With more endorsements by prominent Republicans and a new poll showing him leading next week’s Wisconsin primary, Mitt Romney is on the cusp of becoming the party’s presumptive nominee.

Yet it’s taken Romney far longer to win the nomination than most observers expected, especially against under-funded and under-organized competitiors.

Why?

Republicans and analysts point to several culprits: the proportional delegate system, Romney’s gaffes, his flip-flops, his message, even his Mormon faith.

But he's also been plagued this primary season by a Republican Party still in the midst of an identity crisis, which has made things rocky for the former governor (and former moderate) from Massachusetts.

First Thoughts: Romney to wrap it up?

A wave of conservative enthusiasm -- with the new “Tea Party” movement as its leading edge -- propelled Republicans to record victories in the 2010 midterm elections, which delivered them control of the House and gains in the Senate.

The new freshman class, though, demanded more purity from their leaders. The very enthusiasm that helped Republicans win back part of Congress hampered their ability to govern; House Speaker John Boehner encountered great difficulties in convincing the newly elected ideologues to join in legislative compromises.

These fratricidal squabbles continued into the presidential campaign, where conservatives have resisted, at virtually every turn until now, the opportunity to get onboard with the establishment-favored candidate who’s regarded as most electable: Romney. 

“There's clearly a bit of a crisis,” said former Delaware Rep. Mike Castle, a moderate Republican who was considered a shoo-in to win his state’s Senate seat in 2010 before losing a primary to the Tea Party-backed Christine O’Donnell.

“The division and savagely attacking of other Republicans when they don't vote the right way I think is very counterproductive,” added Castle, who is supporting Romney (ironically, along with O’Donnell). “I don't think that has appealed to some Republicans, and I'm sure it doesn't appeal to independents and Democrats.”

Other reasons why Romney has been unable to gel conservatives behind his candidacy are probably more technical. Republicans cite his campaign's shoddy work in courting conservatives, the new primary rules that prolong the nominating process, and the candidate's gaffes at key points in the campaign. Romney also struggled to shake his image as a “flip-flopper” at points in the campaign, an image underscored by a senior aide’s recent comment likening the candidate’s pivot to the general election to an Etch A Sketch.

But while Romney is hardly a perfect candidate for today’s Republican Party, such a mythical creature might not exist anywhere on the planet. In some important respects, Romney's troubles stem from a party that is re-fighting its internal struggles from 2010.

“I think it's directly attributable to the spirit of 2010,” said Ken Buck, one of the Tea Party-linked Senate candidates that year, said in reference to the former Massachusetts governor’s struggles.

While the Tea Party -- a group of especially conservative activists angered by the bailouts to the financial industry and President Barack Obama’s health care law -- helped give kindling to the GOP in 2010, its insistence on ideological fealty in Republican candidates was seen as a factor that limited their success.

Republicans were successful in retaking the House but fell short of winning the necessary seats in the Senate, where Tea Party-backed nominees in Nevada, Delaware, and Colorado lost in opportunities Republicans had hoped to gain.

(Other candidates backed by the Tea Party were able to win in states like Utah, Kentucky and Florida, however.)

NBC/Marist poll: Romney leads ahead of Wisconsin primary

But the fallout hasn’t been limited to those primaries; Boehner’s struggles to win the votes of conservative freshmen elected in 2010 are well-documented. Those freshmen have pushed their leader to hew to strictly conservative positions at major junctures in the last year and a half, fueling a perception of Republicans in Congress as an intransigent lot, while weakening the speaker’s bargaining position in fights over spending cuts and the debt ceiling.

The tug of war between ideological purity and practical politics has been on display, again, during the campaign for Republicans to pick their nominee versus Obama.

Romney has long been considered the tentative frontrunner to become the GOP’s nominee, and he appears poised now to accrue the necessary delegates to accomplish that task.

But this primary has been defined, if nothing else, than by the flailing search by conservatives to identify a more palatable alternative to Romney.

While he’s stayed steady in primary voter polls, a veritable merry-go-round of challengers -- Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Gingrich again, and now, Santorum again -- have overtaken him in the polls before fading.

Moreover, exit polls of the primary contests to date have borne out Romney’s struggles in winning over self-described “very conservative” primary voters -- the core of the modern Republican Party.

While Republicans of all stripes express confidence that the party will rally around the eventual nominee, the conservative wing of the party has been nothing less than dogged in its resistance to Romney.

Romney and his current main rival, Santorum, “reflect different parts of the Republican Party,” said Oklahoma Rep. Tom Cole, one of the GOP’s veteran political strategists, who has remained neutral in the primary fight.

“Both of them have proven remarkably tough and durable -- it's like watching a great bar room fight. That's the kind of punching match that we're in right now,” Cole said. “In a sense, Republican voters want to be assured that whoever emerges is tough enough to go toe to toe with the president.”

Bachmann, the Minnesota congresswoman who represented the Tea Party in her presidential bid, acknowledged last week on “Morning Joe” that the Republican Party is “factionalized” at the moment.

But some Republicans argue that Romney’s struggles were essentially avoidable, and they blamed his campaign for doing a poor job of reaching out to conservatives.

Poll: Majority of GOP says Gingrich, Paul should end campaigns

A former chairman of a major state Republican Party, who is sympathetic to Romney’s candidacy and requested to speak anonymously in order to offer more candid analysis, argued that the former Massachusetts governor’s struggles were directly related to poor outreach.

“They’ve been unwilling or unable to close the deal among conservatives,” the chairman said of the Romney campaign.

“Why don’t they send someone to Grover’s meeting in D.C.?” added that person, referring to the weekly meeting of conservative activists hosted by anti-tax advocate Grover Norquist.

The suggestion was that Romney’s campaign was basically self-involved and did little to show conservatives that Romney was one of them -- an especially curious strategy given Romney’s presidential run in 2008, which was staked on running as the conservative alternative to John McCain.

“There’s no history there; they’ve never dated,” said Craig Shirley, a Reagan biographer whose public relations firm did work for the Gingrich campaign for a stretch this primary. “It’s a little hard to ask people to marry you when you haven’t courted them first.”

The Romney campaign’s strategy, though, has sought to maintain the candidate’s viability for the general election to the best of their ability. The Romney campaign has been nothing if not careful in navigating Romney through the briar patch of conservatives’ demands on the candidate.

But the primary campaign appears to have taken its toll; a Washington Post/ABC News poll released Wednesday had Romney’s unfavorable ratings at an all-time high. Romney will no doubt pivot toward the center in the general election, but he has more ground to make up than many Republicans would like.

“The question becomes: Can the eventual Republican candidate, diminished by the primary, come back and win the election,” said Castle.

But Buck, perhaps illustrating conservatives’ ambivalence toward Romney, said it would be “fascinating” to see really how competitive Romney would be versus Obama.

“The question is, which Mitt Romney?” he asked.

Washington’s partisan divide has grown so deep that President Obama and House Budget Committee chairman Rep. Paul Ryan, R- Wisc., can’t even agree that they agree, as election-year scrimmaging is obscuring the agreement in principle between those two policy wonkish leaders on curbing the growth in entitlement spending.

The two are still far apart when it comes to the revenue side of the budget deficit equation – making any comprehensive solution impossible for now.

Ryan’s budget plan was approved by the House Thursday, with no Democrats voting for it and ten Republicans voting against it. Ryan’s plan won't be enacted by the Senate but serves as a campaign statement -- for both parties.

GOP presidential contender Mitt Romney, whom Ryan endorsed Friday, has endorsed his budget proposal and Ryan will campaign with Romney in Wisconsin Friday.

Ryan said after Thursday’s vote that his plan would “save us from a debt crisis” and in assessing the plan, the Congressional Budget Office said that by 2040 it would reduce debt held by the public to less than 40 percent of Gross Domestic Product, compared to debt of nearly 200 percent of GDP if current policies are allowed to continue.

Much of the Democrats’ rhetoric attacking the Ryan plan focused on his design to cut the growth rate of Medicare spending and his lack of detail on which tax preferences and credits he’d eliminate in order to be able to reduce income tax rates.

But before it’s forgotten in the campaign rhetoric, here’s where Obama and Ryan agree: Each would require higher-income people to pay more for Medicare benefits. Obama and Ryan choose different methods, but they agree in principle: the wealthier retirees must pay more.

Each is proposing changes in benefits for future recipients, not present ones: Obama’s proposal, detailed in his Fiscal Year 2013 budget blueprint, would take effect in 2017, right after he leaves office if he wins a second term. Ryan’s would take effect in 2023.

The Obama proposal would require upper-income people on Medicare and new beneficiaries to pay higher premiums, deductibles and co-payments than they now do and would save $33 billion over its first ten years. That amount of deficit reduction seems small, but the principle of stricter means-testing is important -- and it’s one that most liberal Democrats adamantly oppose. “This is a slippery slope… a dangerous path for us to go down,” warned Sen. Ben Cardin, D- Md., weeks ago when a House-Senate conference committee considered the Obama proposal.

Ryan’s approach would convert Medicare into a system in which future retirees would shop among private insurance plans and in which the sicker and poorer retirees would get bigger federal subsidies than the healthier and wealthier retirees.

Under the Ryan plan, Medicare spending would keep increasing, but the rate of increase would be slower than under current law.

Average Medicare spending for a 65-year old last year was $5,500. Under the most plausible Congressional Budget Office forecast, average Medicare spending for a 66-year old recipient in 2030 will be $9,600 in inflation-adjusted dollars; under Ryan’s plan it would $7,400.

