This time last week, President Obama gave his State of the Union. It seems like a lot longer ago than that because the speech basically went unnoticed by the time the weekend came around. Reactions were mixed, but the chief criticism seems to be that the speech amounted to little more than several popular and small proposals. Krauthammer, Brooks and others were unsatisfied by the lack ofgrandeur that once characterized Obama’s policy oriented rhetoric.

But the reality is that any large scale mandate is out of the question at this point. It would end up being opposed by Republicans out of the spirit of turning Obama into a one term president by making him look legislatively impotently and it would work. Any large enough piece of legislation would have something in that could be labeled asunforgivablyobjectionable and Republicans would harp on it or they would just lie (death panels! – Politifact’s lie of the year).

Most people are tired of broad rhetoric and want a specific plan of action.

What Obama has done is exactly what he should be doing. Despite what my crush over at ABC (Amy Walter) thinks, this was Clintonian triangulation at its finest.Obama is trying to make it as difficult as possible for the GOP to claimideologicaldifferences to bills as possible. This way, when the Republicans attempt to prevent a entirely agreeable bill, e.g., The Puppies Are Cute 2012 bill, from passing Mitch McConnell will have a hard time claiming that it is socialism or otherwise ideologicallyobjectionable. More than anything, Obama needs to show leadership, action and progress… this comes from congress passing bills.One deal can lead to a second and a third.

So yes, he is starting this new legislative “age” with what should be relatively easy stuff.

The proposals that he has suggested are unquestionably bi-partisan and have genuine support from both sides. In fact, Rep. Jeb Hensarling (a Republican who was on thesuper committee) said, “Like most of the other speeches, I find myself agreeing with about 80 percent of what he says, but disagreeing with about 80 percent of what he does.” While I’m not sure about the second half of that quote, the first half, at the very least, demonstrates agreement on the broad strokes. Most notable are Obama’s long standing proposals concerning tax reform.

Klein points out in Mitch Daniel’s response he actually flat out agreed with Obama’s proposal to cut tax exemptions from thewealthy. You might be wondering how that does not count as class warfare…I don’t know either. Nonetheless, this is a great first step towards equity in the tax code and such a move would bring in an estimated non-trivialamount of 30 billion dollars a year; that’s to say nothing of what might be gained by closing loopholes for major corporations. In fact, a study concluded that if the government was able to make evasion (/avoidance) impossible top tax rates could be raised over to nearly 83% without impacting the economy. That’s probably not completely accurate (nor possible), but it suggests that the impact Obama’s “Buffett tax” on the economy is not nearly as horrible as many Republicans are suggesting.

But therein lies theslipperyslope that the rich and republicans fear. What follows is the real line of thinking that prompts the banal “class warfare” and “soaking the rich” arguments: If we can practically draw the line at 30%, why not 83%? How can government possibly justify TAKING more private property when it is so disagreeably utilized today?

I addressed many these ideas in “Seven Compelling Reasons to Tax the Rich” because they are legitimate and really important questions about personal property and the social contract America wants to have with its most powerful individuals. Indeed, it is dangerous for the government to begin to think that it knowsthe proper amount of money for people to be earning. The government should not take a tax increase on anyone (even the rich) lightly. We should also recognize that many of the individuals whose income is above 1m do not find themselves in that income group every year. ta But at the very least, no matter how you earn it, those taking in astonishing sums of money should be paying at leastwhat those taking in significantly less should be paying. We can safely draw the line there. For all 235,413 of you.

Former Chairman of theCouncil of Economic AdvisorsAustan Goolsbee was giving an entirely on-point commentary about Obama’s chances for reelection as a result of the economy. Then, he was about to beinterrupted and decided to swing his ideological sword.

“The one thing I’d say is, the argument that its all about the growth ofgovernment, the numbers that came out on friday showed that the private sector is growing almost 5% per year. It’s a huge boom. The thing that is dragging down the economy is that the government is shrinking so rapidly that it is pulling down the overall growth rate to 2.8%”

To which Laura Ingraham, duchess of conservative radio, responded “What?! What?! Wait a second…Is this a science fiction show?”

Clearly, she did not agree with the statement Goolsbee was making, George Will’s head shaking and “i know better” smiling suggested he was equally at odds withe the statement. Understandable, the idea that when the government shrinks “the economy” is negatively impacted is jarringly contrary to her Republican populism. Just moments before she was saying how Romney had to stop admitting that the economy was getting better.

But, what Goolsbee was saying is completely accurate. In fact, the report he is referencing said that positive growth in a number of areas “were partly offset by negative contributions from federal government spending and state and local government spending.” This has been widely reported. Even if you don’t ideologically agree with Krugman’s lamentations over austerity, what Goolsbee said was entirely accurate. The implications of that observation are a different argument.

