s not a presidential election). That’s a shame. The issues facing our country are too challenging and the consequences too great to have too few involved.

For more information on how to vote and where to vote, go to this website: https://team1.sos.state.tx.us/voterws/viw/faces/Introduction.jsp

Remember: it’s your vote, it’s your voice.

Today our series on the upcoming elections focuses on perhaps the single most important voting block: independents. This is the group that helped give us President Obama. And according to this article, it could be the group that helps give us a Republican Congress next Tuesday:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2010/1025/Why-independent-voters-are-abandoning-the-Democrats

As the article notes:

“The latest bit of news confirming this trend is a new Politico/George Washington University Battleground poll. This survey, released Monday, finds that independents are favoring Republicans over Democrats by a 14-point margin. Self-described independents may have backed Barack Obama in 2008, but they aren’t happy with much of what Democrats have accomplished since then. Sixty-two percent of independents have an unfavorable view of President Obama’s health-care reform legislation, according to the Politico/GWU poll. Sixty-six percent say the administration’s efforts to get the economy going again aren’t working.”

If these numbers hold until Tuesday, President Obama is going to to receive quite a rebuke at the voting booth.

Today we continue our series on the upcoming election with another discussion about polls:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/generic_congressional_vote-901.html

The generic ballot is one of the most important questions in any poll. Essentially, it asks people to set aside names and personalities and decide which party they would probably support in the current climate. Traditionally, this has been one of the best poll questions to watch because it measures people’s moods without regard to specific issues or specific candidates. As a result, it’s often been shown to be an accurate predictor of how the country as a whole will vote.

And what does the realclearpolitics.com average show on the generic ballot question? A Republican lead of nearly 7 points. That’s a huge lead since the country is typically fairly evenly divided. And it’s more proof that Tuesday should be a big day for Republicans.

Today we continue our series on the upcoming election. And we do so by focusing on something every voter should know: how to read a poll:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

A lot is made about polls. But most people don’t know enough about them to judge them. Take for example the recent Newsweek poll that came out. It gave President Obama a 54-40 rating. Not bad. But here’s what you need to keep in mind: most political strategists put more faith in the cumulative polling average than any one poll. So if you click on the link above, it will take you to the realclearpolitics.com site where several polls are listed and an average is given. When you look at all the polls, you see that Newsweek is way out of sorts with the other polls. Almost all the other polls have Obama’s approval rating way below 50%. And when you average all the polls together, including Newsweek’s, you find that Obama’s overall approval average is only 46%. That’s the number you should pay attention to…not the Newsweek poll.

And if Obama is at 46% on Election Day, that spells bad news for Democrats.

So let me get this straight: the Obama administration is pushing for new regulations on Wall Street firms like Goldman Sachs and the Securities and Exchange Commission just so happened to file a lawsuit against…Goldman Sachs!

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/21/obama-denies-link-to-timing-of-s-e-c-case/?hp

Of course, the president assures us there is no reason to be worried:

“The S.E.C. is an entirely independent agency that we have no day-to-day control over. And they never discussed with us anything with respect to the charge that will be brought. So this notion that somehow there would be any attempt to interfere in an independent agency is completely false.”

An entirely independent agency?  Not entirely.  The agency’s leadership is appointed by the president.

Kind of makes you wonder, doesn’t it?

This week we continue our series on the new health care law and some of the items that you might not know about.

Today, we focus on a constitutional aspect of the law. Remember when we talked last week about the bill requiring individuals to purchase health insurance? Did you know that this marks the first time in American history that the federal government has required an individual to purchase a product?

And there is a reason why it’s the first time: because it’s not constitutional. The Commerce Clause of the Constitution gives the federal government the right to regulate companies that transact business across state lines. But it says nothing about requiring individuals to purchase anything.

That’s why several states have already filed suit. Obamacare may well be unconstitutional.

Today we end the week of blogs about health care by talking about one of the biggest tragedies of all in this new law: abortion.

Democrats say the new health care law will not create taxpayer funded abortion. But it will. Here is how: now that everyone will be required to purchase insurance, people will be buying all kinds of plans, including some that cover abortion services. But since many people will not be buying insurance plans with federal subsidies, in effect, the taxpayers are covering their expenses should they ever need an abortion.

The “fix” that Democrats proposed for this was for President Obama to issue an executive order saying that abortions can not be paid for with taxdollars. But executive orders can be changed by any president. A law is a law and can only be changed by an act of Congress.

That’s why I think it’s likely we will see taxpayer funded abortion. And what a shame that is.

16,000.

That’s a number that should scare all Americans. Why? Because that’s the number of new IRS agents that will be hired by the government to enforce the new tax provisions in the Obama health care law. The new law requires every American to purchase health insurance; and any American not purchasing it will be required to pay a fine to the government. To make sure these fines are paid, 16,000 new IRS agents will be on the patrol to collect the money.

This doesn’t make any sense. At a time of economic recession, we should be helping families and small businesses, not taxing them and then punishing them.

Last night the House of Representatives passed legislation to change health care in this country. You probably have heard all about it.

But what you probably haven’t heard about is all the gimmicks and short cuts that are included in the bill, like the fact that the bill is “paid for” by double counting.

Check in each day this week and next week as we take you behind the scenes and expose some of the gimmicks that make this bill bad for your health.

