What happens when an impotent force meets an unstable object? That’s what we’re going to be seeing this fall as both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney attempt to make a difficult argument to the American people.

For the last few years, the consensus was the Barack Obama would have a tough sell this November: He has to convince the American people that while the economy is still in rough shape, it would be even worse without his intervention. While I believe that’s true, it’s undoubtedly a pretty tough message to sell successfully.

What nobody expected was the situation we find ourselves in now: A slow but steady improvement in the economy in the year before Obama’s re-election campaign. Since the economy was depressed for so long — and is still recovering rather slowly — it doesn’t really eliminate Obama’s tough argument. But it creates an equally tough argument for his opponent: Sure, the economy’s improving, but it would be improving faster if someone other than Obama were in charge.

Suddenly, Mitt Romney has to make just a much of a stretch as Barack Obama does in November. With both of them forced into making equally weak arguments, Obama’s presumed disadvantages disappear. Obama may be a weak incumbent, but he has the good fortune to have an equally-weak challenger.

Ezra Klein had a great chart yesterday comparing Barack Obama and Mitt Romney’s tax plans:

We already knew what the chart shows, but it illustrates the point powerfully: Obama will increase taxes on the 1 percent, while Romney is a shill for the richest of the rich. Taxes for the very rich haven’t been so low — and their share of income hasn’t been so high — since the 1920s. It’s common sense to reverse that trend, and it’s insane that Romney wants to exacerbate it even further.

To me, the worst part about Romney’s plan is that it increases taxes on the very poor. What a sick, twisted reverse-Robin Hood scheme. For Romney, though, I suppose it just represents a continuation of his career. He’s spent his whole life enriching himself and other multi-millionaires by exploiting the working class.

One of the smartest calls Barack Obama made on the economy was saving Detroit auto manufacturers. With a million jobs on the line, the President refused to let the American auto industry disappear.

Given the auto industry’s renewed health — GM just posted its largest profit ever — it’s hard to argue Obama made the wrong choice. But Mitt Romney continues to say we should have let GM go bankrupt. It’s practically the only issue he’s ever been consistent on.

You can expect that to be a major contrast between Obama and his opponent (Santorum opposed saving GM too). Yesterday, the DNC released a video telling Mitt Romney “don’t bet against America.” The video emphasized GM’s return to record-breaking profits, reminding everyone that saving the auto industry was a colossal success.

The fact is, nothing sells like success, and GM’s success this year is a huge victory for Obama.

We’re totally building a streak here, folks. A couple more months of continuing good news like this, and growing consumer confidence will turn into a virtuous circle that will propel the economy forward. 

The number of Americans filing for new unemployment benefits unexpectedly fell to a near four-year low last week, suggesting the labor market recovery was quickening.

Other data on Thursday showing solid expansion in factory activity in the Mid-Atlantic area this month and builders breaking more ground on new residential projects in January offered more evidence of a sustained momentum in the economy. [Reuters, via Political Wire]

This is really exciting stuff. I began my career just as the economy was turning sour in 2008, so I’ve spent my entire career to date coping with a crummy economy. After four years of pain, the recovery is going to feel great. 

But as I’ve written a few times, we can’t back off now. We need to keep working to push the economy forward. That’s why President Obama’s budget has the right idea:

The Economic Policy Institute released an analysis today of the programs in President Obama’s newly proposed budget plan which are aimed at boosting job growth. All told, it would yield approximately 1.5 million new jobs in fiscal year 2012, and around 1.3 million in 2013….

Read More

Hooray! This is the sort of thing I’m enjoying hearing more of from Barack Obama:

President Barack Obama on Thursday tied his proposal to raise taxes on wealthy Americans to his faith, telling leaders gathered for the National Prayer Breakfast that Jesus’s teachings have shaped that conclusion.

The rich should pay more not only because “I actually think that is going to make economic sense, but for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus’s teaching that ‘for unto whom much is given, much shall be required,’” Obama said…

It’s really important that Democrats stop ceding the moral high ground on issues like taxes. That can mean tackling taxes from a religious perspective, like Obama does here, or simply discussing our moral imperative to provide for the poor and sick.