The central problem here is the insurmountable difficulty everyone has in reporting about economics. The practices of journalism and economics are fundamentally opposed to one another. Economics thrives over nuance and detailed debate, whereas journalism relishes breaking issues down to their core and finding the simplest summation possible. GDP, for instance, is often cited as a way of gauging the economic health of a country. (Even worse indicators that is used are the NYSE’s market indicies.) This is accurate, but no one thinks that GDP is the last word on an economy’s health or its long term prospects. You could respect Ingrham’s outburst if it was concerning that, but I suspect it wasn’t. In the long run, austerity will help our government and our economy. We just have to engage in austerity in a measured and gradual way that will not send our economy into a recession.

Hoo! Hoo hoo! Hey everybody vote for Newt!

N to the E to the WT
Newt Gingrich taking over these streets,
Is you ready for it yet?
I don’t think so, where you at?
Obama about to step out the White House,
Gingrich gonna get in the White House
He gon’ have his wife, his spouse,
Yeah, you know without a doubt
Celebrating all day like it’s a parade
Here we got pro-life all up in this thang
Unh, and you know we doing this thang
Shout out to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania man
Yeah, Gingrich do it big,
Get up in the White House, do it big
There is nobody better
2012: end of an era

Audio:

I’m going to naturally assume that thisis Newt Gingrich’s response to Mitt Romney claiming to have lived on the “real streets” of America, but who knows…

“Our problem is not 11 million grandmothers”

“You’re fired”

“That’s simplyinexcusable…the idea that I’m anti-immigrant is repulsive. Don’t use a term like that.”

“Wouldn’t it be nice if people didn’t make accusations somewhere else that they weren’t willing to defend here.”

“The idea of getting something for free when they can afford to pay forthem self, we decided that was a bad idea.”

“First of all, it’s not worth getting angry about. Secondly, 98% of the people have insurance. So the idea that more people are free riding is impossible…”

Those aren’t Gingrich quotes, those are Romney quotes.

Color me impressed. Romney’s performance in this last debate was very much what it needed to be (for Romney, that is). Romney not only sounded authentic, but his discussions of policy were sound and fluidly delivered. There were no “not a penny more” awkward moments. Romney also went on the offensive, hitting Gingrich with off handed and sometimes genuinely funny remarks. Instead of looking like someone who was spitting back memorized lines he appeared to be genuinelyenthusiasticabout defending his record. I don’t know where this Mitt came from, but if he can keep it up I think it helps him greatly.

Right now Romney and Gingrich are dueling in Florida for 1st. Its a long road from here, but if Romney’s ability to adjust so hard and effectively is not a fluke his chances are still good.

In an interview with John King, Nancy Pelosi was asked about the possibility of a Gingrich presidency. Her response was “let me just say this, that will never happen…there is something I know.” Maybe I’m just not used to seeing her speak, but I have to say I was taken aback by the nature of this statement.

Gingrich and Pelosi during happier days

However, the real controversy that has taken off in the last couple of days has targeted her “I know something” statement. Some speculate that this is a reference back to anotherstatementPelosi made in December. “One of these days we’ll have a conversation about Newt Gingrich. When the time is right…. I know a low about him. I served on the investigative committee that investigated him.”

Does Pelsoi have a campaign shattering piece of information? It is unclear.

In each instance, Pelosi’s chief spokesperson Drew Hammill has walked back her comments and suggested a different interpretation.Unfortunately, the second (most recent)explanationdid not ring true. This suggests to me that Pelosi actually does have something on Gingrich, but she is waiting for the general election to release it (if it comes to that).

Newt’s response to all of this is as expected. He essentially calls her demented because she lives in California, denies that there is anything and calls on her to “spit it out.”

I suppose we’ll just have to wait until the General Election to see if Pelosi actually has something.

Edit: This story continues to develop. Today the Romney camp released an ad that not only reiterates what we’ve gone over here but adds further evidence to this accusation that I have not seen cited anywhere else (the ad cites a 1997 San Francisco Chronicle story). “Now Pelosi says she’ll leak information, so secret, she once asked her own husband leave their bedroom so she could discuss it privately on the phone.”

Click for video

There is not nearly enough information available to make a judgement as to whether she actually has some kind of bombshell or if this is being misinterpreted/blown out of proportion.

Edit 2: Okay, so I found the article. It is titled “Pelosi says GOP ‘sandbagged’ Gingrich Ethics Investigation She says House speaker is Unfit.” It is penned by Marc Sandalow. At the very least I can say that the reference is legitimate, but the inference made by the commercial is not. The actual quote says “Pelosiprovided an inside look at the controversial investigation into Gingrich — an inquiry so secret that she once had to ask…” There is no reference to some kind of bombshell piece of information, just the general sensitive nature of the inquiry. Furthermore, she did not say this “now”, nor has she made an honest to god threat to leak anything. At the very best, we can say she has been suggestive towards the idea that she has damaging information.

Once again, we are seeing very little regard for ethical politics by the Romney campaign and awillingnessto completely misrepresent quotes.

Tomasky and others are focused on the wrong things when they are doubting Mitt Romney’s general election prospects.

