Stock for that scenario is trading above $.60 on the real money futures market operated by the University of Iowa’s Tippie College of Business, and has trended up since the market opened in mid-July.

That means traders believe there’s a more than 60 percent chance of Republicans controlling both houses of Congress following the 2012 general election.

Traders aren’t willing to put much stock in other scenarios. A Republican-held House and Democratic-held Senate is trading near $.10, as is a scenario where Democrats control Congress. A Democratic House and Republican Senate is trading near $.05.

Traders receive $1 if the scenario they invested in proves to be correct. All others will receive $0, and traders can invest up to $500 in the market.

The GOP pushed through an amended bill, SB 137, which does nothing advocates have pushed for — including reporting requirements and enumeration, or listing, of protected classes. In addition, the legislation provides an exception which allows bullying based on “moral convictions.”

The full language of the insert is: “This section does not prohibit a statement of a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction of a school employee, school volunteer, pupil, or a pupil and parent or guardian.”

In a floor speech Minority Leader in the Senate Gretchen Whitmer (D-East Lansing) slammed the Republicans over the amended language.

“Here today you claim to be protecting kids and you’re actually putting them in more danger,” Whitmer said. “But bullying is not OK. We should be protecting public policy that protects kids — all kids, from bullies — all bullies. But instead you have set us back further by creating a blueprint for bullying.”

“Shockingly, Senate Bill 137 will do more harm than good. Senate Republicans left our students behind in favor of partisan politics and passed a bill that actually allows more bullying. Students and parents expect lawmakers to lead the charge against bullying, but instead Republicans made ideology more important than school safety,” said Emily Dievendorf, policy director of Equality Michigan. “Research clearly shows that only states with enumerated bills see a reduction in bullying. We need a bill that mentions the most affected populations and requires statewide reporting of bullying and harassment. SB 137 simply does nothing to reduce bullying in our schools.”

Democratic senators also assailed the legislation.

“The language in this legislation is disrespectful to the memory of the children who have committed suicide in this state due to bullying. Republicans clearly are not taking the bullying epidemic seriously,” said Senator John Gleason (D-Flushing). “The bill that was presented to us today offers no protections to our students and perpetuates a hostile environment in our schools.”

Gleason made headlines last month after Democratic senators attempted to attach anti-bullying legislation to a bill to lift the cap on the number of charter schools in the state. The GOP rejected both a fully enumerated bill with reporting requirements, and their own version of the bill. In response, Gleason staged a sit-in at the Capitol to protest the move.

“To the families of the ten reported suicides that were directly linked to bullying and the countless others that have gone unreported, this bill adds insult to injury,” said Senator Glenn Anderson (D-Westland). “I have been working for years to pass legislation to provide a safe school environment for all of our students. This bill goes in the exact opposite direction and in fact provides a license to bully.”

The legislation passed 26-11. It now moves to the Republican-controlled House.

Sara Wurfel, spokesperson for Gov. Rick Snyder, would not specifically address the question of the moral conviction exemption, instead issuing the following statement:

The Governor is looking forward to working with the Legislature to get strong anti-bullying legislation to his desk and provide a safe environment for all students. The Governor believes bullying at any time, under any circumstances, is wrong. Period. It has no place in classrooms, schools or communities. It’s time for Michigan to join all the other states with tough laws on the books.

“We’re pleased that the senate has passed an anti-bullying bill that will equally protect all children from all bullying for all reasons, based on their individual worth as human beings, not on being segregated into singled-out groups for special protection,” said Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan. AFA Michigan has been a leading voice opposing enumerated legislation for over a decade, often referring to the legislation as “a Trojan horse for the homosexual agenda.”

“I am ashamed that this could be Michigan’s bill on anti-bullying, when in fact it is a ‘bullying is OK in MI’ law,” said Kevin Epling, an East Lansing parent whose son committed suicide as a result of bullying. His comment was posted on his Facebook page.

In an interview he had more to say.