While Ryan’s plan is only a proposal so far, Obama has already signed the Affordable Care Act which requires upper-income people to pay higher Medicare taxes: a tax increase of $210 billion over its first eight years, starting on Jan 1. 2013.

Medicare and Social Security are a social contract between current taxpayers and future ones: you work today, paying 5.65 percent of your income in Medicare and Social Security taxes, in the expectation that workers in 2040 will pay the taxes that will pay for your Medicare and Social Security benefits.

The social contract can be altered, as Ryan and Obama, each in their own way, are now trying to do. President Reagan and House Speaker Tip O’Neill did that in 1983 by leading Congress to raise Social Security taxes, cut benefits, and increase the age of eligibility for benefits.

Medicare involves a fiscally riskier social contract or, as Democrats call it, a “guarantee” – and one that will be harder to change than the 1983 accord. Taxpayers have pledged to pay unknown future costs of medical procedures not yet invented for people who are living longer and longer lives.

Ryan said after Thursday’s House vote that his plan has in it “the seeds of a bipartisan consensus,” adding that “there is a consensus to be had in 2013.” That seems unlikely right now, but may be turn out to be true. But the first step might be for Ryan and Obama to remind voters of the basics on which they agree.

Romney about to wrap it up?... NBC/Marist poll shows Romney leading Santorum in Wisconsin, 40%-33%... Demographics are destiny: Poll shows that 41% of likely GOP primary voters in Wisconsin are evangelicals, and we know what that means… Poll also finds that Obama leads in the general election… Total Recall: Wisconsin’s polarized electorate divided on recall… Ryan to endorse Romney… And Obama’s SCOTUS silence so far, but that could change today.

Sean Gardner / Reuters

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney addresses supporters during a "Repeal & Replace Obamacare" campaign in Metairie, Louisiana March 21, 2012.

*** Romney to wrap it up? A new NBC/Marist poll of Wisconsin, as well as Rep. Paul Ryan’s new endorsement today, suggest that Mitt Romney is on the cusp of pulling away from his Republican rivals -- and for good. In the new poll, Romney leads Rick Santorum by seven percentage points among likely GOP primary voters, 40%-33%, with Ron Paul getting 11% and Newt Gingrich 8%. And when is a seven-point lead a potential blowout? When demographics have been destiny in this GOP presidential contest. So far, Romney has won in every contest where evangelical voters have accounted for less than 50% of the electorate, and he has lost in every contest where that number has been higher than 50%. The evangelical percentage among likely Wisconsin GOP primary voters, according to the NBC/Marist poll: 41%.

SLIDESHOWS: Mitt Romney | Rick Santorum

*** Demographics are destiny: Indeed, the Wisconsin race follows a familiar pattern: Romney holds the advantage over Santorum among liberal and moderate Republicans (43%-24%), conservatives (42%-33%), non-Tea Party supporters (42%-31%), and those who earn $75,000 or more annually (47%-32%). Meanwhile, Santorum leads among very conservative primary voters (42%-33%), strong Tea Party supporters (40%-32%), and evangelical Christians (40%-29%). But look at some of Santorum’s leads among “very conservative” and among “strong” Tea Party -- they aren’t blowouts. Another bad sign for him.

*** Obama leads in the general: Looking ahead to the general election, the NBC/Marist survey shows President Obama holding a sizable advantage over his Republican opposition in Wisconsin, which he carried in 2008 but where Republicans made big gains in the 2010 midterms. Obama leads Romney in Wisconsin among registered voters, 52%-35%, with 13% undecided. And he edges Santorum, 51%-38%, with 11% undecided. The poll suggests, however, that both Romney and Santorum would have room to grow in the general election, given that a LARGE portion of the undecided vote here leans Republican. The Obama number basically matches his job-approval rating (which is 50%). What we’re learning is that the GOP-leaning voters haven’t yet bought into the GOP candidates and some are simply sitting in the “undecided’ column; keep that in mind in general these days. Benefiting Obama is growing optimism about the state of the economy (52% believe the worst is behind them), as well as a more negative perception of the Republican Party (48% say the Democratic Party does a better job in appealing to those who aren’t hard-core supporters, while just 32% say that about the GOP).

Slideshow: Obama's 4th year in office

*** Wisconsin’s polarized electorate: As for this summer’s recall contest of Republican Gov. Scott Walker, it’s looking like a coin flip: 46 % of Wisconsin voters say they will support him in that race, while 48% indicate they’ll vote for the eventual Democratic candidate who will face off against the incumbent governor. (The potential good news for Walker here: He’s down two points to a generic candidate, not one that Republicans will be able to define.) Moreover, Walker’s approval rating in the state is 48%-48% -- yet another sign of how polarized the Wisconsin electorate is.  And get this: A majority of likely Republican voters say they’re following the recall more closely than the GOP presidential primary race, 51% to 37%. Yesterday, the state determined that there are more than 900,000 valid signatures to recall Walker, and the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board is supposed to schedule the recall election today -- with primaries expected to occur on May 8 and the general on June 5. By the way, talking to strategists on both sides of the aisle about what impact the recall will have on November is this universal belief that the party that “loses” the recall will find its base a tad less enthusiastic. For Republicans, it means that a loss would almost certainly concede the state to the Democrats. For Democrats, a recall loss almost certainly means this state will be more like 2004 than 2008.

*** Ryan to endorse Romney: On FOX this morning, Ryan announced his endorsement of Romney, saying that the former Massachusetts governor "is the best person to be president" and "best person to beat" President Obama. "Mitt Romney is clearly that person," he added. Ryan also said he "spent a good deal of time with Romney" and "I am convinced Mitt Romney has the skills, principle, courage, and tenacity to do what it takes to get America back on track." And he stressed that the "primary could enter a phase when it becomes counterproductive if this drags on much longer." While Ryan held an official role with the RNC -- as head of the committee’s presidential trust -- that work is now completed, leaving Ryan free to endorse (as other RNC members and members of Congress have done).

*** On the trail, per NBC’s Adam Perez: All the activity is in Wisconsin: Santorum holds rallies in Hudson, Eau Claire, and Chippewa Falls, and he hits a fish fry and bowls in Weston… Romney stumps in Appleton and Milwaukee… And Gingrich hosts a rally in Green Bay.

*** Obama’s SCOTUS silence (so far): Well, we found out how President Obama is reacting to the three days of Supreme Court oral arguments on the landmark health-care law: with silence so far. Yesterday, in remarks from the White House on legislation to end federal subsidies to the oil industry, Obama didn’t once mention the oral arguments, which suggested that the individual mandate -- and possibly entire law -- could be in trouble. But could he say something today? The president attends a combined four fundraisers today in Vermont and Maine, and it’s possible he says something about the matter to his donors. So don’t write this up as another fundraising day. We could have some news.

Countdown to DC, Maryland, Wisconsin primaries: 4 days
Countdown to Election Day: 221 days

Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter. Follow us @chucktodd, @mmurraypolitics, @DomenicoNBC, @brookebrower

MILWAUKEE, Wisc. -- Making his first campaign stop in the Badger State, Newt Gingrich was quick to share his Wisconsin ties.

“We own a share of Green Bay stock so we have ties to the whole state in that sense,” Gingrich said, adding that his wife, Callista, grew up here and her mother still resides in White Hall.

The former House Speaker addressed a few hundred people at Marquette University and wrapped up his almost hour-long lecture speaking about the popular Wisconsin Congressman, Paul Ryan.

Gingrich praised the Wisconsin native hours after the Republican budget passed the house and just as news began to speculate that Ryan would endorse Mitt Romney before Tuesday’s primary in the state.

“His budget is very, very positive and it’s very exciting,” the Speaker said, acknowledging that Ryan responded well to critiques. “His budget is dramatically better than the Congressional Budget Office will score it because the bureaucrats at CBO completely misunderstand the power of people changing their behavior and it’s really unfortunate.”

Ryan, who represents Wisconsin’s 1st Congressional district, saw his $3.5 trillion budget plan pass the House Thursday will all but ten Republicans voting in favor of it.
 
But last May, Gingrich referred to Ryan’s plan as “right wing social engineering,” showing little admiration for the Republican budget proposal on NBC’s Meet the Press.

Tonight, Gingrich’s tone was different, and he said his remarks last spring were “vastly overblown by the news media.”

“I’ve always endorsed his [Ryan’s] proposal to block grant Medicare, I mean Medicaid, I think it’s a good idea. And I admire both his intelligence and his courage because he’s doing a lot of things,” he said.

While tonight mark’s Gingrich’s first appearance in the state, Callista has been campaigning on her husband’s behalf all week – her first solo campaign trip all cycle.

While there were few applause lines for Gingrich in the college auditorium, there was a lively back and forth between one attendee and the Speaker over where your rights come from.

After listening to Gingrich describe “American values,” a man questioned if Gingrich meant specifically Christian values and how that is fair under the first amendment and freedom of religion.

“What about people who maybe are agnostic or atheist. What about those Americans?” the man in the audience, who left as soon as the interaction was over, asked.

“They can live here but they have no explanation of where their rights come,” Gingrich shot back.

This back and forth continued for almost five minutes until the Speaker finally said, “next question.”

Gingrich, who is struggling to remain seen as a credible candidate, holds three events in Wisconsin on Friday – including a Green Bay Brats and Beer Rally.