Tomasky is a generally insightful pundit. Unfortunately, too often his judgement is critically clouded by his partisanship. Early december he speculated about Romney out losing the primary, which I suspect was simply out of his wholesale dislike for Romney’s politics. Other recent topics include the typically embarrassingly banal outrage at republicanism in general. He obviously thinks that Obama is strong going into the fall, but the facts don’t match the partisan wishful thinking.

At beginning of this primary season it became clear that Obama’s job approval numbers signaled rough waters ahead for his reelection bid.As noted by Gary Langer, since 1940 four other presidents have gone into their re-election year with approval ratings under 50 percent Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush. Only Nixon won reelection.The state of the economy, the unpopularity of congress, the media’s portrayal of a broken government, the mounting debt and downgrade left most americans horribly unsatisfied with what was going on in Washington. Despite Obama’s claims that his achievements were superior to all prior presidents save FDR, the narrative in the news simply didn’t reflect that (whether bogus or accurate).

The poor reputation of Obama is somewhat unfounded, but entirely understandable. In real policy terms, I have a great deal of respect for his administration and his presidency. As I expected, his actions as president reflect an ideology of pragmatist with moderately progressive leanings. However, his ability win politically has been hampered by too many factors to count. As a result, every crucial measure indicates Obama is an exceptionally weak incumbent president. There is no getting around it – Obama is vulnerable (and he knows it).

Romney is already in striking distance. Obama will likely remain where he is while Romney will get a bump from being nominated. (The is pre SOTU)

Romney is not the extreme and easy toembarrasscandidate the Obama team wants to face. Early on, some pundits speculated that a Romney who was forced to move sharply to the right in the GOP primary would be easy to defeat. But Romney has not had to do that. Instead, he has retained his reputation as a moderate, a label which is reinforced by every other republican he is currently facing.

In November there will be (yet again) a Republican moderate v a Democrat moderate. Last time, Obama won by a slim margin that was heavilyinfluencedby the unpopularity of the former republican, and this time around the vote could easily turn the other way. Even this early on, I can tell you the factors that will ultimately decide how the coin falls in November will not include Romney’s weaknesses as a political ideologue or his personal baggage.

Despite the attention it is getting now, Mitt’s status as a businessman will not hurt as much as some think.Certainly, the narrative of Mitt Romney as a 1%er will be good for energizing Democrats, but Romney does not need to win Democrats. As always, the election will hinge on each candidate’s ability to attract moderates/independents.His involvement with Mass health care and Obama care only makes him seem more moderate, and the big opportunityfor that to hurt him (the primary) has since passed without great consequence. His income tax rate, which is a result of his semiretirement and reliance on capital gains, is an overblown non issue (although capital gains tax in general might enter as a liberal talking points). In general, attacks on Romney as a businessman have not and will not land.

It is plain to see that this list of “baggage” amounts to nothing categorically disqualifying in a general election.

As Tomasky rightfully points out, Obama’s best chance in reelection falls entirely outside of his administration. His fortune as a candidate will largely be determined by the state of the economy, which will largely be determined by what happens in Europe. When we get a better picture of the economy in November we will have a better idea what our presidential politics will look like in November. Generally, without a major change in the economy his approvalnumberswill probably remain between 45% and 55%, riding the middle. The other factor is who becomes the Republican nominee. In every way, his chances for reelection are reduced by a Romney nomination.

It was with much fanfare and anticipation that Mitt Romney released his federal tax records for 2010and 2011yesterday morning. To keep it brief, Romney made $21.7 million in 2010 and paid 13.9 percent ($3 million)of that to the federal government. It hardly has to be mentioned that a rate of 13.9 percent is far below the rate that most middle-class Americans pay.Moreover, the release of his tax returns also let the country in on the fact that Romney keeps some of his money in tax havens such asLuxembourg, Ireland and the Cayman Islands, outside of the United States. So much for believing inour“shining city on the hill”.

Romney’s devilishly low tax rate is going to be a big deal throughout this election. Today, Newt Gingrich, while addressing a question on Romney’s immigration platform, shot off this zinger:

“You have to live in a world of Swiss bank accounts and Cayman Island accounts and making $20 million for no work, to have some fantasy this far from reality,” Gingrich said.

Fantasy, isn’t it? Newt Gingrich has decided to attack Mitt Romney on the concept of receiving income in the form of interest payments and capital gains. The last time I checked, I don’t even think Democrats are against that. This critique goes way past tax code fairness.

As I’ve mentionedpreviously, the Romney tax returns are really the final straw — the cherry-on-top — that makes any semblance of Romney’s “electability” suddenly vanish into thin air. No longer can Mitt Romney even pretend to be able to relate to “average” Americans, much less the 49 million Americans who now live below the poverty line. The Republicans have done themselves into a corner.

Today on This Week(now with George Stephanopolous) George Will phrased the essence of what happened in South Carolina in a simplistic but accurate way. He said, “Mitt Romney’s problem is somehow his Romney-ness… there is something about him that is not connecting.”