Each morning, Bill Scher and Terrance Heath serve up what progressives need to effect change on the kitchen-table issues families face: jobs, health care, green energy, financial reform, affordable education and retirement security.
Morning Message: Obama vs. Obama: One Budget, Two Competing Visions of the Future
OurFuture.org's Richard Eskow: "Today the Western world is divided between two visions of our economic future. One vision is of austerity and the other is of growth. One is of hope and possibility, the other of despair and cynicism. The battle between these two visions has divided the United States and the entire Western world. And both of them can be found in in President Obama latest budget. It's almost as if the President decided that if the Republicans can't provide him with a challenger worthy of this debate, he'll conduct it with himself."
Super PACs To The Rescue?
G.O.P. Campaigns Grow More Dependent on ‘Super PAC’ Aid [NYT]: "Weeks of intense campaigning in the early nominating states have left the leading Republican presidential candidates increasingly dependent on millions of dollars spent on their behalf by outside 'super PACs,' reports filed with the Federal Election Commission on Monday showed. Mitt Romney’s campaign spent close to $19 million during January, almost three times as much as the $6.5 million he raised.... Newt Gingrich raised nearly as much, $5.6 million, and spent close to $6 million. ...The super PAC backing Mr. Romney, Restore Our Future, raised $6.6 million in January and spent close to $14 million, much of it on advertisements battering Mr. Gingrich in Iowa and Florida. A super PAC backing Mr. Gingrich raised much more that month — almost $11 million — and spent most of it on attack advertisements against Mr. Romney... The spending reports revealed the breadth and power of super PACs as the campaign hits a critical and perhaps decisive period, with outside groups poised to pick up a growing share of political spending during the costly primary battle that lies ahead."
Romney Benefits From Campaign, SuperPAC Funds [NPR]: "Reports filed at the Federal Election Commission Monday night show just how important a superPAC can be. Last month, the campaign of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney raised $6.4 million. The pro-Romney superPAC called Restore Our Future raised $6.6 million. And three donors joined a select group which has given the superPAC $500,000 to a million each. 'What gave him (Romney) his financial advantage were 25 donors to the superPAC'" says Anthony Corrado, a political scientist at Colby College."
Pro-Obama Super PAC Priorities USA Action raises $58,815.83 in January [Washington Post]: "President Obama surprised a lot of pundits, and dismayed many reformers, when he announced earlier this month that he would allow campaign aides and Cabinet members to help a "super PAC" raise unlimited funds for his reelection. Now we know why some Obama supporters may have been so panicked: Priorities USA Action, the main pro-Obama super PAC, raised just $58,815.83 in January, according to a report filed late Monday with the Federal Election Commission. By comparison, Restore Our Future, the super PAC backing GOP challenger Mitt Romney, raised an average of $212,000 per day in the same month."
2012: Year Of The Billionaire
At HuffPo, Robert Kutter called Americans Elect "the radical center we don't need": "If anything, Americans Elect and David Walker epitomize all that's wrong with American democracy. Americans Elect is the creature of multi-millionaires and billionaires, who now have the ability to spend infinite money putting their thumbs on the scales of American democracy thanks to the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision. Walker himself enjoys his enlarged megaphone thanks to the billion dollars that retired private equity mogul Pete Peterson put into the austerity crusade. The deadlock preventing solutions to America's real problems is not the result of a symmetrical partisan stand-off. Republicans are surely farther to the right than any mainstream party in American history, but today's Democrats are hardly left-wing. The policy stalemate is simply the consequence of Republicans blocking everything Obama proposes. We already have a centrist party. It's called the Democrats. Obama's Democrats are to the right of Richard Nixon on most domestic economic issues. If Democrats had not joined Republicans in financial deregulation, we never would have had the economic collapse of 2008."
PayPal co-founder donates millions to Ron Paul super PAC [CNN Money]: "Silicon Valley renaissance man Peter Thiel donated another $1.7 million in January to a super PAC that backs Ron Paul, according to disclosure documents filed Monday. The PayPal co-founder donated $1 million on January 3, and followed that up 10 days later with an additional $700,000 gift. The donations, disclosed in Federal Election Commission filings, account for almost 75% of the $2.3 million collected by the Endorse Liberty super PAC last month. They aren't the first donations from the entrepreneur, venture capitalist and hedge fund manager. Thiel made donations of $150,000 and $750,000 to the super PAC in December, gifts that were disclosed in the committee's year-end filing."
Slates David Weigel takes account of Ron Paul's billionaire backer —PayPal Founder Paul Thiel: "Some Ron Paul supporters talk about the election as a choice: salvation or doom. ...Thiel, who is ostensibly doing more than anyone else to help Paul win, is already looking past the election. It is teaching moment, maybe, that can convince more people to drop out and innovate. He is serious about that. If you want to drop out of college to innovate, he has a scholarship for you. If you want to try to fix the current American system, well, best of luck. 'I’m sort of skeptical of how much voting actually works in the first place,' says Thiel. 'I used to think that it was really important to directly change the political system, to convince people of things. I still think it’s intellectually very important. Occasionally, you get some converts that way. But it’s really an inefficient way of doing things...' Thiel has invested in a presidential campaign; he’s also invested in a plan to build floating sovereign island nations. This is a donor who likes to plan for the future.