In the latest evidence that Newt Gingrich isn’t exiting the GOP race anytime soon, the former House speaker ended a closed-door meeting on Wednesday with his backers in Congress poised to push ahead with his campaign, possibly through the June 5 primary in California.

When he sat down this week with 10 of the 11 lawmakers who have endorsed him, each of them took turns offering their assessment of the health of the Gingrich candidacy. While some of the lawmakers expressed misgivings about the toll his continuing in the race would take on the eventual Republican nominee, none of them called on Gingrich to drop out.

Four of the attendees, who spoke with NBCPolitics.com, said that Gingrich's interest in staying in the race is driven by a desire to advance certain policy proposals in the primary and general elections.

“We believe that Newt staying in there is very helpful to the conservative cause,” said Georgia Rep. Jack Kingston, who was among the attendees. “I think Newt was realistic and saying there is a path.”

Still, Kingston added, “He didn't use the word longshot, but it's difficult.”

Gingrich reached the apex of his political strength this primary season when he won South Carolina’s influential primary on Jan. 21.

But in the two months since that point, the ex-speaker, pummeled by negative ads in Florida and succeeding primary states, has seen his support once again hit the bottom. He finished a distant third in Louisiana’s primary; Rick Santorum, who’s assumed the role of Mitt Romney’s chief conservative alternative, won that caucus.

Not having won another primary besides the Super Tuesday contest in Georgia -- the state which elected Gingrich to Congress -- the campaign has struggled to regain any momentum. Gingrich laid off a third of his staff this week and severely curtailed travel, prompting political observers to wonder when he would finally drop out.

“I encouraged him to do what he feels is in his heart he has to do,” said Texas Rep. Michael Burgess, who attended the gathering.

But to hear the members of Congress who attended the meeting describe its outcome, Gingrich appears no closer to ending his candidacy.

“We kind of came to a collective conclusion that there were still some significant goals and objectives that could be achieved by him maintaining his place in the race," said Arizona Rep. Trent Franks, another participant in the meeting.

Related: Gingrich axes third of staff, cuts travel

In addition to Kingston, Burgess and Franks, another seven congress members attended: Reps. Lynn Westmoreland, R-Ga., Phil Gingrey, R-Ga., Austin Scott, R-Ga., Tom Price, R-Ga., Joe Barton, R-Texas, Dan Burton, R-Ind., and Dan Lungren, R-Calif.

The outstanding question now is not whether Newt will be the nominee, but rather, when will he exit the race, and how much collateral damage will have been done to the Republican nominee when Gingrich does drop out.

Those who did attend described a campaign that is realistic that its odds of winning the nomination are especially long. But, unless Romney were to begin regularly steamrolling his primary opponents in upcoming contests, the lawmakers said Gingrich was likely to stay in the race until the May 29 primary in Texas (where he has the endorsement of Gov. Rick Perry), or the primary a week later in California.

“I think the endgame is that we won't know what it's going to be until after Texas,” said one of the Republicans who went to the meeting, who was granted anonymity to speak more candidly about the closed-door huddle.

“I still think he's got a shot in Texas,” added that lawmaker, who noted that the slower pace of forthcoming primaries might allow Gingrich to conserve resources and survive through those contests.

But the former speaker still faces significant hurdles, not least of which was the public warning by Sheldon Adelson -- the casino magnate who’s primarily financed a supportive super PAC -- that Gingrich was “at the end of his line.”

A significant factor in Gingrich’s thinking involves whether his continued presence in the race would harm the party, or even his own political legacy.

Gingrich remains a prominent figure in the conservative movement despite the fizzling of his campaign.

If his candidacy were to stretch to the point where it hurts the party, it could threaten the generosity of conservative donors, on whose largesse Gingrich’s private endeavors sometimes depend.

The speaker’s sense was that if he were to leave the race, the media coverage he’s gained as a candidate would evaporate. By staying in the race, one of the lawmakers present said, Gingrich believes he “would have a great opportunity to drive some planks of the platform,” especially as it relates to some pet issues on health care, science and national security.

But the congressmen also said that Gingrich understood the long odds posed by the math, and described the speaker’s understanding that Santorum’s position in the race has made it difficult to challenge Romney one-on-one.

Moreover, Romney continues to amass delegates and prominent endorsements, most recently on Wednesday from Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, who said he backed Romney in part to forestall a messy convention fight -- the type Gingrich would need to orchestrate to make good on those long odds of becoming the Republican nominee.

“If you talk to people in the conference, you've got some people who want it over. You've got some people who have people in the race and want to see them do better,” said Westmoreland, a supporter of Gingrich. “Kind of a mixed bag, but I do think it would be nice to have your nominee on the same page as we are with our agenda. Trying to nail that down has been kind of hard.”

“The one thing that is there is, whoever our nominee is, they're going to have 242 people behind him,” he added.

Art Lien / NBC News

Gregory Katsas speaks March 26, 2012 as Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Associate Justice Samuel Alito Jr. listen at the Supreme Court in Washington.

With three days of Supreme Court oral argument in the challenges to the 2010 health care law now over, a tense lull has settled over Washington.

Health care reform “cannot wait, it must not wait, and it will not wait another year,” President Barack Obama said on Feb. 23, 2009. But Obama and everyone else must wait at least several more weeks to learn the fate of the health care overhaul he signed into law in 2010.

With the court’s public ritual over, it’s not that there aren’t big decisions being made ... it’s just that they’re all being made behind closed doors.

On Friday, hidden from news cameras, sketch artists, and reporters, the justices will hold one of their weekly conferences.

And at the end of this private meeting -- not recorded for public release as the oral arguments were -- they will have voted on all of the Affordable Care Act issues. This includes the individual insurance mandate, what parts of the law can stand if the mandate is void, and the expansion of the Medicaid program.

According to George Washington University law professor Orin Kerr, a former law clerk for Justice Anthony Kennedy, the justices “will take tentative votes as to how to decide the case. Based on those tentative votes, different justices will be assigned to draft the majority opinion -- or perhaps majority opinions, as there are several moving parts in this case. Eventually, proposed majority opinions will be circulated among the justices: If any proposed opinion gets five votes, it becomes a majority opinion of the court.”

There are more than 30 other cases in which the justices haven’t yet issued rulings this term. As the weeks go by and the court announces its rulings, the yet-to-be-decided list will dwindle so that by June 25, the last scheduled day of the court’s 2011-2012 term, the ACA cases may be the last ones remaining to be announced.

While no one can predict how the justices will decide based on the questions they asked during oral arguments, the individual mandate seems at risk.

Justice Kennedy said Tuesday that the government is telling the individual citizen that he must buy insurance, “and that is different from what we have in previous cases, and that changes the relationship of the Federal Government to the individual in a very fundamental way.”

“Do you not have a heavy burden of justification?” Kennedy asked Solicitor General Donald Verrilli in Tuesday’s argument.

Even if a majority of the justices found the mandate to be unconstitutional, there are, said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Wednesday, “so many things in this act that are unquestionably okay.” If the mandate is struck down, the problem for the justices who are supporters of the law would then be to “salvage rather than throwing out everything,” as Ginsburg put it.

Read our coverage of each day of the oral arguments:
Court signals entire health care law might need to be struck down
Supreme Court expresses skepticism over constitutionality of health care mandate
Court signals it will decide constitutionality of individual mandate

Regardless of how the justices’ decision turns out, the political impact will be powerful and immediate. 

A ruling striking down the mandate or the whole law might cause a backlash among Democrats comparable to that caused by the 2000 Bush v. Gore decision.

Chris Jennings, a health care policy advisor to President Bill Clinton, said a ruling striking down the mandate or the law might cause the Democratic base voters to work even harder to elect Democrats on November.

Until now, he said, many Democrats “haven’t been engaged in a meaningful way” in making the case for the ACA. Many Democrats, especially on left side of the party, were dissatisfied with the law, preferring a single-payer system or “Medicare for All.” But the court might light a fire under them.

“For the court to strike down this law would be to presume the powers of the Congress and abandon its role as an impartial and deliberate decider of constitutional law," said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., Wednesday.

Art Lien/NBC News

Justice Stephen Breyer holds two sections of the Affordable Care Act during a third day of arguments over the fate of the health care law.

But it’s worth remembering that the high court has struck down all or parts of more than 160 federal laws since 1789, more than a dozen since 2000.

Will Congress act if the court strikes down the law? Probably not, other than having some “messaging” votes in the months leading up to Election Day.

House Republicans had one of those votes last week when they voted to eliminate the Medicare cost control board that is part of the ACA. 

Read the transcripts from the oral arguments:
The afternoon transcript of Wednesday's oral arguments (.pdf)
The morning transcript of Wednesday's oral arguments (.pdf)
The transcript of Tuesday's arguments (.pdf)
The transcript of Monday's oral arguments (.pdf) 

It’s not likely Congress can do anything substantive until 2013: remember that it took more than a year to write and enact the ACA. The Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus held his first hearing on Feb. 25, 2009 -- and the law was signed by Obama on March 23, 2010.

Debbee Keller, a spokeswoman for the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, which would be one of the starting points for health care legislation, said Thursday Republicans “have already begun advancing bills to improve our health care system, including medical liability reform to end excessive lawsuits and bring down costs for patients, doctors, and taxpayers. The Supreme Court's ruling will be a major turning point in this debate, and we look forward to developing additional replacement legislation when the Court rules.”

But after a potentially traumatic Supreme Court ruling for ACA supporters, it’s hard to imagine bipartisan consensus, even on small pragmatic reforms. 