“For years the line has been ‘no protected classes,’ and the first thing they throw in — very secretly — was a very protected class, and limited them from repercussions of their own actions. This line has no purpose within this piece of legislation except to incite ‘religious bigotry’ within our schools. Schools are trying to build more tolerant students and future leaders, not automatons blindly following misguided adult leaders who seek a return to a 1950′s America,” Epling said. “This will only cause unrest in schools and give schools one more thing to deal with rather than trying to solve a problem. Also it is not a very well thought out ploy, as in some areas of the state the tables might be turned on the ‘anointed ones’ they seek to keep from being punished. This is just very wrong and the way it was done was wrong as well. It was bullying at its best.”

But Glenn says that the new legislation does not allow bullying based on religious beliefs or values.

“It does no such thing,” Glenn said in response to a series of email questions from Michigan Messenger. “The religious free speech protections included in the bill, consistent with the First Amendment, simply ensure that students won’t be bullied or punished — as occurred last year at a high school in Howell — for daring to say they believe a certain behavior is wrong as a matter of sincerely held religious or moral conviction. The First Amendment and other free speech protections do just that, protect free speech, not bullying. And students, like all other Americans, are free to verbally express their opinions — including religious and moral views — without fear of government repression or persecution, including under anti-bullying or harrassment laws.”

Sen. Whitmer answered Glenn’s claims in her floor speech.

“You may be able to pat yourselves on the back today and say that you did something, but in actuality you are explicitly outlining how to get away with bullying,” she said. “Your exceptions have swallowed the rule. As passed today, bullying kids is OK if a student, parent, teacher or school employee can come up with a moral or religious reason for doing it.”

The first proposal, introduced by Republicans who are a minority on the board, would demand the resignation of Shirley Rogers, the Road Commission chairperson. A second proposal, introduced by Democratic Commission Chair Mark Grebner, would demand the resignation of all five members of the Road Commission, reports the Lansing State Journal.

Ingham’s Road Commission is appointed by the Board of Commissioners.

The move comes as tensions in the commission continue to mount. Officials say the employees have circumvented Commission Director Bill Conklin and gone directly to the Board with complaints. As a result, the Road Commission members have investigated the day to day operations of the department.

“The idea that this can be fixed by getting rid of one road member is not going to work,” Grebner said. “The five of them as a group are dysfunctional. The Board of Commissioners has got to get behind the idea that we need a new start.”

Both resolutions were tabled until a November 15 meeting of the Board of Commissioners.

State and local government spending is less likely to be seen as wasted, but belief in how much of it is wasted has risen at about the same pace as belief in federal waste:

The elderly and people without postgraduate degrees are more likely to rate government waste as slightly larger, as well as self-identified Republicans, independents and conservatives.

The partisan difference over how much federal government spending is wasted is the reverse of what it was in 2001, under President George W. Bush, when Democrats on average thought more federal spending was wasted than Republicans did, suggesting who is in office affects perceptions of government waste.

The greater perception of government waste on average among those over age 65 contrasts sharply with the reality that a disproportionate amount of government spending goes to the elderly through Social Security and Medicare. As this graph from the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities shows, federal government spending largely goes to defense and the military, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, safety-net programs and interest on the debt.

In the past, when pollsters have asked Americans which specific federal program they think should be cut, very little consensus emerges on which is most deserving. In January, Gallup found that bipartisan majorities of the public opposed cutting Social Security, Medicare, education and anti-poverty programs.

Foreign aid, which makes up less than one percent of the federal budget, was the most popular potential target of cuts. The biggest partisan difference was over defense spending, where Republicans are much less likely to support cuts.

As Gallup says in its own interpretation of the poll, “It is not clear whether Americans believe government wastes money because it spends on programs they believe are not needed, or because it does not spend money efficiently on programs, whether needed or not.” Nor does the poll say whether Americans believe mandatory or discretionary spending is more wasteful.

About two-thirds of state government spending is typically devoted to K-12 and higher education, Medicaid, transportation, anti-poverty programs and corrections. The remaining third varies by state, but is usually comprised at least somewhat by pensions for retired public sector workers.

The following CBPP graph shows average state government spending by area:

The speech has won plaudits from labor groups and most of the Democratic base for its extension of unemployment insurance benefits and direct jobs training and hiring subsidies for employers, while the package of household and business tax cuts has piqued the Republican Party’s interest as well.

Among the direct jobs spending the president called for, $30 billion would be spent on retaining 280,000 teachers as a counter-cyclical measure to wait out the sluggish economy. After a several-month period of 100,000-plus job gains in the labor market, hiring has slowed, with the most recent monthly jobs report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics noting job growth was completely flat, with net zero new hires.

Going into the 2011-2012 school year, nearly 85 percent of all school districts face budget cuts, according to labor groups; the depletion of 2009 stimulus money that relieved state legislatures from cutting even deeper into education spending meant more layoffs and school infrastructure neglect. The National Education Association, the largest teachers’ union in the country, have said the first round of stimulus funds helped 90 percent of school districts avoid spending cuts. Though with many state legislatures passing expansive tax cuts, school spending was on the cutting block.

Many states have dramatically thinned out spending streams to education. From Center on Budget and Policy Priorities:

21 of the 24 states analyzed are providing less funding per student to local school districts in the new school year than they provided last year, and 17 of the 24 are providing less than they did before the recession, after adjusting for inflation. In 10 of these 24 states, per student funding is down by more than 10 percent from pre-recession levels. The three states with the deepest cuts — South Carolina, Arizona, and California — each have reduced per student funding to K-12 schools by more than 20 percent.

Though state contributions to school district spending varies by state, nationally, 47 percent of public education spending comes from state coffers. Since the start of the Great Recession, 229,000 teachers were laid off. And with the housing market at a standstill, local communities are strapped as their chief revenue stream runs dry.

Still, a few states upped their primary and secondary education spending: Alaska, Iowa, New Hampshire, Maryland, Massachussetts and Pennsylvania sent more dollars to K-12 education since the start of the recession.

Because public education allotments follow ‘formula’ spending as indicated by federal law — in which dollars are sent over based on district financial need — a disproportionate amount would flow to poorer neighborhoods, meaning middle-class zones would feel the squeeze. New Jersey, for example, is under court order to withhold any more spending cuts affecting school districts in low-income areas.

The remaining $25 billion would go to refurbishing school structures while funding new science labs, internet-ready classrooms, and modernizing rural school houses while bolstering public school facilities’ green bonefides across the country.

A statement from the American Federation of Teachers, the second largest teachers’ union, read in part:

President Obama also made it clear that the path to our future is through education. We have seen a loss of 300,000 education jobs since 2008 as well as long-delayed school repairs and modernization projects. We can’t equip our kids for the knowledge economy if we continue to slash education budgets. This robust plan will put people to work teaching and modernizing schools, and it will save money in energy costs that can be reinvested in education.

For a spending breakdown of the president’s proposed jobs bill, click here [PDF].

According to Gallup, Minnesota currently has a 9-point Democratic advantage. Forty-seven percent of Minnesota respondents identified as Democrats or leaning towards the Democratic Party while 38 percent are Republicans or lean Republican. That’s down from a high of 15 advantage points in 2008 for Democrats and 12 points in 2009, but an improvement from a low of four points in 2010.

That gap in 2010 was similar for many states, but Minnesota appears to have rebounded more quickly than others.

Minnesota is the only Midwestern state in the top 15 outside of reliably Democratic Illinois.

Gallup’s poll only shows a snapshot of where adults surveyed in the state stand during the poll’s timeframe, January through June 2011, and says other factors may influence voters.

“The party affiliation estimates are based on the entire state adult population, and do not necessarily reflect each party’s electoral strength within a state,” the pollster said. “A state’s voting electorate may be tilted slightly more to one party than the basic affiliation figures due to differences in turnout between Republicans and Democrats in the state and perhaps the strength of the respective party organizations in the state.”

Listed as most strongly Democratic: the District of Columbia (with 78 percent of respondents identifying as Dems compared to 10 percent who consider themselves GOPers), Hawaii (52 to 28) and Maryland (54 to 33). The top state for Republicans is Utah, where 58 percent identified as Republicans and 27 percent identified as Democrats.