MarketWatch's Paul B. Farrell says it's not halftime in America, but sudden death: "The Game is also not about politics. Politicians don’t work for voters. Both parties are just mercenaries placing bets in a high-stakes casino bankrolled by and for the Super Rich. Forget democracy, voting, politics. It’s now painfully obvious to all that today billionaires with personal agendas are running American politics. Our votes are irrelevant. The Super Rich bet on both parties. And they get huge payoffs, no matter who’s elected. No Clint, this is not a game, this is war, anarchy, an out-of-control economic war that’s already rewarded the top 1% with a 265% wealth increase the past three decades, while the incomes of the 99% have flat-lined, killing the middle class."
The Coming Gas Wars
Oil prices spike on Iran export halt. Is $4 gas next? [CNN Money]: "Oil prices rose Monday after Iran cut exports to Britain and France, raising worries that higher gas prices may follow suit. Iran's oil ministry said Sunday that it would stop exporting oil to French and British companies. The announcement came just days after Iran threatened to cut supplies to some European Union countries in retaliation for sanctions put in place by the EU and United States. ...Prices are already up nearly 9% from the start of the year. According to motorist group AAA, the national average price of $3.56 a gallon marks the 13th consecutive increase. The price of unleaded gasoline in the U.S. will likely hit a nationwide average of $4 by this summer, said Dan Dicker, oil trader and author of 'Oil's Endless Bid.' The last time prices topped $4 was 2008 and Dicker said there's a one in three chance that gas could reach $5 a gallon."
Rising gas prices give GOP weapon against Obama [USA Today]: "Gas prices are starting to top $4 a gallon on the upper Midwest, West Coast and other parts of the country, raising the spector that Republicans can use the issue to topple President Obama in November. Gas prices have generally moved in tandem with the economy. When unemployment is high and growth is stagnant, gas prices topple. Now, with the economy starting to show some gains, gas demand is rising among people who have to get to work and who now have some money in their pockets for vacations or a second, or third car, so they are rising again."
Robert Reich reports from the front lines of the gas wars: "Nothing drives voter sentiment like the price of gas – now averaging $3.56 a gallon, up 30 cents from the start of the year. It’s already hit $4 in some places. The last time gas topped $4 was 2008. And nothing energizes Republicans like rising energy prices. Last week House Speaker John Boehner told Republicans to take advantage of voters’ looming anger over prices at the pump. On Thursday House Republicans passed a bill to expand offshore drilling and force the White House to issue a permit for the Keystone XL pipeline. The tumult prompted the Interior Department to announce on Friday expanded oil exploration in the Arctic. If prices at the pump continue to rise, expect more gas wars."
Economic Update
Obama peddles modest American dream [AP]: "What Obama describes as the American Dream can seem a spare, fundamental aspiration, tailored for a campaign that looks to be fought over who is best equipped to safeguard the interests of middle-class Americans. The question is whether it will convince, even as Mitt Romney and the other GOP presidential hopefuls mount a counter-argument that the president has made the American Dream harder, not easier, to achieve. And Obama must overcome the grinding realities many voters confront daily, even with the economy showing signs of life: no jobs, mortgages they can't pay, dwindling retirement funds and college savings. The president is betting that if he shows voters he understands their yearning for economic stability and security, they'll reward him over Republicans he's casting as just watching out for the rich - even though he hasn't succeeded in fully reviving the economy so far."
Some Doubt a Settlement Will End Mortgage Ills [NTY]: "Even as government officials prepare to unveil new standards this week for how banks treat millions of Americans facing foreclosure, housing advocates and homeowners are skeptical the rules will be able to do something past efforts have not: provide a beleaguered borrower with one individual to help them navigate the mortgage maze. While the entire process of seeking a mortgage modification is complicated and time-consuming, few elements are as maddening as the inability to get through to a representative at the bank, or being asked for the same documents again and again. So the promise of a single point of contact has emerged as a crucial element in the much-ballyhooed $26 billion settlement reached earlier this month involving state attorneys general, the federal government and the five biggest mortgage servicers. These rules will apply nationwide and come with commitments of strong enforcement by federal and state authorities, but they carry a familiar ring for those experienced in the foreclosure process."