In the lull before the justices hand down their ruling, both Democrats and Republicans have plenty of time to think about how much the least visible branch of government matters.

“We’re going to pay the price of this Supreme Court for a generation,” Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., lamented back in 2008 when the high court upheld Indiana’s voter identification law.

Either supporters or opponents of the heath care law might be repeating those words this summer.

Republicans pushed an election-year, $3.5 trillion budget through the House on Thursday that relies on biting spending cuts and a revamping of Medicare to curb massive federal deficits, drawing a sharp contrast with how President Barack Obama and Democrats would tackle the nation's fiscal problems.

Alex Wong / Getty Images

House Speaker John Boehner arrives for a news briefing on the GOP's budget proposal March 29 on Capitol Hill.

House passage came on a near party-line, 228-191 vote. With its doom guaranteed in the Democratic-run Senate, the House measure was essentially a political stage on which Republicans showed voters how they would run Washington if they win control in the November elections — and Democrats fired back by doing the same. 

See related: Who killed the debt talks?

The GOP plan features sharper deficit reduction and starkly less government than Democrats want. It would block Obama's proposal to boost taxes on the wealthy and would instead lower income tax rates while erasing many unspecified tax breaks. Obama's budget would raise taxes on families making above $250,000 and on oil and gas companies, add funds for roads and schools and cull modest savings from domestic programs. 

"We think America is on the wrong track," said House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., the spending plan's chief author and a rising party star who is sometimes mentioned as a vice presidential prospect. "We think the president is bringing us to a debt crisis and a welfare state in decline." 

Democrats accused the GOP of writing a plan that would end the age-old guarantee that Medicare would cover most of seniors' medical bills and would slash transportation, research and other programs far too deeply, even as the measure would protect the rich from Obama's proposed tax hikes. 

"The more people know about that budget, the more people know it hurts them in their lives," said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. 

Congress' budget is a nonbinding road map that suggests tax and spending changes lawmakers should make in separate, later legislation. A House-Senate stalemate over the fiscal blueprint would have scant practical impact as Congress tackles what little budget work it is expected to address before the November elections. 

Final approval in the House came after lawmakers swatted down a slew of alternatives over the past two days, including a package by the most conservative Republicans that featured even sharper spending cuts and deeper deficit reduction than Ryan's leadership-backed plan.

The conservative plan claimed to turn this year's $1.2 trillion federal deficit into a balanced budget in five years. Most analysts consider that unachievable because few lawmakers would vote for the package's proposed cuts. 

None of the competing budgets by Ryan, Obama or House Democrats claim to balance the budget within the next decade. 

Underlining the growing influence of tea party and other conservative Republicans, a clear majority of GOP lawmakers voted for the conservatives' plan. It was defeated because virtually every Democrat voted against it. 

Republicans forced a vote on Obama's budget and it was rejected 414-0, with Democrats worried that a "yes" vote would provide fodder for campaign ads accusing them of backing anything voters might dislike in the president's plan. 

Also rejected was a compromise mix of tax increases and spending cuts offered by moderates of both parties and modeled on recommendations issued by Obama's bipartisan deficit reduction commission. It got only 38 votes. 

The GOP package would slice everything from food stamps to transportation. It envisions collapsing the current six income tax rates into just two, with a top rate of 25 percent compared with today's 35 percent. It would also eliminate unspecified tax breaks. 

"Our team actually went and made the tough choices, made the tough choices to preserve freedom in America and to deal with our fiscal nightmare," said House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio. 

Democrats said they, too, were eager to stanch deficits that now exceed $1 trillion annually. But they said it needed to be done in a more balanced way, with rich and poor alike sharing the load. 

"The Republican budget kicks the middle class in the stomach," said Rep. Steve Israel, D-N.Y. 

The House GOP budget would cut spending by $5.3 trillion more over the next decade than Obama's would — out of more than $40 trillion that would still be spent during that period. It envisions repeal of the president's health care overhaul and sets a course for deep reductions for highway and rail projects, research and aid to college students and farmers while easing planned defense cuts. 

It also would cut taxes by $2 trillion more than the president's plan over that time, leaving Republicans seeking about $3.3 trillion in deeper deficit reduction than Obama. 

Drawing the most political heat was Ryan's plan for Medicare, the $500 billion-a-year health insurance program for older Americans that all sides agree is growing so fast its future financing is shaky. Both parties know that seniors vote in high numbers and care passionately about the program. 

Republicans would leave the plan alone for retirees and those near retirement, letting the government continue paying much of their doctors' and hospital bills. 

For younger people, Medicare would be reshaped into a voucher-like system in which the government would subsidize people's health care costs. Republicans say that would drive down federal costs by giving seniors a menu of options that compete with each other. Democrats say government payments won't keep up with the rapid inflation of medical costs, leaving many beneficiaries struggling to afford the care they need. 

Republicans would turn Medicaid, the nearly $300 billion-a-year federal-state health insurance program for the poor, into a grant that states could use as they wish. They also would trim its growth by $800 billion over the next decade, out of spending during that time that is expected to exceed $4 trillion.

The House passed a stopgap three-month bill Thursday to keep federal highway and transit aid flowing and avoid a widespread shutdown of construction projects. The move pushes congressional action on a long-term overhaul of transportation programs deeper into an already fractious election year.

The action came on a mostly party-line vote of 266 to 158 after Republicans and Democrats traded verbal jabs over how best to prevent economic disruption.

That sent the bill to the Senate, which must pass the same measure by Saturday, when the government's authority to spend money on transportation programs and levy federal fuel taxes expires. The House planned to begin a two-week recess later Thursday, leaving senators with few other options.

Without action, Democrats estimate that as many as 1.8 million construction-related jobs would be at risk just as states are gearing up for the spring and summer construction season. The government could also lose about $110 million a day in uncollected gas and diesel taxes.

The last long-term transportation law expired in 2009, but programs have been limping along under a series of short-term extensions. Congress has been struggling since even before that to find the money to maintain the nation's aging roads, bridges and transit systems, as well accommodate future population growth. Two blue-ribbon federal commissions have predicted that without dramatic increases in transportation spending, the nation will face nightmarish congestion in coming decades.

The vote capped an on-again, off-again struggle by House GOP leaders to pass their own five-year transportation plan. They were forced to abandon plans to bring the bill to the floor last month because of divisions in their own ranks. Opting instead for a short-term extension, they repeatedly canceled votes on first a three-month and then a two-month extension this week before deciding to put the three-month bill to a vote on Thursday.

Democrats chided Republicans for being unable to marshal votes to pass their own long-term plan while refusing to permit a vote on a $109 billon Senate plan supported by all the chamber's Democrats and about half the Republicans.

"Give us that vote. What are you afraid of? You afraid it might pass?" Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore, asked during House debate on the extension. "We have an alternative — pass the Senate bill."

House and Senate Democrats and the Obama administration have kept up a daily drumbeat over the past two weeks urging Republicans to pass the Senate bill.

"As soon as the House gets back to work, they should do their part and pass that bill in similarly bipartisan fashion," the White House said in a statement after the House vote.

But House Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman John Mica, R-Fla., pointed out that Democrats weren't even able to get committee approval of a long-term transportation bill when they controlled the House prior to the 2010 election, opting instead for a series of short-term extensions.

"We are here to pass a responsible extension so that people across America can go to work, so that we can finish a long-term extension bill," Mica said.

Last fall, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, pitched a long-term transportation plan tied to expanded offshore oil drilling and other domestic energy production as the centerpiece of a GOP jobs agenda. But the bill has instead become one of Republicans' biggest legislative headaches.

The five-year bill crafted by Republicans was unacceptable to tea-party conservatives, who say it should be paid for entirely by user fees such as federal gas and diesel taxes, even though revenue from those taxes isn't enough to cover current transportation spending. Conservatives also would like to see the federal transportation role dramatically reduced, with states picking up those responsibilities. Moderate Republicans from suburban districts don't want transportation spending cut and have complained about the bill's treatment of transit programs.

Boehner has been unable to make up defections in his party's ranks with Democratic votes. Democrats say the measure penalizes union workers, as well as undermining environmental and safety protections. If Boehner were to tweak the bill enough to pick up Democratic votes, he risks losing even more Republicans.

House Republicans face the same problem with the Senate bill. If brought to a vote, the Senate bill would likely pass the House — but with more Democratic than Republican votes, said Joshua Schank, president of the Eno Transportation Center, a transportation think tank.

That would undermine Boehner's support among House Republicans in an already difficult election year in which GOP control of the House may be in danger, he said.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., co-author of the Senate bill, said Democrats would try to attach the Senate bill to the House-passed extension Thursday afternoon. If they are successful, that would require further action by the House.

Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, a moderate Democrat, said she was fed up with repeated extensions and planned to vote against the House bill.

Steven Senne / AP

Republican presidential candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney addresses an audience during a campaign stop in Metairie, La., Friday, March 23, 2012.

Mitt Romney has made a point of carefully picking the instances in which he challenges President Barack Obama's management of foreign policy, reflecting the delicacy the Republican faces in taking on a commander in chief whose foreign policy marks are relatively high.

Romney has shown an eagerness to challenge Obama on a number of points of his national security strategy, but has emphasized his criticism of the president in particular areas where his differences are strongest.

The freshest example came this week, when the former governor seized on Obama’s comments to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, in which Obama suggested greater “flexibility” on negotiations regarding missile defense after the election.

Romney was quick to call the moment “alarming and troubling,” a sentiment in which he was eventually joined by the Republican National Committee and rival presidential candidate Rick Santorum.