The split Legislature — a Republican-controlled House and Democratic-controlled Senate — have been embroiled on these topics since the session commenced in January, while reporting little progress. Hosts of bills have been passed in one chamber, only to die in the other.

Tensions came to a head Tuesday, when Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal (D-Council Bluffs), announced that “people in this building are not listening,” and Democratic leadership planned to meet constituents and encourage them to call Gov. Terry Branstad as a way to sway negotiations.

“The only way we’re going to break this impasse is not among the players up here,” Gronstal said, referring to legislators. “We’re in the 130th day of the session, and it’s not going to be broken inside this building; it’s going to be broken by Iowans stepping up to the plate, calling the Governor and telling him zero percent for local schools is unacceptable.”

Split Legislatures have come together on decisive and hot-button issues in the past, lawmakers noted. This year, however, the atmosphere is different under the golden dome.

“In those (past) years, there were people that were committed to education and job creation in this state,” Gronstal said Tuesday. “This is why we’re asking Iowans to make these phone calls to Gov. Branstad, because that commitment doesn’t seem to be there.”

House Majority Leader Kraig Paulsen (R-Hiawatha) has been more reluctant to pinpoint a reason, though he remains optimistic that the session will end with handshakes across the aisle.

“This legislative session has been — well, it doesn’t feel like it has that sense of urgency the others have,” he said last week. “For whatever reason we’re moving through it a little bit slower.”

With one side optimistic and the other side warning of government shutdown, why does the gridlock persist?

The answer is easy, and it has little to do with hot-button issues, prominent Des Moines attorney Steve Roberts, a Republican and former Republican Party of Iowa chairman, said: Legislative gridlock has not been broken because there’s no incentive to break it.

“There’s no pressure felt to come to an agreement,” Roberts said. “There’s no incentive to compromise.”

Roberts, who is also a former Republican National Committee member, said one distinct difference with this Legislative session compared to past split Legislatures is attendance. In past sessions, lawmakers were required to stay in the capital city, even after the last scheduled day passed, which meant paying out of their own pockets for meals and lodging. This year, lawmakers have been largely absent from the Statehouse.

“There was that economic pressure,” Roberts said of past sessions. “This (session) is a test of wills.”

Gordon Gibson, a Democrat and retired attorney in Marion who is involved in Democratic politics, says polarization of the two main political parties over time have “solidified positions on issues, so there is no room to compromise.”

“It’s become this, ‘It’s my way or the highway,’” he said.

Still, this Legislature wants to appear eager to reach agreements on budgets, property tax relief and social issues, such as abortion laws. Both sides have appealed to voters in hopes one side will be able to sway the other into compromise, a tactic that is not unusual.

Only months ago, Democrats were dispatched into their Districts in an attempt to garner support for their two-percent allowable growth stance with the budget. The move “won the argument with lots of people, but we didn’t win it with any of the people in this building,” Gronstal acknowledged.

Paulsen seems unfazed by Democratic efforts.

“By the sounds of it, they’re going out and meeting people, and the House Republicans have been doing that since day one,” he told The Iowa Independent this week. “We have a good idea of what people want, and that is not government spending more than we take in. Democrats want to talk about stalemates and impasses, but I’m not using those words.”

Gibson believes the efforts will ultimately be rendered ineffective.

“I won’t change Terry Branstad’s opinion on anything if I call him up and try to do so, and it wouldn’t matter if I was a Democrat, Republican, Independent, or whatever,” he said.

Democratic leaders have hinted that a state government shutdown could be a consequence if the chambers fail to act, though a shutdown is not why the session has stalled. Such ideas have been rebuffed by Republicans, including Branstad and the Iowa Department of Management.

Additionally, Gronstal said Tuesday, this legislative “session is not stalled because of social issues or two-year budget gimmicks;” however, social issues are still very much at the forefront of the agenda.

Monday, the Iowa Senate sent a newly-approved abortion bill to the House, after rejecting to debate a House bill that would prohibit nearly all abortions after 20 weeks gestation and define life as beginning at fertilization. The Senate’s action does nothing but continue to hold up business, Sen. Mark Chelgren (R-Ottumwa) said during debate.