For years, the right has somehow made giving millions of dollars to the super-rich seem like the height of morality. They’ve tarred progressive taxation as un-American “socialism.” That’s absolutely absurd, but for decades, we have refused to push back.

One of the reasons I voted for Obama in 2008 was that I thought he could make our case effectively. In 2012, he’ll have that chance, and I hope he’ll rise to the occasion.

Barack Obama has clearly warmed to the fight over taxes and income inequality, which is wonderful to see. At a campaign event yesterday, he responded with derision to Romney’s accusations that his policies were based on envy of the rich. He archly suggested that Warren Buffett and Bill Gates aren’t motivated by class envy. Mockingly, he reassured Americans that he, Buffett, and Gates would survive if their taxes went up.

Romney’s argument is so simplistic, and reeks so strongly of a wealthy plutocrat lording it over those he sees as his inferiors, that it’s worthy of Obama’s scorn. But Obama also made some serious points. He’s 

This has nothing to do with envy. It has everything to do with math. We’ve got to make choices. Americans understand — if I get a tax break I don’t need, and a tax break the country can’t afford, then one of two things are gonna happen: either it’s going to add to our deficit, or somebody else is going to have to make up the difference…. [Emphasis added]

As Greg Sargent points out, Obama has also embraced the argument that the rich should pay higher taxes to ensure the continued functioning of the system that led to their own success:

Each of us is only here because somebody, somewhere, felt a responsibility to each other and to our country and helped to create all this incredible opportunity that we call the United States of America. Now it’s our turn to be responsible. And it’s our turn to leave an America built to last for the next generation.

I’m so glad that Democrats are finally embracing this message. Plenty of liberals, myself included, have been saying this for years, of course. But we owe an enormous debt of gratitude to Elizabeth Warren for bringing it into the mainstream.

Obama has a legitimate argument for why soaring inequality is harmful to our nation, and why we should increase taxes on the rich. Mitt Romney has name calling, and adamant demands that nobody ever discuss income inequality except in “quiet rooms.” His “arguments,” such as they are, deserve every bit of scorn Obama heaped on them.

Tonight’s State of the Union address was President Obama’s first speech of the 2012 campaign. As such, I was very interested in what sort of tone he would strike. Would he be closer to the post-partisan uniter of 2008, a tone he clung to even in the face of unprecedented GOP obstruction, or the anti-inequality populist he needs to be to win in 2012?

Overall, I think Obama is making progress in the right direction. When dealing with the topics of inequality and fair taxation, I think he makes a strong, clear case for why reducing inequality is all about American values:

We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by. Or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules. [From prepared remarks, via the LA Times]

Here’s another one:

We don’t begrudge financial success in this country.  We admire it. When Americans talk about folks like me paying my fair share of taxes, it’s not because they envy the rich.  It’s because they understand that when I get tax breaks I don’t need and the country can’t afford, it either adds to the deficit, or somebody else has to make up the difference – like a senior on a fixed income; or a student trying to get through school; or a family trying to make ends meet. That’s not right.  Americans know it’s not right.

The problem I had, though, was with Obama’s continuing effort to prove he’s the grownup in the room, and the way he takes pains to validate certain Republican ideas. Some say he was “co-opting their language” for the 2012 campaign. I think he was ceding intellectual ground to them.

Read More

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was created early in President Obama’s term, as part of a package of modest reforms to our financial system. Republicans have been seething about it ever since — perhaps because they hate everything Obama does, or perhaps because they actually oppose protecting consumers from predatory lending. So they decided they would simply filibuster every single appointment to lead the organization. They even admitted as much:

In December, Senate Republicans blocked a vote on Cordray, who has majority support. In an unprecedented move, Republicans said that Cordray was a fine candidate, but they were holding his nomination hostage because they wanted to change the underlying law and weaken the agency.

The Republicans’ use of the filibuster to starve the executive and judicial branches has been absolutely unprecedented. The CFPB is only the most glaring example. Nevertheless, it took Obama two years to finally use a recess appointment to bypass Republican obstruction. And predictably, Republicans and their allies are screaming that Obama is trouncing the Constitution. They’re projecting.

Read More