“President Obama's conversation with Dmitry Medvedev raises questions not only about his policy toward Russia, but his entire foreign policy,” he wrote Wednesday for the magazine Foreign Policy in part of a sustained attack on the administration.

But Romney has used discretion in the sharpness and severity of his criticism. He’s offered boilerplate opposition to the president’s handling of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the popular uprisings in Libya and Syria. But on those issues, he hasn’t provided a substantively different solution.

Romney’s shown a willingness, though, to go after Obama more aggressively on his handling of Israel, Iran and Russia -- criticism tied to an overall Republican narrative that the Democratic president has weakened the standing of the U.S. on the international stage.

Romney’s recent focus on Russia helps the former governor an opportunity to contend a centerpiece of Obama’s platform in 2008, promising greater engagement on the international stage, argued Brian Hook, a foreign policy adviser to Tim Pawlenty’s erstwhile presidential campaign.

“When you look at how uncooperative at how Russia has been, I'm just kind of baffled by the warm treatment we've given them. I think it's a campaign issue,” he said. “Russia and Iran are the two countries that were the centerpiece of engagement, but he doesn't have anything to show for it.”

Elections rarely turn on issues of foreign policy; a combined 10 percent of Americans said that national security, terrorism or the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were the top national priority, according to the March NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll. The 2012 campaign is expected to hinge instead on the issues of jobs and the economy, and Romney has duly made those issues the centerpiece of his campaign.

But Romney also doesn’t have the advantage that John McCain had in the 2008 election, in which he was running to replace a lame-duck president; the winner of the election would have never previously occupied the Oval Office. In challenging Obama, Romney is forced to balance his strategy against too sharply attacking a sitting commander in chief, who could face a national security crisis at any point during the campaign.

That task is made more difficult by the fact that Obama has traditionally enjoyed higher approval ratings for his handling of foreign policy. The president also has a major feather in his cap from having ordered the successful mission to kill Osama bin Laden. (Still, a New York Times/CBS News poll this week found support for the war in Afghanistan at an all-time low following the massacre of civilians allegedly by a U.S. servicemember. Obama’s numbers on handling of foreign policy were almost evenly split in that same survey.).

But Romney’s criticism of the drawdown of the wars hasn’t extended far beyond saying he would have differed by heeding the wishes of commanders on the ground. And even a number of Republicans acknowledge significant popular fatigue for the two wars, even within the GOP.

Moreover, Romney’s tempered criticism is partly in deference to a sitting president, according to a member of Romney’s 24-person foreign policy advisory team, who asked to be quoted anonymously in order to speak more candidly on the matter.

“He has laid out a lot of foreign policy views, but when it comes to wars or people actually fighting, the first obligation comes to supporting your commander in chief,” the adviser said. “A presidential candidate has to be pretty circumspect, and I think he has been.”

That limits Romney’s options for drawing sharper contrasts with Obama on foreign policy. The ex-governor has focused more specifically on Obama’s effort to “reset” relations with Russia, and was one of the first prominent Republican voices to oppose the New START treaty.

“It helps Romney paint a broader picture of Obama as someone who's driven by politics,” said Marc Thiessen, a former Bush administration adviser on national security issues, of Romney’s criticism of Obama’s exchange with Medvedev. “It's not the silver bullet that's going to win the election for Romney, but it is part of a broader picture he should be painting of Obama.”

Romney has also focused his criticism on the president’s handling of Israel, accusing Obama of having “thrown Israel under the bus” for calling for Israel and Palestinians to return to pre-1967 borders as the negotiating basis for their peace process.

Democrats haven’t taken these attacks lightly, either. They are quick to dispute the idea that Obama has lost support with Jewish voters due to his stance toward Israel, and the DNC launched a counterattack against Romney’s comments Monday on CNN in which he called Russia the “number one geopolitical foe” of the United States.

"Governor Romney’s statement sounds like a rehash of Cold War fears," former NATO Commander Gen. Wes Clark said in a statement circulated by the Democratic National Committee. "Given the many challenges we face at home and abroad, the American people deserve a full and complete explanation from Governor Romney. Good policy does not come from bumper sticker slogans."

And even while the election seems -- as of now -- to center around issues of the economy, a major foreign policy incident could reshape the narrative of the general election, a contest which seems likely to feature a battle between Romney and Obama.

“I don't think this election is going to be decided on national security, but it's an important issue to be debated by the candidates,” Thiessen said. “They're not running for treasury secretary; they're running for commander in chief.”

Upcoming Wisconsin primary is shaping up to be Santorum’s last chance…. White House more optimistic about its chances with the Supreme Court (at least compared with yesterday)… Romney’s dog-bites-man endorsements… Newt tarnishing his legacy?… So much for Simpson-Bowles’ popularity… And Dems lead OH and FL Senate contests, per new polls.

Scott Olson / Getty Images

Republican presidential candidate and former Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., discusses his plan for free-market health care solutions during a campaign stop at the MacDonald and Owens Lumber Company on March 28, 2012 in Sparta, Wisconsin.

*** Santorum’s last chance (really, this is it): With Mitt Romney holding a sizable delegate lead and with more prominent Republicans (George H.W. Bush and Marco Rubio) formally endorsing the former Massachusetts governor, Tuesday’s GOP primary in Wisconsin is shaping up to be Rick Santorum’s last chance -- in math and perception. If Romney wins Wisconsin, Santorum can’t stop him from getting to the magic number of 1,114 delegates, according to our math. When we crunched the numbers showing that Romney would fall about 50 delegates short of the magic number, that ASSUMED Santorum would win Wisconsin, as well as pick up more delegates than he did in Louisiana. When it comes to perception, Wisconsin is Santorum’s final opportunity to convince Republicans that this race isn’t over, and a win in the Badger State would do the trick. Can Santorum pull off a win on Tuesday? Well, we’ll have a new NBC/Marist poll on the race tomorrow morning that could answer that question.

*** A more optimistic White House (at least compared with yesterday): Believe it or not, the White House feels better this morning about its prospects with the Supreme Court’s consideration of the health-care law than it did yesterday morning. First, the administration thinks it’s clear that a majority of the justices are against severability (that the individual mandate can be separated from the rest of the law), and they believe that could help them win over Justice Kennedy, who might be concerned about the Supreme Court striking down the whole thing. Second, the legal-eagle watchers believe that Chief Justice Roberts is still in play, and he might decide to write the majority opinion to ensure that the mandate doesn’t serve as a precedent for future regulations of commercial inactivity.

*** I will survive, hey, hey: And third, Team Obama has convinced itself that it could survive the Supreme Court striking down the law. Make no mistake: If the court does that, President Obama and his standing would take a serious hit. But they think it would only be a week or 10 days of bad press; they contend the economy and other issues would eventually overtake the court news. Also, they believe a decision to strike down the law would be done along partisan lines (5-4), and under that scenario, it politicizes the decision in a way that fires up their base and potentially blunts some of the impact with indies. Finally, Team Obama believes the biggest reason they can politically survive the SCOTUS overturning the president’s signature bill: They would probably be facing an opponent who is uniquely UNABLE to take advantage of the situation because he championed an individual mandate in Massachusetts. All that said, the White House is clearly in a tougher position than it thought before this week’s oral arguments began.

*** The dog-bites-man endorsements: Turning back to the GOP presidential race, Romney last night picked up the endorsement of GOP Sen. Marco Rubio. And this afternoon in Houston, at 5:50 pm ET, he’ll receive former President George H.W. Bush’s formal backing. Yet both endorsements are of the dog-bite-man variety: Bush 41 had already said -- in Dec. 2011 -- he was supporting Romney, and his wife Barbara has appeared in robo-calls for the campaign. As for Rubio, did anyone think he was going to endorse Santorum or Gingrich? What’s more, Rubio’s endorsement appeared to be more of an attempt to end the GOP primary battle than an affectionate embrace of Romney. "I don't have a problem with primaries, but I think we're at a stage now where at least two of the candidates have admitted that the only way to get the nomination is to have a floor fight at the convention," Rubio said on FOX last night. "It’s increasingly clear that Mitt Romney’s going to be the Republican nominee,” he said, adding: “We’ve got to come together behind who I think has earned this nomination and that’s Mitt Romney.”

*** Newt tarnishing his legacy? Politico writes that Newt Gingrich is only tarnishing his legacy the longer he stays in the GOP race. “Instead of bowing out after a string of losses, the former House speaker has decided to cap off a historic career by spending the final weeks of the campaign in a sort of political purgatory — he’ll remain in the race but as something less than a full-fledged candidate.” And get this: Gingrich Super PAC benefactor Sheldon Adelson has said that Gingrich is “at the end of his line.”

*** On the trail, per NBC’s Adam Perez: As mentioned above, Romney heads to Houston, TX to receive the endorsement of former President George H.W. Bush… Santorum is out in California, where he delivers remarks on foreign policy in Fairfield… Paul stumps in Wisconsin, holding a town hall meeting in Madison… And Gingrich is also in the Badger State, where he campaigns in Milwaukee.

*** So much for Simpson-Bowles’ popularity: Last night, the House defeated -- by a 38-382 vote -- a budget amendment on the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles recommendations. That just shows that the only way members of Congress would accept tax increases and entitlement cuts and reforms is by both Democrats and Republicans holding hands and jumping off the cliff together. What was more cynically sad were the statements of praise from folks like Paul Ryan and Steny Hoyer about the vote on Bowles-Simpson, even as both of them voted AGAINST the legislation. In addition, the House also defeated -- by a 0-414 vote -- President Obama’s budget. But a caveat here: The House didn’t vote on the president’s budget, per se; it voted on a summary of the numbers in an amendment offered by GOP Rep. Mick Mulvaney. Bottom line: It was a political gimmick.

