jackson33

The unique thing about the 'Primary/Caucus' system used by those two major parties, is the people running can have a different message. Last year, in addition to the 15 Party Affiliations, we had 20 somewhat to extremely different ways of approaching various issues. Funny thing, as a Conservative (Fiscal/Government...not religious), I also find the Libertarian too conservative, but then I found none of the 20 D/R candidates conservative enough for me. Was their one, you preferred? Sisyphus; The system is built for diversity, practice however is control. I doubt much would ever be accomplished w/o control, but it does limit debate. Freshmen Congress people are herded into a group and given the rules, both parties. Short of choosing a leader for 50 very different States and four territories, by pure popular vote, I don't know how you could change things. If you go pure popular vote, third parties could never get off the ground or even influence an election. Populations and demographics (adding States/migration west) have always changed, but eligibility for voting have dramatically changed in the past 50 years (Voter Rights/Ages/Women Suffrage). Aside from this, the electoral system, only determines the President/VP, not Congress.

First the US is much more than a two party system. Second, States have full authority on how a party or individual gets on their ballot. Third and best answer, funding required... Party Affiliations in the 2008 Presidential Election... Republican Democratic Boston Tea Constitutional Green America's Independent (Allen Keys) Independent Ecology (Ralph Nadar) Libertarian (Bob Barr) Socialism & Liberation Prohibition Reform Socialist Socialist Workers Plus six individual 'Independent Candidates, that were on at least one State Ballot. When Washington was chose President, there were many names the State Electorates had to chose from, as was when John Adams was chose. Jefferson was chose after 50+ ballots, taking out a dozen plus others, which debate and balloting took the election process well into February.

OK, I understand...Since I had already mentioned opposing that action, including GWB approval and never considered it anything close to a stimulus, please forgive my misunderstanding...I'll go a bit further and suggest 75% of the current economic problems of today started with that cry for 'time to panic'. What I don't know and worry about is, what/how/why Paulson thought would happen, if not exactly what did happen. He was a major player in a major financial institution, knowing standing outside their front door crying 'were going to fail' would have the same reaction. Made no sense...

GM alone has over 70 facilities in the US, at least one in 34 States and 22 still active in Michigan. Many if not the majority are in small towns or at least one of the top two employers/local tax payer. Engine/Transmission plants to full Assembly operations. Each is supplied by a variety of other business directly related to auto/truck or is near the sole source for thousand of independent small business. It my belief and others, that CAFE Standards enacted in 1975 directed at MPG and redirected over time to include emission standards, crippled the aging US Auto Makers. The end results were foreign makers, increasing sales shipped into the US and eventually building nice new modern plant in the US (I do NOT oppose competition). Since Congress by regulation had helped to create the problem, it's is my belief they should assist in a possible solution. As for GM or Ford (Chrysler a lost cause and private industry in the first place) all foreign operations have been AIDING, these two since the late 90's, as US operation here tried retooling and keeping up with regulations and literally losing money each year. Additionally those foreign operations can easily be sold (GM did so in Germany a couple years ago). Further add, the Financial Breakdown and whatever you want to blame that on, or the dropping values of their equities which had been the source for funding. Your Ford 150 and the others are being built in NEW plants, that cost nothing to permit, no unions to support and probably from parts made in several other countries around the world. By the way, think is the number one selling model today... bascule; If your talking about the Tax Rebate Program, paid in 2008 by Bush, I didn't agree with that either. I can't argue the country hasn't already been hurt, but would argue the degree of pain could have been less and will be more, so long as politicians continue to try and run business. I understand you feel Government should take responsibility for many things 'cradle to grave' of human activity, but that idea has been tested to many time to try over. Chavez in Venezuela, today is heralding the notion, his people have just voted in Socialism for their country. I hate the idea, having followed Cuba's rise in Living Standards over the past 50 years, and hope my kids and theirs have the same future, I have so enjoyed in the past...

It's not possible to go over 1100 plus pages of programs designed to increase Federal influence/regulation and control. There is no way to explain any program that is not explained, that has no limitation, defined goals or in fact ending. What is apparent is States are going to be bailed out of current financial problems brought on in part by very poor management and a Federal Government that will be imposing hundreds of mandates for this assistance. I won't even bother to explain my opinions on dysfunctional city governments that have been failing for years... I opposed, the 2008 Financial Bailout designed by Paulson and am unaware of any 2008 Bush Stimulus Bill. As that bailout has failed, so will the current and frankly the next one designed to pay off failing mortgages. It's become a joke and just who has been in charge of Congress since 2006??? Propping up false bottoms is just not possible... I did/do support LOANING cash to the Big Three old US Auto Companies, after opposing the Chrysler loan years ago. These three still produce 10 million auto/trucks plus per year and employ or support millions of workers/retirees, support thousand of secondary business related or not to the auto, and pay billions in local taxes. That 32 Billion loan (or whatever) dwarfs anything the ENTIRE Stimulus bill will or could possibly produce...IMO. I have already explained the grounds Republicans could not VOTE FOR a BILL, they had not read or been involved in its conception. As for the so called 'Tax Cuts' in the bill and ones republicans normally could support, they are credits for obedience (buy something) or outright welfare. Couple decades of Republican practice indicates you supported Reagan and his policy, which I DO NOT BELIEVE. Conservatives (Reaganites) are right of Republicans, whether fiscal/social or religious in nature. The few of us that have continued to vote Republican, have had no other practical place to go... The Republican have blown nothing. Although I disagree in their reasoning (failure will lay on the Democrats), it is the Nation that will eventually suffer. If the Obama Administration ideas do work, even if self proclaimed or not actual, or fail in total...the country will be the loser.

I most certainly agree... cameron; My medical experience involves only being married to nurse, for awhile. But common sense tells me your *repeating* problem/feelings are not a good sign. Were your tonsils removed? How long ago did you have strep throat? Does the soreness also involve a runny nose or other sinus problems? Being a swimmer, your upper tarsal could be telling you many things. I assume you a younger person, wondering why your Dad hasn't insisted you see a doctor...

First sales of an equity (share of a stock) is taxed under 'Capital Gains', not subject to earnings. The person today pays 10% long term (held over one year) or 15% for short term (under one year). Thats from the first dollar, but is subject to other capital gains or losses, selling a home for instance. Income taxes on the other hand are taxed at 35% today, on adjusted incomes over $357,701. Much more in the last century and the reason pay packages often include stocks or options, in the first place. I am assuming your CEO, holds shares or options on 394k shares of the company you work for, but it would surprise you how many of management buys stock in the company they feel will improve with their assistance. Anyway the option is usually a price set, for the employee to buy/sell a share and then with a holding period to maintain that share. If a simple grant, the employee is given a share and the tax value (gain/loss) is set on the price of that share the following trading day opening price. The company then can deduct that price, whether the stock was purchased or issued for that purpose. Much of what Congressional Members and Unions are complaining about is this management of taxes, not the dollars involved. Since millions of people play the same game, day traders to selling property 1/1 opposed to 12/30, they can't address as they would like. Many executives hire on to management for 1.00 per year, Lee Iaccoca (Chrysler Corp.) the most famous but far from the only, but received either stock or those options at greatly reduced prices. I might add, most of the larger Corporations, have employee (all) programs, where you can buy a share for less than the market value. This in part has been elevated by 401k's, where any eligible employee (union/management) contribution is added to in portions up to 50%, where their stock is involved.

Obama, DID show signs of 'Political Bipartisanship', traveling to the House/Senate for meetings, inviting them to the WH and desirous of a majority of both parties in the final drafting/vote of the Stimulus Bill. The problem is he also asked Congress to write the bill and get it passed by Presidents Day. I also believe he has/had no understanding of the difference in Spending/Stimulus or potential results of either on the economy nor does he understand the consequences of talking down an economy. What he or more likely his advisor's KNEW, was anything written by the Administration could draft, would be fought over by every House Member or Senator of both parties, taking months to years to accomplish, then probably very little and to late knowing the economy will eventually correct itself. bascule; Congress has passed THE MOST SIGNIFICANT piece of legislature, in the History of the UNION, IMO. Not only is it the most costly, none of which can be paid for in the normal manner, it contains the foundation for Social programs not yet imagined and possibly the control of Government over the economy and traditional business structure that made the US, the power it has been. Obama, when signing this, will make the Congress the keeper/provider/regulator for many up to now, State Issues and in return will make the Executive the sole power for international affairs. My opinion... iNow; As far as I am concerned, you have crossed the line with an apparently total ignorance of how the Party Affiliation, political system works. NO Republican, Democrat, Libertarian or any party, is 100% behind every principle of their affiliated platform. Frankly if you bother to read, just the Dem/Rep 2008 platforms you'll find much the same in each. To the thread title this is what the Republican does say, as does the Democrat... Under 'Plan to control spending'... "If billions are worth spending, they should be spent in the light of day. We will insist BEFORE the House or Senate CONSIDERS a spending bill, every item will be presented to the TAXPAYERS, on the Internet" Those "poor wittle feelings" were not hurt, they were abiding to their platform. Aside from this, parties have BASIC differences. Living/Traditional acceptance of the Constitution, larger government vs smaller more efficient, individual/State rights over government, the basic capitalism economy or government management via regulation and a host of very different understanding of what should or should not be. Frankly sir, I don't think you relate to anything close to a Republican understanding on any issue and if you do not agree with the Democrat viewpoint, its because you left of those values.

According to *Economist View*, it takes from 110k jobs(FED) per month to 150k (Greg lp WSJ) to maintain full employment or current levels in the first place. Thats about 1.44 million to 1.80 million per year in the US. Mr. Obama's statements are for a two year period stating at different times 3-4 million, which for all practical purposes would solve nothing. If you explain to me exactly what preventing a job loss means, I could only exaggerate the double talk of either he or his advisor's, for what under normal circumstances would be ONLY natural growth. A good many of specific items are going to be permanent Federal Government programs. There are no expiration dates or in effect where private industry takes over. So long as artificial bottoms are set by government (housing), assistance to buyers themselves (welfare), nothing can be stabilized. Since the 'BILL' will be law Monday, there is no longer reason to argue the point, however I would predict, nothing will happen beneficially until the Administration starts to talk up and issue statistics showing results, which will have positive effects to whatever the real statistics show. In short, we have entered a Government controlled economy and that has never worked...IMO.

The nearest BH, is thought to be *V4641 Sgr.* about 1600 light years from earth. The fastest space craft is the *New Horizon* launched January 2006, to explore Pluto/Charon, in 2015, traveling 150k m/p/h. By comparison the *Pioneer's* traveled 40k m/p/h. A light hour, or the time light travels in one hour is 671 Million miles. There are 14 million light hours in 1600 l/y. For that space craft traveling 150k m/p/h it would take 4474 earth hours (186.4 days) to cover ONE light hour of space. In short your talking about one earth year to cover 2 light hours of miles or 14 million earth years to reach the THOUGHT closest BH. There are many other variables (gravity Resistance/attraction, acceleration, fuels ect. to say nothing of equipment failure for such a period) but the reality is we have no technology to even plan such a trip... There would be no reason IMO to purposely direct a probe into the object being explored, whether the sun, Pluto or some comet/asteroid or if possible a BH. We do have the technology to explore radiation and/or effects of objects by a number of means. We have two probes near the sun, beaming back 3D pictures of the sun, which alone has changed/confirmed some theory.

The Senate version, DOES maintain 1.3 Billion for NASA, additional funding over a five years period. The House version -0- or no mention. Keep in mind, not related to the Stimulus Package, the Pentagon Budget, which has been asked to cut spending 10-11%, through R&D or specific projects, has always added to NASA budgets. This would hurt NASA... More than a formality; The problem, at least so far, is the Joint House/Senate Conference Committee, is working behind closed doors to work out differences. Any decisions made will have a very short time period for viewing (if at all) between the time of decision and/or the votes, again in both chambers. Obama, had addressed this issue during the campaign, saying he would not sign any bill, with out a five day period to address problems. He has not done this to date and not expected to on this Bill...

iNow; You might want to check out 'Stimulus Watch.Org', adding to your extensive reference files, though things are changing by the hour. Did run a search on VN Vets and came up blank... The only connection, I know of between Fox, the Stimulus and Vets, would have an opposite view. From Hannity, the Health Care Provisions, based on Tom Dashiles Book, thought to have been added last Saturday Night, would make all VETS vulnerable to less Medical Service as they age. The direct quote from his book; "Seniors should be more accepting to the conditions, that come from aging". The lady that first brought this to National attention has appeared on other Fox shows and mentioned on Limbaugh Monday. To thread; Swansont, trying to distinguish between pork and legitimate job creation, which is in theory the purpose of this bill, is the cost of each job produced. I'll give you an example in the 17.5 Billion lined up to go to Puerto Rico. It involves many programs, along the energy line for this territory and actually the bill claims will provide 1628 jobs. This amounts to 10,749,885.75 per job, in a territory that has paid no more than 4B in Taxes in any one year and in five years not the 17.5 being offered. Today, Cities around the US are requesting any money authorized by any bill enacted go directly to the project, or at least NOT the State. They know and most everyone in politics, any appropriation bill (that is all this is) is distributed to State Government, with few restrictions on final spending. The Cities are claiming that States will balance their budget, create no jobs or spend the money on ANYTHING constructive to the economy in general...

In short, in the US no law fits all circumstances, or are the penalties involved. If you consider the laws of all States and/or Federal, we have no law that is clear cut or simple to all cases. What you are saying would disqualify probably every person that has run for President, Congress or been appointed to a high level office, worth his/her beans. I assure you Gates/Warren Buffet, or any prominent business person (Mitt Romney) has been audited and forced to pay additional taxes, many times for not including some income. To be fair, most of these people and Corporations request IRS representation while taxes are prepared or at least retired advisor's, not contesting their opinions. Your going to have to pick you Government from a group of school kids or those that know NOTHING of what they should be required to understand fully. IRS, then is a cumulative set of laws/regulations over years of precedent, with added changes, functional to an interpretation of either management, attorney's, auditors or field workers if not all in one person. We don't send people to jail for making errors, we correct or contest and move on... My guess would be, you promote some form of fair tax or maybe a National Sales tax to generate Federal revenues. I doubt there is a system, I haven't heard, but it always ends when State/Local Taxes get involved. States and local governments tax people far more than the Federal already and no amount of reconstruction of US Tax Code, will drop the end result to individual payers. Think you know you are even paying most Corporate Taxes, which is built into cost of operations and there is no revenue the government receives that in some manner is not collected from people. Talk about fair, that fool just signed the 'SCHIP' Bill, which will tax those earning the least or on fixed incomes. A .25 per pack cost to produce, no less...will now cost at least another .61 per.

Each State has different rules for entering Parties onto their ballots. The 2008 General Election had 14 (think right), but not in every State. People, the electorate have chosen the two majors, so have to assume they feel are represented. I would agree, their are some folks that feel disenfranchised, but based on some personal or impotent to them, agenda. It would be nice to THINK some people are morally or in some way better than the rest. However we don't have an aristocratic segment of society. We all go to school, live in and adjust to the society that exist. Obama, did drugs (self admitted and illegal) we elected him, Bush had problems in his youth, as probably every other elected or high office holder in the country, including those in the business field. IMO, this means we elect people, our piers and this is a good thing. Frankly the origin of US Law, comes from the least experienced of these people (House). I agree, the US Tax Code is far to complex for 100% compliance and agree those that created the mess are (in part) their today. To punish a few however for what others have created seems to me, counter productive. Keep in mind, to begin with IRS, has only your forms to deal with. Nothing can be verified or found wrong, unless your report does not agree with secondary reports (Employer/Banks etc). Dashiles auto/driver, was probably reported as an expense, not found on his tax forms. By law, the person that furnished the car/driver, should have sent him a statement of income, as does your bank, employer etc... I would bet he did not and no less guilty than Dashile. Not showing mercy, comes from the IRS, not those that pass law. Your really dealing with common folk here and no less than you would from your local police or City Government. For the record, I have probably gone through as many audits, paid as many fines as any person you know, all in the past. Does this disqualify me for holding a Federal Office, by itself.

It is my belief, that if every member of Congress (535) and every nominated for high office, was in fact audited, every single one would have cheated to some degree. Whether it was intentional, an error OR AN ERROR by the IRS (does happen) is not material. Until 1995, IRS, was NOT responsible to prove anything and could take action against the assets of a tax payer (today they have to use the courts). I do not personally care for Dashile, feel his qualifications could be attacked, but will not condone 'possible' errors that anyone could make be the deciding factor. No, I won't blame Democrats for what both parties have done to the tax codes over the years. Republicans have lowered tax rates or at least known for this, but they certainly did not oppose them to the point of stopping changes. BOTH parties have manipulated 'Bracket's' (amount due on adjusted income) and far more important than rates. They have both changed what is deductible and they have both ignored 'Home Interest Loans' knowing this is the one factor that could arouse public opinion. I'll add that with changes made in some manner by every administration and through the House (only authorized means to change) have only managed to stay with the 19.5% of GNP/GDP estimates. I don't want to nit pick, what people do in everyday life that should be reported as income. Kids come around wanting to cut lawns, or plow snow, in Mountain areas install/remove tire chains or the hundreds of things friend/relatives do for people, but technically these could all become unreported income or unreported contract services, no less than bartered agreements or the underground economy itself.

Maybe I am missing something here, but something really seems wrong to me on this tax issue, at least to what qualifies a person th serve. I have heard this from Tax Attorneys and Accountants, but with 60k pages (or whatever)of IRS regulations, I doubt anyone filing with deductions is free of some kind of error and others miss something that could be classified income. Has making errors on tax forms, whoever prepares, gone to felony levels... Ms. Killefer, for instance didn't pay Unemployment Insurance on household help. Does anybody??? If everyone actually treated household help, as employees there would be none working. Baby Sitters, Lawn Cutters to an occasional maid would all need to be reported and the process to even hire a person be complied with. Daschile, didn't report as income the use of a vehicle or the driver...Well the US Government Motor Pool has 375,000 vehicles, no telling how many drivers and I doubt any person has ever counted the use of one on their tax forms. In fact, you can deduct mileage from you car for using it on business, which seems to me to counter the purpose in the first place. Company Cars are a dime a dozen in the Auto Industry, has been for years and I know of no one that ever claimed that as income. (b4 you ask; worked a few years in GM management and my Dad ran a couple GM plants). I see no reason to start a witch hunt toward politician and I see no reason to disqualify an otherwise qualified person for any job...Make it right and move on. Having had my rant...This sort of nonsense has happened with every new administration, from both parties and at least back to Kennedy, probably back to Washington. Same happens in any nomination, but only lately has so much of so little become more important than QUALIFICATION...

A lot of the momentum for 'Womens Rights' road on the 1971 'Equal Right, women' Constitutional Amendment. "Equality of rights by law shall not be denied or abridged by the US or any State, on account of sex." Very controversial in meaning and never ratified into the Constitution. Many States that did ratify, later withdrew ratification and the Amendment expired. The idea many jobs held by men could not be done by women (NFL Football/Battlefield combat, etc) and interpretation followed into the work field. I happen to agree, but from both angles. A male bank telling, grocery clerk or any number of jobs is better handled by ladies (worth more) and males are more adapted to others, construction workers, roofers, Commercial Airline pilots or many positions the general public perceives safety/security (since in all cases their are exceptions). Question; If you have 100k dollars and start any business where public exposure is a factor, would you not consider this in the price of that labor? Hooter's today is fighting a suit by one many who wants a waiters job, now held by only women at all locations. Then should he expect equal tips or be compensated by the employer? Equal pay for equal work is a lot more complicated than its made out to be, IMO. As for my creditability and Fox News, under your opinion neither of us will ever have any, and I would bet you think, your value is also worth more...point made!!!

You should be more concerned about 12 Democrats crossing the isle, voting against the program...Seems their may be more than one Judas for your Messiah... The reality however, is whatever is compromised in the Senate/Joint Committee, will be passed and regardless of Republican participation. They have the votes...and will take the credit or the blame.

Your probably correct on how the law is written and should be true, males could sue for equal pay...Heard a couple attorneys discussing on FOX, basically saying the male could not....A quick check shows none have, at least at Google... As said, I don't feel its the Federal Governments position to dictate wages, minimum wages to what can be paid to CEO/CFO's. Frankly, I don't think State Government should get involved, but would have the authority, IMO. As for an individual Company, the corner grocery to say a small manufacturing company, should be allowed wage control of any employee and the 'gender/race/age' should not be a factor. Same pay for equal pay, then the judgment of the management/owner or whatever. That's my simply opinion in this age of 'every body is equal'. Thats nonsense to begin with, bring on such reaction, as last week when a girls basketball team was beat by another 100 to -0-, and the winning coach fired. There is no less difference in the value of an employee than those little girls. The end result and frankly has been increasing lately, is the hiring of some folks in the first place and I would bet 'Contract Hiring' will become the norm, along with an increase in whats called 'piece work'. Of course, another result will be tens of thousand of law suits, in an already over stressed legal system and no telling how many hard feelings among fellow employee's.

Savings are taxed according to the taxpayers rate after determining taxable income. Investments (Capital Gains), such as Stocks are taxed regardless of income. Said another way, savings for nearly half the population in the first place is not taxed and those that would RISK their capital, will lose a portion of whatever risked, if profit is the year end result. Manufacturing jobs have moved location, more so than be lost. There is a problem or pending problem from automation, which can't be stopped. Traditionally jobs in general available or people train for have changed sectors. I saw a review, years ago, we would not have the people to operate ATT alone, if still under the original system of operator assisted. You would be surprised how many folks are involved in building solar power units or the construction of one wind turbine alone and was -0- not that long ago. IMO; In some garage today, somebody is working on the next big item to change everything...

Suppose the 'bump' was because of this mornings signing of an 'Equal Pay' Bill in her name, by Obama... I'll call it foul play, since IMO any intrusion into what any business can or can't pay is neither Constitutional or the Federal Governments business. Then practically under this law of any minority pay law, it is one sided. That is if an older white male is paid half of what any lady is paid, he has no recourse.

Correct; By Earned Income Credits or other means then returning money to those not paying. This amounts to individual grants or welfare checks. To thread; Limbaugh proposes lowering 'Capital Gains' and/or 'Corporate Taxes', not to individual tax payers. His proposal was letting Republican CHOOSE, what tax cutting means and to who, while Democrats can choose what to stimulate, or what ever you want to call it... The best idea I have heard is raising the threshold where SS/Medicare kicks in, for the sole and total stimulus and all encompassing for a certain period. For instance if raised to 50k per tax payer, the taxpayer would simply not be paying up to 4k per year and his/her employer would save the same. Self employed, those responsible for a great majority of jobs, not filing Corporate Taxes would save on each employee and the 8K for themselves. This would benefit every company now cutting jobs, or soon will, yet give purchasing power to those working.

T Boone Pickens, has not only offered ideas for alternative energy, he has placed 12 Billion Dollars at risk to developer a very small source. 2700 Wind Turbines over 540 Square miles, on private property (paying portions of any profits) and producing a usable 4MW of electrical power (about the same as ONE Nuclear Generator). The State of Texas has agreed to build the needed transmission lines power lines (est. 7-13B), taking the power to a current grid. BUT, he is also promoting Compressed Natural Gas, for at least the trucking industry, with the desire to make it universal for the entire transportation needs in the US. In short his personal view is to use what is available in the US and decrease or totally eliminating DEPENDENCY on foreign oil and the primary concerns of most knowledgeable economist and/or politicians. Environmentalist do have different agenda and no doubt many if not most simply don't want anything but the total submission of Capitalist in the production of anything created to make life easier for Joe Six Pack. I have never heard anyone say they prefer things to destroy the environment, contaminate all water or produce things specifically to destroy something, I would assume we are all environmentalist in some manner.

People don't live in blocks. The majority of States mentioned have added districts and its just easier to add populated areas, over large territories of sparsely populated farmland. Look up LA Districts and you'll find near blocks. When possible it would always be best for districts formations include Rural/Urban requirements. In doing so and often the reason districts take on strange shapes, is to allow that end result. Keep in mind all State activity is done with State Counties and most States have truly block appearance, even in California. Population not a factor. I don't disagree, that many times through history and today that a Democratic or Republican States Legislature is going to attempt to create the most favorable districts to their ideology. The process only becomes illegal if some form of prejudice is involved, for instance KEEPING Black or Hispanics from becoming the majority in any one district. swansont; Obviously (I Hope) I understand that and the reason for even mentioning the range in territory a DISTRICT can cover. Then noting that districts per State can increase or decrease after each census, as populations shift, not every one knows.

Frankly, I can't think of a more 'Democratic' process in our 'Representative' form of government. No doubt the prevailing 'Party Affiliation' of State Legislatures will determine where districts end, but it remains the choice of the peoples of that States by representation. Limitations are based on the most current 'Census' of the total USA. Today the 435 seats represent the 2000 National Census and took effect for the 2003 Seatings. (Pop. 2000 281,421,906...and each member should represent as close to about 650,000 as possible. The object of the State Legislature's is to keep the total population of each District as close to that 650k as possible. The results through years is what you seeing in districts as districts have been gain (most all the top 20 "gerrymandered") or as they were lost making it easy to shrink into blocks... Congress established the limit arbitrarily in 1911 at 435, from the Constitutional 40k per district and made it official in the 'Reapportionment Act' of 1929, specifically under their authority. Size of Districts by area vary more than you might imagine. Alaska the largest with one district, same in 6 other States (one district), while California with 53 Districts has around 23 in the LA area alone. The projected 2010 Census, estimates Texas will gain 4 seats, Arizona 2 States and 6 other one each, taking away 2 from Ohio and one from 10 others, most from the Northern and NE US.