Today we continue our series on taxes. More specifically, we continue our conversation about the bad tax policies the Obama administration is pursuing to pay for its health care plan:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35844649/ns/health-health_care/

We’ve talked about this before on the blog, but it’s worth repeating since it’s such an important part of the president’s health care plan. As the article notes, the President:

“is proposing that high-income Americans pay Medicare taxes on the money they make on their investments. Historically, only earned income has been subject to that tax.”

So not only is the President raising taxes to pay for health care, but he’s creating an entirely new tax in that Americans will now pay payroll taxes on investment, something that has never happened before.

Mr. President, let’s stop raising taxes, let’s start over and let’s find a health care plan that works.

One of the reasons that gas prices are going up is that oil is a depleting resource. For decades, we’ve been drilling for oil here in the United States. As a result, we have less of it and more need to rely on foreign oil.

That’s why it’s more important than ever that we look to sources of energy that are here in the US and that are renewable. My favorite example is biomass. Biomass is essentially fueled by burning wood products. And we have plenty of wood products in America. In fact, we will always have plenty of wood products in America.

So why would we import oil from the Middle East when we could generate energy from biomass here in the United States?

So here is my prediction for today’s elections:

I think the Tea Party movement will win by losing. That is, the Tea Party will have moved the GOP to the right, increased the party’s commitment to fiscal discipline and put the fear into a few GOP elected officials. All of that is good. But I don’t expect many of the actual Tea Party candidates to win. Why? In American history, protest movements rarely become majoritarian movements. Instead, they make their point and one or both of the parties takes on their issues. Think of Perot in 1992 talking about the deficit. Republicans and Democrats in the 1990s got the message and balanced the budget for the first time in decades.

So that’s my prediction about tonight. What’s yours?

Today we continue our series on presidential do-overs. And the health care issue provides a perfect opportunity to do something that the American people want to see from their president: they want him to confront his own party.

As we’ve discussed on this blog before, great presidents always take on their own party. This shows the rest of the country that they are more than presidents, they are leaders. After all, anyone can confront an enemy, But confronting a friend is harder. Yet health care gives the president the chance to do just that.

So instead of outsourcing health care to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, he can work with Democrats and Republicans and create a plan that takes some simple steps that will work: like giving individuals tax credits to purchase their own insurance, or reducing (rather than increasing) the number of regulations on health plans. These two steps would help contain health care costs. So if the president is really serious about “bending the cost curve” he can start by bending the ears of his own party.

Today we continue our series on do-overs. What should President Obama do over from last year’s health care debacle?

This time he should try and include Republican ideas. And the early indications are that he is especially interested in one: medical malpractice. http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/09/obama.health.care/

That’s a good place to start. How can we reduce the cost of health care when doctors and insurance companies are getting sued frivolously? Lawsuits only help lawyers. Meanwhile, the rest of us get stuck with the bill. Last year, Obama didn’t seem interested in medical malpractice. This year, he seems open to it. That’s a good do-over.

Today we continue our series on what Obama should do over as he now tries to fix the health care mess.

For starters, he should drop any hint of a government-run health option. I know that this is no longer in the Democratic bill, but it is still in the minds of Democratic legislators. Many of them would love to revive the idea of a government-run plan. But the president should reject this. He spent a great deal of time in 2009 trying to convince people that the same folks that run the post office would do a good job running health care. They can’t and they won’t. Government bureaucrats don’t know better than you and your doctor.

So let’s start this new round of discussions on health care by completely abandoning any talk of a government-run plan.

Today we continue our series on what Obama should do in his budget. One thing he shouldn’t do is raise taxes:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/100201/us/usreport_us_budget_backdoortaxes

Unfortunately, it looks like this budget might attempt to raise taxes using the “back door.” Here is how: the Bush tax cuts of 2001 are schedule to expire in 2011. If Obama lets them expire, taxes will go up for millions of Americans.

Are you an investor? Your taxes will go up. Are you an income taxpayer? Your taxes will go up. Are you a teacher who uses an education tax credit? Your taxes will go up. Trying to inherit your family’s land? Your taxes will go up.

President Obama can and should stop this right now by calling for the continuation of these tax cuts…otherwise we’ll all be paying more.

This week, we continue our series on what’s next for President Obama. And the timing couldn’t be better.

President Obama will soon unveil his new budget. I’ve got some ideas on what should and shouldn’t be in there. After all, politics is about money. So the budget is the place to look to see how a president wants to lead and where he wants to go.

Check back in each day this week for more on what President Obama should do next.

Today we conclude our series on what Obama should do next.

And this is maybe the most important step: he needs to return to being the Obama of 2008. On the campaign trail, Candidate Obama promised a new kind of politics, where he would focus on solutions, not ideology. Sadly, as  President, he has not always been well-served by his staff or by his friends in Congress who have pushed him to the left.

It’s time to return to a solutions-based politics. Now that would be change we can believe in!

Today we begin our series on what Obama should do next. And this is a great time to discuss this since he’s delivering his State of the Union Address this week. What should he say?

He should say that he had the best of intentions in his first year, but that he overreached. He should say that he wants to work with Republicans to find bipartisan ways to solve problems.

Take health care, for example. Everyone agrees that the current health care system is unsustainable. Health care costs go up 10% every year. That can’t continue. But instead of pushing for more mandates on health insurers (which they will pass on to the consumer in higher premiums) why not borrow a Republican idea and offer tax incentives for individuals and families to purchase their own health insurance with pre-tax dollars the way corporations can do?

This would be a great way for Obama to still get what he wants (health care reform) but change direction and show the country that he heard the message in Massachusetts and wants to work with people on both sides of the aisle.