Chelgren’s frustration and disappointment over the deadlock between the legislative bodies could be sensed as he attempted multiple times to convince Gronstal to reconsider the House Republicans’ abortion bill.

“(Senate File 534) is going to — you can vote it unanimously — to pass to the House like a ship in the night, and nothing will happen, just like House File 657 passed like a ship in the night here. The reality is we’re going to have an abortion clinic here because we failed to come together to get anything done again,” Chelgren said.

The bill is likely to be added to the pile of issues that have yet to see compromise.

Tuesday afternoon, Paulsen told The Iowa Independent that he needed to read the legislation a second time, but indicated it probably does not have a good chance for passage in the Iowa House.

“I don’t know if it says what kinds of abortions can happen and where, but if all it does is formalize the process of opening a clinic … well, House Republicans aren’t interested in allowing that,” he said.

Gronstal deflected questions Tuesday about how the Senate’s new abortion bill contributes to the political deadlock, saying the bill had been sent to the Iowa House for consideration and “I have no idea what the House is going to do.”

He added, “That’s up to the House.”

In 1992, the Legislative session ran until June 25; Branstad was also sitting in the Governor’s Office during that session. Sessions have a deadline of July 1.

“Personally, I thought the session would have been over by May 5,” Roberts said, adding a typical Legislative session will last a week past the last scheduled day.

“However, Governor Branstad is supposed to be leaving on his trade trip to China mid-June. We’ll just have to see what happens.”

Gallup has the breakdown on its website, which includes the little-acknowledged fact that independents overwhelmingly want a third party and always have:

Interestingly, the poll also includes a potential barometer of ideological identification across the country. When asked to identify themselves by political party, 72 percent of self-styled independents called for a third party, compared to just 33 percent of Democrats. But when asked to identify themselves by general ideology, support for a third party among moderates dropped to 52 percent, while support among liberals rose to 51 percent.

Support for a third party held steady at 52 percent across self-identified Republicans and conservatives, suggesting that very few independents identified as conservative, while more than one in four independents identified as liberal.

If a quarter of independents consider themselves liberal and the rest are strictly moderate, it could move the 2012 presidential election in a number of directions. That bloc of liberal-but-not-Democrat voters could end up being a lock for President Obama, leaving it to the Republican candidate — already working with a smaller base than that held by the Democratic party — to fight for every last moderate’s vote. This would all but ensure an Obama victory unless more than two-thirds of non-party-affiliated moderates vote Republican.

Or the growing number of independent liberals disillusioned with the Obama administration over issues like the detention of Bradley Manning and the perpetuation of Bush-era anti-terrorism tactics could just stay home on election day, bolstering Republicans’ chances. Similarly, for the same reasons, staunch liberals may come out in support of a third-party candidate, to the detriment of the Democratic Party — though some have argued that the vote-siphoning effect of third parties is greatly exaggerated.

It’s simply too early to tell. But that large number of liberal and moderate independents fed up with the entire two-party system may very well end up deciding the election. Both parties would do well to start courting them, and soon.

In a sign that Republican-led attacks on public unions’ collective bargaining rights may be reaching a tipping point on their way to widespread application, the Massachusetts House of Representatives Tuesday night passed Amendment 749 to its 2012 budget. The amendment, introduced by Rep. Brian (D-Essex), is said by its backers to save money by limiting the ability of public employee unions to negotiate over health coverage.

The Massachusetts amendment is different from similar legislation in other states because it was introduced by a Democrat and garnered the support of Democrats, passing in a 113 to 42 vote (the tally reported in the Boston Globe doesn’t reflect two late votes). The Massachusetts House of Representatives is overwhelmingly Democratic.

The Boston Globe’s Michael Levenson reports that Speaker of the House Robert DeLeo, another Democrat, defended the bill as debate heated up Tuesday:

DeLeo said the House measure would save $100 million for cities and towns in the upcoming budget year, helping them avoid layoffs and reductions in services. He called his plan one of the most significant reforms the state can adopt to help control escalating health care costs.

