KIPLINGER FORECASTS

Home > Business & Politics

COMMENT

BUZZ UP

DIGG

CHECK OUT:

EXECUTIVE POLL

Bernard Madoff, convicted of running an $65 billion Ponzi scheme, was sentenced to 150 years in jail. What’s your take on his punishment?

Compare Price Quotes 100+ Services

OUR PREMIUM CONTENT

The Kiplinger Tax Letter
The Kiplinger Agriculture Letter
The Kiplinger California Letter
Kiplinger's Biofuels Market Alert
Kiplinger's Retirement Report

SUBSCRIBER HELP

CURRENT LETTER

By Knight Kiplinger

The Kiplinger Washington Editors

July 2, 2009

By year-end or so, Congress will give the nod to a major rewriting of the nation's financial regulatory system. This week’s Kiplinger Letter explores whether the package will do more harm than good and what lawmakers are likely to include.

ALSO IN THIS ISSUE: The Economy, Business Costs, Taxes, Supreme Court, Energy, Workplace Regulations, Climate Change, Health Care Legislation and Foreign Policy

PREVIOUS ISSUES

CORRECTIONS

TRY THE LETTER:
Subscribe | See Sample

YOUR FEEDBACK

SUBSCRIBERLOG: Got a topic you'd like to discuss? Or a problem or question? Please join our exclusive forum for Letter subscribers only.

ASK US: A Kiplinger Letter editor will promptly answer subscriber questions.

OPEN FORUM: Share your insights and analysis with other visitors.

I just attended a franchise seminar. The speaker represents a few hundred franchises that (he says) are hand picked. He has the prospect (aka victim?) answer some questions about themselves then he makes recomendations - based on your personality, capital situation, etc.. If you pick a franchise, then he does some due dilligence for you. If you both decide it's a good idea, he helps you get started. He says he offers this service free of charge, which means he gets a commission if he's able to sell you a franchise. Has anyone done this? Successfully? Unsuccessfully?

-- fender

Democrats Likely to Win Bigger House Majority in 2008

Democrats would have to make several major fumbles to blow a chance to increase their numbers in the House.

By Richard Sammon, Senior Associate Editor, The Kiplinger Letter

November 15, 2007

RELATED FORECASTS

HELPFUL LINKS

EDITOR'S PICKS

Expect to see more Democrats in the House after the 2008 elections. Democratic gains are a very good bet, thanks to a combination of factors ranging from circumstances to issues to money. A lot can change in a year, but at this point, Republicans face a distinct uphill battle.

The numbers certainly work in Democrats' favor. They control the chamber, with 233 seats to 200 for Republicans, with two vacant seats that had been held by Republicans. Democrats have kept retirements, which create more competitive, open-seat races, to a minimum -- currently at three, compared with 14 (with maybe a dozen more to come) for Republicans. And of the 14 GOP retirees, six represent districts that Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) won in the 2004 presidential race. Democrats also lead Republicans in overall fundraising by about 4 to 3, a stark reversal from past election cycles.

If the trend continues and history is any guide, there will be fewer than three dozen truly competitive races in 2008, and Republicans will have to win about three-quarters just to stay even -- an unlikely outcome.

National themes also lean in Democrats' favor, at least according to recent polls. A large majority of Americans see the country as being on the wrong track in general, are unhappy over the long and costly military missions in Iraq and Afghanistan and have little confidence left in President Bush. Plus there is rising concern over environmental and climate change issues, a perception of a widening gap between haves and have-nots and worries about health care. On most of these issues, voters say they think Democrats will do a better job than Republicans. While national security and military preparedness will be an issue, it is no longer the big GOP advantage it used to be.

But the news isn't all bad for Republicans. They could gain from public discontent over a largely gridlocked Congress. Democrats have few legislative accomplishments to show, and voters are becoming increasingly frustrated. However, Republicans score even lower than Democrats in polls involving Congress.

Republicans may also gain if sentiment against illegal immigration pours into campaigns for House seats where some Democrats supporting a guest worker program could be vulnerable.

Finally, Republicans may, ironically enough, benefit some from the big Democratic victories in 2006. Democrats gained 30 seats in the last midterm election, and they have 61 seats representing districts that voted for Bush in 2004. Several will be in play in 2008, and a couple should be easy pickoffs, such as those lost in 2006 because of scandal. One likely to be won back is the Florida seat of former Rep. Mark Foley, who got embroiled in a scandal involving congressional pages. That's a heavily Republican district.

Among hot races to watch:

Arizona's 1st District, where Rep. Rick Renzi (R) is retiring, is shaping up as a contest between former state Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick (D) and state Sen. Tom O'Halleran (R).

New Mexico's 1st District, where Rep. Heather Wilson (R) is vacating her seat to run for the Senate, may come down to a race between former U.S. Army Secretary Louis Caldera (D) and state Sen. Mark Boitano (R).

Illinois' 8th District looks to feature a close race between Rep. Melissa Bean (D) and businessman Steve Greenberg.

California's 4th District will find GOP Rep. John Doolittle facing likely Democratic nominee Charlie Brown, a retired lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Air Force.

Georgia's 8th District will probably see Rep. Jim Marshall (D) facing former Rep. Mac Collins (R).

Ohio's 16th District, where GOP Rep. Ralph Regula is retiring, is likely to feature a tight race between two state senators: John Boccieri (D) and Kirk Schuring (R).

For weekly updates on topics to improve your business decisionmaking, click here.