Mike Lux looks ahead at 2012 and asks "What if the economy heads back downhill?": "If every jobs report over the next 8 months has at least 250,000 new jobs like the last one did, President Obama should easily cruise to victory over Romney or Santorum or whatever unlucky soul the Republicans put up. But if things take a turn for the worst, as is easy to imagine given the underlying structural problems this economic car we're driving has, it is going to be a hell of a ride. The president's team needs to hope for the best but plan for the worst, and they need to take care to not brag too much about whatever good we are seeing. They need to make damn sure the financial fraud task force succeeds, because more is riding on that than many people realize. And above all, they need to fight like bulldogs for the middle class. That strategy gives them a solid chance to win the 2012 election no matter what else happens."
GOP Race To The Right
Michael Tomasky writes that there will be no savior for the GOP in 2012: "If Mitt Romney fails to win Michigan next Tuesday, a few high-powered Republicans have started saying, the party needs to go back to square one and recruit a new candidate. Yes, maybe it does. But what will that fix? Not much. What the party needs is not simply a new candidate. It needs someone with the courage to stand up and say that the GOP has gone completely off the deep end—and that the party could run an amalgam of Ronald Reagan and Mahatma Gandhi and he wouldn’t win as long as the party’s inflamed base keeps with its current attitudes. But it lacks such a person utterly. It’s a party made up of on the one hand unprincipled cowards, and on the other of people devoted to principles so extreme that they’d have serious trouble attracting more than about 42 percent of the vote."
Meteor Blades asks the two burning questions for the GOP — Can Santorum get beyond the GOP base? Can Romney get the GOP base?: "One reason Republican elders are futilely pounding on Mitch Daniels's door at this late date is Mitt Romney. The other is Rick Santorum. To the elders, each man appears to be parading around with a big "L" for loser-in-November engraved on his forehead. For Santorum, it's a matter of being able to persuade people that the positions he has been espousing in the campaign so far don't mark him as outside even the mainstream of an ever-more-rightward party on issues of abortion, birth control, women's role in society, environmental matters including climate change and his recent two-steps-forward, one-step-back comments regarding who, including the president of the United States, is and is not truly a Christian. ...For Romney, it's the opposite problem. Ginning up Republican enthusiasm come November if he should get the nomination, which most analysts still believe to be the most likely outcome of the primary contest, could be difficult, to say the least."
WaPo's Eugene Robinson writes that Rick Santorum could take the Republicans down with him: "Santorum’s social conservatism is a huge iceberg, and his views on women and childbearing are just the tip. He not only opposes gay marriage but has criticized the Supreme Court decision that struck down anti-sodomy laws and declared that “I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts.” That alone would be enough to put him well outside the mainstream. But his Ozzie-and-Harriet ideas about family life place him in a different solar system. ...The issue, for Republicans, is not just that Santorum would lose in November. It’s that he could be a drag on House and Senate candidates as well. Imagine, say, Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) trying to explain to his constituents why someone who doesn’t fully understand women’s participation in the workforce should be president."
Breakfast Sides
Gary Younge notes Barack Obama's lucky history of hapless opponents: "Barack Obama has often been lucky with his enemies. ...Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign was far less than the sum of its parts; John McCain chose Sarah Palin as his running mate, a hail Mary pass that went seriously awry. Now, as he heads for reelection, he must be saying a prayer every day in thanks for Mitt Romney. The problem with the former Massachusetts governor is not sex and aggression in the home but a lack of passion and affection on the stump. For in the former Massachusetts governor the Republican party has found the worst of all worlds: a candidate feasible enough to represent their best hope and yet insufficiently appealing to be able to leverage that feasibility into electoral capital. Since Iowa, his nomination has seemed as inevitable as his candidacy was vulnerable. It can't get any worse than a presumptive nominee whose nomination seems presumptuous."
Ian Fletcher dissects the disingenuous economics of Ron Paul: "So Rep. Paul is in favor of free trade in theory, he's just not in favor of free trade as actually practiced. What a neat way to simultaneously preserve one's fealty to an ideological ideal while also being able to take a swipe at unpopular "special interests and big business." Any problems you think free trade causes? They're the bad guys' fault. This stance renders the idea of free trade logically immune to any empirical counter-evidence, because one can always explain away that evidence as being due to imperfect implementation. ...Unfortunately, free trade isn't just a good thing, badly implemented. It is fundamentally defective in its own right. (There's not the space to explain why here, but I did write a whole book on the question, with a skeleton summary here.) For most of American history, we didn't practice it. ...But does Dr. Paul say this? No. He doesn't even give a hint that he's even aware of it. So this isn't, apparently, what he means."
Matt Yglesias expains why the fast food industry hates the idea of raising the minimum wage: "I find that a lot of discussions of the appropriate level of the minimum wage tend to be unduly abstracted away from the practicalities. The food service industry is precisely where the "marginal worker" tends to be employed, and I think it's no coincidence that this industry features a gigantic loophole to the generally prevailing rule. To really put competing theories of the minimum wage to the test, you'd have to have a loophole-free generally enforced rule. Instead we have a big loophole for waitresses and at the other end of the labor market a big loophole for interns."