“By spending less on the health care costs of municipal employees, our cities and towns will be able to retain jobs and allot more funding to necessary services like education and public safety,’’ he said in a statement.

The push to defend cuts to union rights in the name of saving jobs didn’t sit well with union leaders in Massachusetts, a state traditionally considered union-friendly. The Globe’s Levenson reports:

Unions fought hard to stop the bill, launching a radio ad that assailed the plan and warning legislators that if they voted for the measure, they could lose their union backing in the next election. After the vote, labor leaders accused House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo and other Democrats of turning their backs on public employees.

“It’s pretty stunning,’’ said Robert J. Haynes, president of the Massachusetts AFL-CIO. “These are the same Democrats that all these labor unions elected. The same Democrats who we contributed to in their campaigns. The same Democrats who tell us over and over again that they’re with us, that they believe in collective bargaining, that they believe in unions. . . . It’s a done deal for our relationship with the people inside that chamber.’’

“We are going to fight this thing to the bitter end,’’ he added. “Massachusetts is not the place that takes collective bargaining away from public employees.”

If passed, the legislature or governor could veto decisions made by an arbitrator, and public employee unions would no longer have the ability to negotiate health care or retirement plans. It would also allow employees to become “free agents,” who can negotiate their terms of employment directly with employers even if they are in a union shop.

Both sides said they expect large turnouts for a public hearing on the bill Monday night, and are already making arrangements for audio to be provided to those who are not able to find space in the Iowa House.

“It’s our intent to have our voices be heard and to make sure Iowans know the bill that’s moving forward ends our current collective bargaining system in Iowa,” said House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (D-Des Moines).

Another piece of legislation would require an arbitrator to consider benefits and salaries in the private sector when making a ruling on a public union’s contract.

“I think we stand in unity with the House Democrats, it’s about educating people,” said Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal (D-Council Bluffs). “People talk about our collective bargaining system being out of balanced. It is so out of balance that education was able to bargain themselves up all the way to 42nd in the country in teacher pay. Does that sound out of balance against government?”

Gronstal added he believed it’s about “pitting Iowans against Iowans.”

But Republicans said changes are needed and having public employees who do not contribute anything towards their health insurance is unrealistic. According to state records, about 13 percent of state employees pay a share of their health insurance coverage.

“When I look through e-mail traffic and when I talk to people back home, it’s that government continues to cost too much,” said House Speaker Kraig Paulsen (R-Hiawatha). “Some of the total compensation packages aren’t reflective of what’s going on in the private sector.”

But during a recent open enrollment period, more employees moved into a free HMO plan that costs the state less than the plans that require the employee to contribute. And recent studies by the Iowa Policy Project and the New York Times both found private sector employees earned significantly more than the public sector.

Iowa Policy Project, a nonpartisan think tank based in Iowa City, found Iowa males working as public employees earned 12 percent less than their private sector counter-parts, females earned 16 percent less. Even when adding in other forms of compensation, such as retirement and health care benefits, the study found public employees still earned less.

The bill which would require analysis of public and private sector wages does not state specifically how it would be considered.

Last week, around 1,000 protesters gathered outside of the Capitol to show solidarity with the Wisconsin public unions and to show their disagreement with proposed legislation in the House. Then on Saturday, another 500 protesters showed up in the snow to condemn Republican efforts to alter collective bargaining rights.

Four recent national polls show the public supports union bargaining rights, although an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found a majority thought it was fine if public employees paid more toward their health insurance and pensions, and freezing pay increases for a year.

Of the top groups making outside campaign expenditures nationally in the 2010 elections, excluding party committees, the only ones that favored Democrats were public employee unions — American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Service Employees International Union and the National Education Association. Many have suggested if they were weakened, Republicans would then have a monopoly on some of the largest campaign contributors.

Many states throughout the Midwest, including Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana and Michigan, are debating some form of legislation which would alter public unions or collective bargaining rights. A study out this week by the Economic Policy Institute found states that have adopted right-to-work laws have not increased their employment.