READER COMMENTS

Post a comment

Hide comment form

Read all comments (12)

Read recent comments

POSTED BY: Dean Wygant (November 15, 2007 01:30 PM)
Hey Richard Simmons, How long have you been carrying water for the Democrats? Maybe you need to re-think your position on the House number of Democracked heads, today's polls indicate just the opposite!

POSTED BY: Nick (November 15, 2007 03:28 PM)
I find it irritating that there are articles everywhere saying that the Democrats have won the house, have a better chance at the presidency, etc. It's just over a year before the election and the articles have been running for over 6 months already. I believe that a lot of the support for Democrats is fueled primarily by two factors: a hatred of Bush (and putting his face on the Republican Party), and of all the media attention [freely] given to Democrats. If the media were to give truly equal air time to both parties in a neutral fashion (keep word 'neutral'), I believe we'd see a lot more support for the Republicans than what the media is leading us to believe. I enjoy reading Kiplinger's Finance for its information towards investments and money management; not its political message. I would be alright with articles talking about how Democrats' versus Republicans' answer to health care would affect financial markets and our economy; not who's more likely to win. Please keep the news neutral like it is meant to be.

POSTED BY: Charles (November 15, 2007 06:18 PM)
Since you're writing for a personal finance publication, why don't you explain what financial impact the higher taxes Dems will enact will have on the average American.

POSTED BY: Sammon (November 16, 2007 10:03 AM)
Hi folks, I'm the author of the article above. Just wanted to emphasize that the Kiplinger Washington Editors, publisher of the Kiplinger Washington Letter and Kiplinger's Personal Finance, has a long history of providing entirely neutral forecasts about the economy, government, politics, labor, commodity markets, etc. We are entirely nonpartisan. We strive to tell readers only what we believe an outcome will be, not what we think it should be or want to be. That said, our research and combined editorial judgment, at least at this early point, points to Democratic gains in Congress. We'll revise that judgment if we feel we need to. Regards, Richard Sammon.

POSTED BY: Richard (November 16, 2007 10:38 AM)
For all the Republican whiners, reality bites. In my lifetime I never thought I would see anybody worse than the pork barrel Tip O'Neal Democrats. The Republicans have made there spending habits look like child's play. The only thing worse then a Democrat is a tax cut and spend Republican. I will give it to GW Bush Jr, he made me realize the importance of leadership. He doesn't have this skill. The Republicans should be kicked out of their office(s)!

POSTED BY: Eric (November 16, 2007 10:56 AM)
The situation in Iraq has been improving dramatically over the last 4 months. Haven't you noticed the desperate repositioning by the Democrats now that success is imminent? And you forgot the most important national issue of all, and it just so happens to cut against Democrats - illegal immigration. It's the one issue that has the power to mobilize and energize voters. We reached an inflection point on this issue over the summer. Citizens are furious at attempts to allow illegals and their employers to circumvent existing law, and they've finally noticed that they are not alone in their anger. Again, you failed to notice. Stick to financial advice. You have no idea what you're talking about.

POSTED BY: Daniel (November 16, 2007 05:29 PM)
Charles, you mentioned higher taxes for the average American under the Democrats. How do you explain the fact that under Charlie Rangel's tax reform plan - which Republicans oppose - average Americans would be permanently freed from the dreaded Alternative Minimum Tax that has been entrapping a growing number of average Americans every year, and other taxes on average Americans would not be raised, but rather the bulk of the replacement funding would come from raising the tax on publicly-traded partnerships which have had an unfair advantage over corporations because of their lower tax rate?

POSTED BY: Gary (November 16, 2007 06:07 PM)
I could not agree more with Eric. What in the world is a financial site sticking their nose in politics for? Love the "we are entirely nonpartisan" quote. Makes you wonder.

POSTED BY: bob neff (November 16, 2007 06:46 PM)
hats off to Richard Sammon in defending his position as author. I've been a subscriber for over 20 years and have never thought you did anything but straightforeward, analytical reporting.

POSTED BY: Doug (November 17, 2007 05:04 PM)
C'mon Eric - "...now that success [in Iraq] is imminent?" After reading that line, I can immediately conclude that you are, like our president, living in your own bubble (or King George's bubble). Or you have no idea what the word imminent really means. That region of the world has been in turmoil for 2000 years...and you think success is just about to happen? I'm all for positive thinking, but considering the history in that area, and now what the U.S. has done to that region to further mess things up, there's absolutely no way I'd even use the word success or imminent. But don't ask to borrow from our government as our treasury now has been bankrupted by this Republican "thrifty-spending" White House (and congress before the Dems took over). Stop churning the Fox News Network bs -- and realize what dire straights we really are in.

POSTED BY: James (November 19, 2007 03:50 PM)
"Republicans may also gain if sentiment against illegal immigration pours into campaigns for House seats where some Democrats supporting a guest worker program could be vulnerable." ....Understatement of the year! Many of us not in the Overclass see this as one of the Nation's biggest problems. A problem where many Democrats (like the ones you mention) are pitching a solution: "Comprehensive Reform", that is unworkable and is going to cost them with the people who will actually vote. If Democrats ran to the Right of Republicans on this issue today, they would put the GOP out of business tomorrow.

POSTED BY: Charles (November 19, 2007 07:35 PM)
Daniel, That plan is a farce and even many Dems don't agree with it. I doubt it will even make it out of committee, much less through Congress. First of all it does not renew the Bush tax cuts which is in effect a tax increase. Second, it increases taxes on small business owners which employ many average Americans. No matter how you slice it Dems will raise taxes to pay for their version of socialist health care. No thanks, not interested.

MORE: Kiplinger Forecasts | Business & Politics

TOOLS: