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

The right continues to complain that Obamacare is going to ruin our country, but it’s getting to be a hard argument to make. Every month, it seems there’s more news about how the Affordable Care Act is making health care more accessible and more affordable. Last month, it was shrinking the Medicare Part D “doughnut hole.” This month, it’s a drastic increase in young adults’ access to insurance:

New results from the National Health Interview Survey show that, from September 2010, when this part of the law took effect, to June 2011, the percentage of 19 to 25 year olds with health insurance coverage increased by more than 8 percentage points, from 64.4 percent to 72.7 percent.  This translates to roughly 2.5 million young adults gaining coverage.

A closer look at the NHIS data makes it clear that the Affordable Care Act is responsible for this good news.  First, the coverage gains were accounted for entirely by an increase in private insurance coverage.  There has been no statistically significant change in the percentage of 19 to 25 year olds covered by public health insurance since September 2010.  Second, as shown in the graph, the percent of young adults between the ages of 26 and 35 with health insurance coverage stayed roughly constant over the same time period. [Emphasis added]

For some sick reason, the Republicans want to repeal this program that’s already doing so much good for millions of Americans. I guess it fits in well next to their platform of ending Medicare. What exactly does the GOP have against expanding access to health care?

Last month, I wrote that the Obama campaign would need technological innovation to be successful in 2012. It appears I won’t be disappointed. The campaign already has over a dozen software engineers working for it, building new political tools from the ground up:

The Obama team is taking technology development in-house.

“In 2008 we were very adept users of technology,” said Michael Slaby, the campaign’s chief integration and innovation officer. “We are much more ambitious about what we’re capable of building on our own.”

Data analysis at an incredible level of detail will revolutionize the way the Obama campaign is run. I’m absolutely in awe of the sort of insights that are being gleaned from the campaign’s sophisticated analysis:

Read More