DT Fine Art

Dr. Glen Stream prepares to examine patient Pete Forsyth in Spokane, Wash., on June 11. Health care spending has eased up recently, a welcome respite for government and corporate budgets. ?Far and away it is related to economic issues,? Stream said. ?I see people who have medical conditions who I should be seeing every three months. They tell me they can only afford to come in every six months or once a year.?

Associated Press

CHARLESTON, W.Va. A top state Senate leader narrowly lost the West Virginia primary in what became the most expensive legislative race of that election, the final round of campaign finance reports from the May 8 primary show.

Overall spending by legislative candidates reached $1.8 million, according to filings posted by the secretary of states office that reflect activity as of May 20. The reported campaign balances for the primary winners also help set the stage for the upcoming general election. Democrats hold majorities in both chambers. While that party will retain its hold on the Senate, because of a lack of Republican candidates, the state GOP has made a top priority of capturing at least 15 House seats to take over that body.

Senate Majority Whip Richard Browning and Delegate Daniel Hall each spent just over $108,000 in the contest that Hall won by 217 votes, making it by far the priciest legislative matchup.

Both Wyoming County Democrats loaned their campaigns $25,000 in the campaigns closing weeks. But Hall also earlier gave his campaign $15,000 to keep pace with Browning. The Senate leaders campaign finance report says he raised $91,834 for the primary, the most of any legislative candidate.

Hall is running for the Senate after two terms in the House of Delegates. Browning, who had successfully moved from the House to the Senate in 2008, joined leadership last year with the ascent of President Jeff Kessler to that chambers top post.

The recently redrawn Kanawha County districts saw the most spending among House candidates. Delegate Nancy Guthrie topped the list for that chamber with more than $56,000. The three-term Democrat also led legislative candidates for campaign loans. Shes self-funding her effort with $42,000.

All told, seven of the 10 highest-spending House candidates hail from Kanawha Countys 35th and 36th delegate districts. With Guthrie seeking re-election in the 36th District, former state Tax Commissioner Chris Morris followed her for spending at $47,000 as he seeks a seat in the 35th. Those top Kanawha County spenders all won primary berths except former Delegate Sharon Spencer, who spent more than $33,000 but failed in her bid to rejoin the House in the three-seat 36th District.

Spencer was not the only legislative hopeful who lost despite outspending opponents. The review of post-primary filings by The Associated Press showed around a half-dozen House candidates whose spending did not yield nominations. They include Delegate Joe Talbott, unseated in the Democratic primary by longtime Webster County Assessor Dana Lynch. Tea party activist Terry Craver, meanwhile, outspent Delegate Ruth Rowan but attracted less than half the primary votes of the Hampshire County Republican.

The campaign finance reports also suggest several top match-ups emerging in advance of the fall campaigns:

Mercer County auto dealer Bill Cole had $18,743 on hand May 20, in his GOP bid to challenge Sen. Mark Wills. Thats twice the balance of the Democratic incumbent, whos coming off a primary he won by 552 votes after vastly outspending his party rival.

Sen. Herb Snyder had a $60,088 balance, the most of any legislative candidate in a contested race. That gave the Jefferson County Democrat a nearly 2-to-1 cash edge over Republican nominee Jim Ruland. Both were unopposed May 8.

Sen. Jack Yost, D-Brooke, had more than twice the cash on hand as Pat McGeehan, a former one-term GOP delegate, $32,070 to $13,744. Neither faced a primary challenger.

Republican Joshua Nelson had $11,182 in his bid to unseat Delegate Larry Barker, D-Boone, who had $4,420, in another fall matchup that follows uncontested primaries.

With heavy support from coal interests, Randy Smith built up a nearly $23,000 balance for his GOP campaign as he takes on Delegate Stan Shaver, a Preston County Democrat who had $7,641 on hand.

Eastern Panhandle lawyer Stephen Skinner reported the healthiest balance among the House contests, with $43,011. The Jefferson County Democrat faces Elliot Simon, who overcame a low-spending Republican primary rival and had $11,021 as of May 20.

Candidates must file the next round of campaign finance reports by Sept. 28.

___

Online:

Campaign finance reports: http://apps.sos.wv.gov/elections/candidate-search

Lawrence Messina covers the statehouse for The Associated Press. Follow him at http://twitter.com/lmessina

Rarely in history has the cause of a major economic problem been so clear yet have so few been willing to see it.

The major reason this recovery has been so anemic is not Europes debt crisis. Its not, as right-wing economists tell us, because taxes are too high on corporations and the rich, safety nets are too generous to the needy, and regulations on business are too onerous.

Its not even, as some liberals contend, because the Obama administration hasnt spent enough on a temporary Keynesian stimulus.

The answer is in front of our faces. Its because American consumers, whose spending is 70 percent of economic activity, dont have the dough to buy enough to boost the economy – and they can no longer borrow like they could before the crash of 2008.

If you have any doubt, just take a look at the Survey of Consumer Finances, released last week by the Federal Reserve. Median family income was $49,600 in 2007. By 2010 it was $45,800 – a drop of 7.7 percent.

All of the gains from economic growth have been going to the richest 1 percent – who, because theyre so rich, spend no more than half what they take in. They send the rest around the world wherever it can get the highest return.

Can I say this any more simply? The earnings of the great American middle class fueled the great American expansion for three decades after World War II. Their relative lack of earnings in more recent years set us up for the great American bust.

Starting around 1980, globalization and automation began exerting downward pressure on median wages. Employers broke unions in order to make more profits. And increasingly deregulated financial markets began taking over the real economy.

The result was painfully slow wage growth for most households. Women surged into paid work in order to prop up family incomes. When that stopped working, families went deep into debt, using the rising values of their homes as collateral. Then the housing bubble popped.

The Feds latest report shows how loud that pop was. Between 2007 and 2010 (the latest data available) American families median net worth fell almost 40 percent – down to levels last seen in 1992. The typical familys wealth is their home, not their stock portfolio – and housing values have dropped by a third since 2006.

Bottom line: The American economy is still struggling because the vast American middle class cant spend more to get it out of first gear.

What to do? Theres no simple answer in the short term except to hope we stay in first gear and dont slide backward. Over the longer term, the answer is to make sure the middle class gets far more of the gains from economic growth.

How? We might learn something from history. During the 1920s, income concentrated at the top. By 1928, the top 1 percent was raking in an astounding 23.94 percent of the total (close to the 23.5 percent the top 1 percent got in 2007). At that point the bubble popped and we fell into the Great Depression.

But then came the Wagner Act, requiring employers to bargain in good faith with organized labor. Social Security and unemployment insurance. The Works Projects Administration and Civilian Conservation Corps. A national minimum wage. And to contain Wall Street, the Securities Act and Glass-Steagall Act.

In 1941, America went to war – a vast mobilization that employed every able-bodied adult American, and put money in their pockets. And after the war, the GI Bill, sending millions of returning veterans to college. A vast expansion of public higher education. And huge infrastructure investments, such as the National Interstate and Defense Highways Act. Taxes on the rich remained at least 70 percent until 1981.

The result: By 1957, the top 1 percent of Americans raked in only 10.1 percent of total income. Most of the rest went to a growing middle class – whose members fueled the greatest economic boom in the history of the world.

Get it? We wont get out of first gear until the middle class regains the bargaining power it had in the first three decades after World War II to claim a much larger share of the gains from productivity growth.

 2012 Robert Reich Robert Reich, former US secretary of labor, is professor of public policy at UC Berkeley and the author of Aftershock: The Next Economy and Americas Future. He blogs at www.robertreich.org. To comment, go to sfgate.com/chronicle/submissions/#1.

Republicans tell us that Democrats are big spenders, especially President Obama. But the facts say otherwise.

Rex Nutting of Market Watch used Congressional Budget Office data to report that Obama increased spending only 1.4 percent, the lowest annualized growth in federal spending of any president since Dwight Eisenhower! (This includes Obama?s stimulus bill but not the 2009 budget and bank bailouts decided on by George. W. Bush).

Others dispute this percentage but still found that Obama?s spending growth was much less than Reagan?s 8.7 percent and 4.9 percent, HW Bush?s 5.4 percent, or GW Bush 7 percent and 8.1 percent. Bill Clinton?s was also lower at 3.2 percent and 3.9 percent. Thus Republicans accusing Democrats of being big spenders is a myth, a lie.

If Republicans are lying about spending, can we trust them to create jobs? Romney claimed in May that a normal recovery would be 500,000 jobs a month and under 4 percent unemployment.

Bureau of Labor Statistics show that since 1978 only four presidents ever had job growth at 500,000 jobs a month ? twice for Jimmy Carter, once for Ronald Reagan, once Bill Clinton, and yes, Barack Obama once in 2010.

Also unemployment under 4 percent only happened once since 1978 under Bill Clinton in 2000. Romney?s goals are unrealistic enough to be another lie.

If you want to keep spending low, continue creating jobs and elect an honest man for president, re-elect President Obama in November.

Jane Telfair Stowe

Richmond