*** Dems lead in OH and FL Senate races: Quinnipiac is out with new polls showing that Democratic Senate incumbents are leading their top GOP challengers. In Ohio, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D) is ahead of Josh Mandel (R) by 10 points among registered voters, 46%-36%. And in Florida, Sen. Bill Nelson (D) holds an eight-point advantage over Rep. Connie Mack (R), 44%-36%. What’s fueling Nelson’s lead, in particular -- female voters. Still, BOTH incumbents are under 50%, and that matters in Senate polls.

Countdown to DC, Maryland, Wisconsin primaries: 5 days
Countdown to Election Day: 222 days

Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter. Follow us @chucktodd, @mmurraypolitics, @DomenicoNBC, @brookebrower

Republicans are ready to ram through the House an election-year, $3.5 trillion budget that showcases their deficit-cutting plan for revamping Medicare and slicing everything from food stamps to transportation while rejecting President Barack Obama's call to raise taxes on the rich.

The blueprint by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., was headed for all but certain House passage Thursday, mostly along party lines. It faces a demise that is just as sure in the Democratic-run Senate, which plans to ignore it, but the battle remains significant because of the clarity with which it contrasts the two parties' budgetary visions for voters.

Republicans were focused on sharper deficit reduction and starkly less government than Democrats wanted and were proposing to lower income tax rates while erasing many unspecified tax breaks. Obama and Democrats were ready to boost taxes on families making above $250,000 and on oil and gas companies, add spending for roads and schools and cull more modest savings from domestic programs.

"They're choosing the next election over the next generation," Ryan said, deriding Democrats' plans as far too timid. He added, "If we don't tackle these fiscal problems soon, they're going to tackle us as a country."

Recommended: White House defends solicitor general's performance before court 

Democrats said they, too, were eager to stanch deficits that now exceed $1 trillion annually. But they said it needed to be done in a more balanced way, with rich and poor alike sharing the load.

"It's a path to greater prosperity — if you're already wealthy," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, top Democrat on the Budget panel, mocking the "Path to Prosperity" title Ryan has given his document. "Because our Republican colleagues refuse to ask millionaires to contribute one cent to deficit reduction, they hit everyone and everything else."

In a pair of preliminary votes expected Thursday, conservatives were offering their own proposal with deeper spending cuts and far faster deficit-reduction than the GOP plan, claiming to balance the budget in just five years. Democrats were pushing a measure featuring pumped-up spending for education and new tax credits for companies creating jobs and raising wages, while claiming savings from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, government waste and reductions in farm payments.

Both were destined to be defeated.

Underscoring the prickly partisan gulf over how to tackle the budget's drastic imbalances, the House late Wednesday on a 382-38 vote easily shot down a compromise, bipartisan deficit-cutting plan by moderates of both parties that mingled tax increases with spending cuts.

The measure was modeled roughly on a package produced by Obama's deficit-reduction commission. The commission's plan drew praise from prominent deficit foes but was treated coolly by Obama and congressional leaders of both parties.

The House also voted 414-0 Wednesday to reject Obama's budget, with Democrats accusing the GOP of forcing the vote to embarrass them. Democrats were concerned Republicans would use campaign ads to link Democrats who supported Obama's plan to all of its details, including tax increases and boosts for unpopular programs.

Congress' budget is a nonbinding road map that suggests tax and spending changes that lawmakers should make in separate, later legislation.

Particularly with voters deciding control of the White House and the Capitol in November, the two parties are sure to stalemate each other's budgetary priorities until after the election.

The House GOP budget would cut spending by $5.3 trillion more over the next decade than Obama's would — out of more than $40 trillion that would still be spent during that period. It envisions repeal of the president's health care overhaul and sets a course for deep reductions for highway and rail projects, research and aid to college students and farmers while easing planned defense cuts.

It also would cut taxes by $2 trillion more than the president over that time, leaving Republicans seeking about $3.3 trillion in deeper deficit reduction than Obama.

Drawing the most political heat was Ryan's plan for Medicare, the $500 billion-a-year health insurance program for older Americans that all agree is growing so fast that its future financing is shaky. Both parties know that seniors vote in high numbers and care passionately about the program.

Republicans would leave the plan alone for retirees and those near retirement, letting the government continue paying much of their doctors' and hospital bills.

For younger people, Medicare would be reshaped into a voucher-like system in which the government would subsidize people's health care costs, which Republicans say would drive down federal costs by giving seniors a menu of options that would compete with each other. Democrats say government payments won't keep up with the rapid inflation of medical costs, leaving many beneficiaries struggling to afford the care they need.

"It ends the Medicare guarantee," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said of Ryan's budget.

"This plan doesn't end the Medicare guarantee," said Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz. "Arithmetic does. Unless we change something, unless we put it on a solvent footing, the Medicare guarantee is gone."

Republicans would turn Medicaid, the nearly $300 billion-a-year federal-state health insurance program for the poor, into a grant that states could use as they wish. They also would trim its growth by $800 billion over the next decade.

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, a rising star in the Republican Party and a favorite among conservatives to round out the party's ticket this fall, endorsed Mitt Romney for president on Wednesday evening. 

Rubio's endorsement is a marker of support that many candidates had sought. It comes at a point in the campaign at which Romney has sought to coalesce Republicans behind his candidacy.

"I don't have a problem with primaries, but I think we're at a stage now where at least two of the candidates have admitted that the only way to get the nomination is to have a floor fight at the convention," Rubio said before announcing his support for Romney on Fox News.

"It’s increasingly clear that Mitt Romney’s going to be the Republican nominee,” Rubio said, adding: “We’ve got to come together behind who I think has earned this nomination and that’s Mitt Romney.”

Romney has spoken highly of Rubio in the past, describing him most recently as an example of "the American Dream" in an appearance Tuesday on Jay Leno's "Tonight Show."

Rubio has been a favorite among conservatives since his Senate bid in 2010, in which he managed to best moderate Florida Gov. Charlie Crist in the Republican primary, and eventually, in the general election (in which Crist ran as an independent). 

Since his election, Rubio has been cautious on national issues. He waited months before delivering his maiden speech in the chamber, and had generally demurred on questions of national politics, instead emphasizing his focus on Florida issues. 

But there has been undeniable hype surrounding his potential selection as a running mate to the eventual Republican nominee. 

"It's not going to happen," the Florida senator said Wednesday on MSNBC. "I'm obviously flattered that people think about me that way. There are some things I'd like to get done here in the United States Senate. I'm enjoying the role that we have here."

Rubio additionally said on Wednesday evening that while he has spoken with Romney throughout the primary, the topic of the vice presidency never came up as a topic.

To that end, Rubio pushed up the release date of an autobiography to early this summer (a less favorable biography by a reporter is expected later this summer). His campaign finance reports also showed he had hired a firm to conduct opposition research on his past — mirroring the kind of vetting process a potential vice presidential candidate might face. 

The potential of having Rubio on the ticket has stoked Republican optimism that the party's nominee might fare better among Latino voters; the GOP has lagged among this key voting bloc in several recent national polls. A Fox News Latino poll released earlier this month found that 24 percent of Latino voters would be more likely to support the Republican ticket if Rubio were the vice presidential nominee; 51 percent said it would make no difference, and 14 percent said they would be less likely to vote for a ticket on which Rubio served as the vice presidential pick. 

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who endorsed Romney for president, told the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review last week that Romney should pick Rubio as his running mate. 

"He is the best orator of American politics today, a good family man. He is not only a consistent conservative, but he has managed to find a way to communicate a conservative message full of hope and optimism," he said.

National Journal’s Jill Lawrence and American University Law professor Steve Wermeil discuss the outcome of yesterday’s Supreme Court arguments, and take a look at how today’s arguments may play out.

Stephanie Cutter, the Deputy Campaign Manager for President Barack Obama’s reelection campaign, joins Andrea Mitchell Reports to talk about the last day of the hearings.

That question has been asked numerous times since President Obama and House Speaker John Boehner tried, unsuccessfully, to reach a "grand bargain" last July that would have raised the debt ceiling, reduced the deficit, and raised revenues.

The White House and Democrats point their finger at Boehner, saying he was unable to deliver Republican votes on a compromise where both sides would have to swallow something uncomfortable (tax hikes for Republicans, entitlement cuts for Democrats).

By contrast, House Republicans counter that Obama and the White House moved the goal posts, which forced them to break off the talks.

Earlier this month, the Washington Post advanced the moving-the-goal-post argument by noting that Obama and Boehner had agreed -- in principle -- on raising $800 billion in additional revenue. But the White House upped the ante after the bipartisan "Gang of Six" produced their outline, which contained significantly more revenue.

Inside the White House, the offer reflected the new political reality shaped by the Gang of Six. In light of that farther-reaching proposal, White House officials worried that the deal under discussion with Boehner would meet resistance, particularly among Obama’s Democratic supporters. Higher taxes explicitly targeted toward the wealthy offered an element of fairness, in the White House view, and a way to sweeten any deal for the Democratic base.

So in that telling, Boehner walked away from his talks with Obama -- on Friday, July 22 -- because he could no longer trust the White House.

But in a just-published article, Matt Bai of the New York Times Magazine adds some additional details. One, Boehner continued to stay at the negotiating table for two days after Obama "moved the goal posts."

It’s a clean story of a man standing by his conservative principles. And yet the additional revenue wasn’t, strictly speaking, a nonstarter. After all, Boehner wanted a deal badly enough to stay at the table for 48 hours after Obama “moved the goal posts,” which casts doubt on his claim that this breach of trust was an obvious dealbreaker. And at some point that Thursday, Boehner and his most senior aides at least entertained what would have been an astounding counteroffer to the president.

And two, Boehner only decided to walk away from the negotiations after House Majority Leader Eric Cantor rejected that counteroffer.

What happened, instead, based on extensive reporting, was this: Boehner raised the possibility of his counteroffer with Cantor on that Thursday afternoon, and Cantor dismissed the suggestion out of hand. He had always warned that the White House couldn’t be trusted and would come back for more, and Obama’s reversal on the revenue number had vindicated that view. Cantor made it clear he wasn’t going to support any more counteroffers. He was pretty sure the caucus wouldn’t either. No longer was Cantor content to be the skeptic in the room. He was now certain that the grand bargain was a practical impossibility.

Bai goes on to make this conclusion in his piece: All throughout the negotiations, Obama had demonstrated his ability to get Democrats (like Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi) to accept the "grand bargain," albeit reluctantly. But Boehner couldn't.

And yet, in the end, while both leaders had profound reservations about a grand bargain that would threaten their parties’ priorities, what’s undeniable, despite all the furious efforts to peddle a different story, is that Obama managed to persuade his closest allies to sign off on what he wanted them to do, and Boehner didn’t, or couldn't. While Democratic leaders were willing to swallow either a deal with more revenue or a deal with less, Boehner’s theoretical counteroffer, which probably reflected what he would have done if empowered to act alone, never even got a hearing from his leadership team.

President Barack Obama on Tuesday nominated Michael Huerta, acting administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), to become the official head of the agency.

“I am very pleased that President Obama has nominated him to lead the FAA as the next Administrator,” Ray LaHood, head of the Department of Transportation, the agency that oversees the FAA, said in a statement. “Michael Huerta has stepped up to the plate and done an exemplary job in leading the largest and safest aviation system in the world."

Prior to taking over the post, Huerta was leading FAA’s NextGen effort that will transition the nation’s antiquated air traffic control system to a satellite-based system.

Huerta has been running the FAA since former chief Randy Babbitt resigned in December over charges of drunken driving.

The Senate must approve Huerta’s nomination before he is officially named FAA Administrator.

More stories you might like:

• Passengers recount JetBlue captain's in-flight meltdown
• Woman restrained after attacking US Airways flight crew
• Rising fuel prices will likely curb some travelers' summer plans

Brace yourself for another 5-4 decision… And such a decision would have two consequences: 1) feed the perception that the Supreme Court is as partisan as the other branches, and 2) satisfy no one… Yesterday was a bad day for the mandate… Team Gingrich beginning to accept reality?... New WaPo/ABC poll: Romney unfavorable rating at 50%... Boehner scolds Romney for criticizing Obama while abroad… New Quinnipiac polls: Obama leads in FL, OH, and PA… RNC staffing up in battleground states… Team Santorum narrows the ad-spending gap in Wisconsin (but just slightly)… And Biden to talk manufacturing in Iowa.

Jonathan Ernst / Reuters

Members of the public wait on the sidewalk to be allowed inside to watch the third and final day of legal arguments over the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act at the Supreme Court in Washington, March 28, 2012.

*** Brace yourself for another 5-4 decision: Yesterday’s oral arguments at the Supreme Court raised the distinct possibility that the individual mandate -- and perhaps the entire health-care law -- could be decided by another controversial 5-4 decision. Such an outcome, especially after other 5-4 decisions like Bush vs. Gore and Citizens United, would have two potential consequences. One, it would feed the perception that the U.S. Supreme Court is as partisan as Congress and increasing parts of the media; in other words, these nine justices (either trained at liberal law schools or members of the conservative Federalist Society) are essentially political actors wearing black robes. And two and most importantly, a 5-4 decision would satisfy no one. If the court strikes down the mandate and the health-care law by that narrow margin, liberals and Democrats would blame it on the conservative justices. If the mandate and law are upheld by a 5-4 decision, conservatives would point their fingers at the liberals and the unpredictable “mushy” swing justice, Anthony Kennedy. That’s the problem with a split decision: The losers would feel like they lost on a political technicality, not because there was a legal consensus.

*** A bad day for the mandate: Make no mistake: The mandate had a VERY bad day yesterday. As the New York Times writes, “Predicting the result in any Supreme Court case, much less one that will define the legacies of a president and a chief justice, is nothing like a science, and the case could still turn in various directions. But the available evidence indicated that the heart of the Affordable Care Act is in peril.” Liberals and Democrats are holding out for hope with Kennedy’s sentence at the end of yesterday (“The young person who is uninsured is uniquely, proximately, very close to affecting the rates of insurance and the costs of providing medical care in a way that is not true in other industries”), as well as with Chief Justice John Roberts’ tough questioning of the plaintiff’s attorney. The backseat “oral arguing” on the Democratic side is quite loud; the grumbling and handwringing about Solicitor General Donald Verrilli’s apparent inability -- at some points -- to make what some folks thought were easy rebuttals to the cell phone, broccoli and funeral analogies seem to frustrate not just those in the blogosphere but also in the White House. That said, plenty of Verrilli supporters out there who say folks are overreacting and point to the tough questioning the government received on the D.C. circuit and yet they still prevailed. As our friends at SCOTUS Blog note, Verrilli had the tougher case to make; Paul Clement had the easier one.

*** Beginning to accept reality? The breaking news from last night -- that Newt Gingrich’s campaign is laying off a third of its staff, replacing its campaign manager, and lightening its traveling schedule -- signals that Gingrich is getting closer to accepting the reality of a candidate who has won just two contests. Per NBC’s Alex Moe, “Gingrich’s campaign has been struggling to stay afloat financially for several weeks — posting slightly more debt than cash on hand in the last FEC filing for February. The former House Speaker, though, continues to promise he will go all the way to the Republican convention in Tampa this August unless another candidate obtains all 1,144 delegates beforehand.” Gingrich’s travel schedule is going to be so light at times that the question is going to be asked: Is he truly an “active” candidate or closer to being a candidate that “suspends” its operation? He’s sort of in between at this point.

*** Mr. Unfavorable? A new Washington Post/ABC poll has some rough numbers for Mitt Romney: “In the new poll, 50 percent of all adults and 52 percent of registered voters express unfavorable opinions of Romney, both higher — although marginally — than Obama has received in Post-ABC polling as far back as late 2006. However, the biggest difference between Romney and Obama is on the other side of the ledger: 53 percent of Americans hold favorable views of the president; for Romney, that number slides to 34 percent.” The good news for Romney: The general election is seven months away. The bad news: It’s seven months away. By the way, the Politico story on the proposed car elevator for Romney’s oceanfront home in San Diego is another one of those bad two- or three-word story for Romney, meaning it only takes two or three words to tell a negative narrative. The others: Swiss bank account, dog on roof, Etch A Sketch -- and now “car elevator” Too be sure, Obama has his as well (Obamacare, “flexibility,” etc.). But that is a lot of negative shorthand for a potential presidential challenger at this point in time.

*** Boehner scolds Romney for criticizing Obama while abroad: This story got lost in yesterday’s news, but it was pretty significant in our eyes. NBC’s Luke Russert reported that House Speaker Boehner took a dig at Romney for criticizing Obama while he was overseas. "Clearly while the president is overseas, he's at a conference and while the president is overseas I think it's appropriate that people not be critical of him or our country," Boehner said in response to a question from NBC News about whether he agreed with Romney's assessment that Russia is the "No.1 geopolitical foe" of the United States. By the way, Romney has an op-ed in Foreign Policy Magazine -- entitled “Bowing to the Kremlin” -- that doubles down on his criticism of Obama.

*** Obama leads in FL, OH, and PA: A series of new Quinnipiac battleground state polls shows Obama leading Romney in Florida (49%-42%), Ohio (47%-41%), and Pennsylvania (45%-42%). The president also is ahead of Santorum in all three states by a slightly larger margin (50%-37% in Florida, 47%-40% in Ohio, and 48%-41% in Pennsylvania). What’s fueling Obama’s lead? Quinnipiac says it’s female voters, who back Obama over Romney or Santorum by six to 19 points in these three states. But also, don’t miss the political party fav/unfav numbers. The GOP is SO under water in all three states that its favorable rating is below 40% in FL and OH, and it’s at 41% in PA… Dems are an average of five points better in all three states. So while the Obama White House had a really bad day at the Supreme Court yesterday, it can lick its wounds with these poll numbers, plus the Washington Post/ABC survey on Romney’s standing.

*** RNC staffing up in battleground states: The Republican National Committee is beginning to deploy staffers to key battleground states, RNC Political Director Rick Wiley tells First Read. The RNC already has staff in Florida, North Carolina and Virginia, and it will send staffers to Colorado, Michigan and Nevada by April 1. And by the end of next month, it will deploy staff to New Mexico, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Of course, the RNC is playing catch-up here to the Obama campaign’s large organizations in these states and beyond. “Every day it’s the RNC’s job to keep our sights focused on President Obama to remind voters why we need a change in the White House in November,” Wiley says. “Running against the Obama campaign that spends every moment worried about re-election, it’s important we get started building out our ground game and contacting voters now so we are ready when our nominee walks in the door.”

*** Team Santorum narrows Romney’s ad-spending edge (just a bit): Yesterday, we wrote that Team Romney (campaign plus Super PAC) had a nearly 10-to-1 advertising advantage over Team Santorum in Wisconsin. But that margin has been narrowed somewhat after the Santorum campaign placed a $143,000 cable and broadcast buy in Wisconsin. It’s now almost 5-to-1, with Team Romney at $3.1 million and Team Santorum at $670,000. And in the final week of ad spending (March 26 to April 3), it’s 3-to-1, $1.9 million vs. $624,000.

*** On the trail, per NBC’s Adam Perez: Romney raises money in Dallas, TX… Santorum holds two "Rally for Rick" events in Wisconsin, one in Sparta and the other in Onalaska… And Gingrich gives a speech at Georgetown University in Washington, DC

*** Biden to talk manufacturing in Iowa: Also today, Vice President Biden delivers the third of his campaign speeches framing the general election. Biden gives this one in Davenport, IA and the topic is manufacturing. Per the advanced excerpts, Biden will say: “I’ve come here today with a simple message:  Manufacturing is coming back. And that’s good news for America, and for America’s middle class.” More: “Mitt Romney has been remarkably consistent -- as an individual investor, a businessman, as Governor of Massachusetts, and now as a candidate for president. Remarkably consistent. Consistently wrong… When he was governor of Massachusetts, he vetoed a bill passed by the Massachusetts legislature that would have stopped the state from outsourcing contracts overseas.  That resulted in millions of dollars flowing to companies running call centers in India.” 

Countdown to DC, Maryland, Wisconsin primaries: 6 days
Countdown to Election Day: 223 days

Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter. Follow us @chucktodd, @mmurraypolitics, @DomenicoNBC, @brookebrower

Updated at 6:45 p.m. ET In the Supreme Court’s final day of arguments on the constitutionality of the 2010 health care law, the justices wrestled Wednesday with what happens to the law if they strike down the provision that requires the uninsured to buy insurance.

“I think a majority of the court believes that if it rules that individual mandate is unconstitutional, then the rest of the health care law probably cannot be saved,” reported NBC’s Pete Williams after hearing the 90 minutes of oral argument.

“It would seem that a majority of the court -- again, breaking down along the familiar lines -- believes ... it would be a very difficult, almost impossible, chore to figure out which parts of the law could still be saved,” Williams reported.

Read a transcript of the afternoon oral arguments here (.pdf)

At issue before the court on Wednesday was “severability” -- a principle that holds that if one part of a law is ruled unconstitutional, the remaining parts of the law can stay in force.

Williams reported that the justices were “very concerned” about the effects on the insurance industry of leaving intact the obligations imposed on it to offer coverage to all who seek it without the source of income from the individual mandate.

“They are very worried about saddling the insurance industry with that,” he said.

Read a transcript of the morning oral arguments here (.pdf)

Arguing that Congress ought to be given the opportunity to repair the bill if the court strikes down the individual mandate, Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked, “In a democracy structured like ours, where each branch does different things, why we should involve the Court in making the legislative judgment?”

Paul Clement, the attorney representing the states who oppose the law, told the justices, “I think you do want to strike it all down to avoid a redux of Buckley," -- a reference to the 1976 Buckley v. Valeo campaign finance decision that struck down congressional limits on campaign spending but retained the limits on campaign contributions.

Art Lien/NBC News

Attorney Paul Clement argues on behalf of respondents challenging the constitutionality of President Obama's 2010 health care law.

Arguing for the Obama administration, Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler said “as a matter of judicial restraint,” the court should not invalidate the entire law if it strikes down the individual mandate.

But Justice Anthony Kennedy said the court would be exercising too much power if it threw out the mandate but other provisions “remained to impose a risk on insurance companies that Congress had never intended. By reason of this court, we would have a new regime that Congress did not provide for, did not consider."

That, he said, might be "a more extreme exercise of judicial power" than striking down the whole law.

Justice Antonin Scalia seemed to suggest at one point during Wednesday’s argument that Congress might find itself unable to repair what remains of the law if the justices invalidate parts of it. “There is such a thing as legislative inertia, isn't there?” he asked.

Listen to that exchange between Justice Scalia and Paul Clement here (.wav)

Justice Elena Kagan, the former solicitor general in the Obama administration, indicated that she might vote to preserve all other parts of the law except guaranteed issue and other insurance reforms, if the court struck down the individual mandate.

Referring to the new insurance marketplaces, or “exchanges,” which the law sets up, Kagan asked, “Is half a loaf better than no loaf? And on something like the exchanges it seems to me a perfect example where half a loaf is better than no loaf. The exchanges will do something.”

And Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told Clement, “There are so many things in this Act that are unquestionably okay ... Why make Congress re-do those?”

Listen to that exchange between Justice Ginsburg and Paul Clement here (.wav)

She told Clement, “Why should we say it's a choice between a wrecking operation, which is what you are requesting, or a salvage job. And the more conservative approach would be salvage rather than throwing out everything.”

The 2010 law does not contain a severability clause so the justices were confronted with the task of trying to ascertain what Congress would have wanted, if it knew that part of the law would be struck down.

The Obama administration argues in its brief that the high court should hold that only two provisions of the act can’t be severed from the individual mandate provision.

The two provisions that the administration says are inseparable are guaranteed issue and “community rating” -- which means insurance premiums do not vary by individuals’ health characteristics or health status.

The Obama administration argues that without the individual mandate, the guaranteed issue and community rating provisions “would drive up costs and reduce coverage, the opposite of Congress’s goals.” They, therefore, can’t be severed from the individual mandate and “must be invalidated if the court finds it unconstitutional.”

Justices express skepticism over constitutionality of health insurance mandate

But all the other provisions in the law “can operate independently and would still advance Congress’s core goals of expanding coverage, improving public health, and controlling costs even if the minimum coverage provision were held unconstitutional.”

Those other provisions include, for example, an increase in the Medicare tax on people who earn more than $200,000 a year, a requirement that children up to age 26 be covered on their parents’ health insurance policy, and an expansion of prescription drug benefits for people on Medicare. 

Also argued Wednesday was the constitutionality of Congress’s expansion of the federal-state Medicaid program for low-income people.

The states traditionally were required to offer Medicaid only to low-income people in certain categories: families with dependent children, the elderly, blind people, the disabled, and pregnant women. But the 2010 law requires states to cover all individuals under age 65 with incomes up to 133 percent of the poverty level.

Art Lien/NBC News

Deputy Solicitor Gen. Edwin Kneedler argues before the Supreme Court.

More than two dozen states are asking the court to strike down the Medicaid expansion on the grounds that the law coerces the states.

The federal government will pay all the Medicaid costs of covering newly eligible people from 2014 to 2016.  After that federal support will decrease, and after 2020), the federal government will pay 90 percent of the costs of covering the newly eligible.

Under prior law, the federal government pays, on average, about 60 percent of the cost of Medicaid coverage.

Pointing to this, Justice Kagan said, “the Federal government is here saying (to the states), we are giving you a boatload of money….There's no matching funds requirement, there are no extraneous conditions attached to it, it's just a boatload of Federal money for you to take and spend on poor people's healthcare. It doesn't sound coercive to me, I have to tell you.”

Chief Justice Roberts said “the concern is that the secretary (of Health and Human Services) has the total and complete say because the secretary has the authority under this provision to say you lose everything (all federal Medicaid funds). No one's suggested in the normal course that will happen, but so long as the Federal government has that power, it seems to be a significant intrusion on the sovereign interests of the State.”

But Roberts also suggested that the states were mostly to blame for letting themselves reliant on federal funds.

“Isn't that a consequence of how willing they have been since the New Deal to take the Federal government's money?” he asked. “And it seems to me that they have compromised their status as independent sovereigns because they are so dependent on what the Federal government has done, they should not be surprised” at the federal government exercising control over them.

The states, Roberts said, “tied the strings, they shouldn't be surprised if the Federal government isn't going to start pulling them.”

NBC's Pete Williams contributed to this report.

DELAVAN LAKE, Wisc. -- Despite news of a dramatic cutback in Newt Gingrich's presidential campaign staff, Rick Santorum is still refusing to call for the former House Speaker to leave the race.

"I think it is time for all the Republican candidates to coalesce behind me. You know, let's just have a conservative nominee to take on Barack Obama. Until that time happens, I'm not going to call on anyone to get out," Santorum said Tuesday night.

The former Pennsylvania senator spent the day campaigning through Wisconsin.  As he greeted patrons at restaurant here during his last stop, reporters told him of the reports that Gingrich had cut a third of his paid staff, including his campaign manager.  The news was met with a wince and head shake.

"One of the things I was told very early on in presidential politics is that you run for president as long as the money hangs on," said Santorum.  "Obviously, financially, it's tough. I can certainly understand that. So, I don't know what his plans are. As I've said before, were going to run the race irrespective of who's in and who's out."

Santorum said his campaign has not reached out to Gingrich, but that they "exchanged pleasantries" when they both met with the same group of reporters in Washington, DC on Monday.

Though Santorum has continually refused to call on Gingrich to leave the race, both he and senior staffers have blamed the waning GOP candidate for cutting into his vote totals and preventing a serious challenge to frontrunner Mitt Romney. Senior strategist John  Brabender has in the past openly welcomed Gingrich to be a top voice for Santorum's campaign and has also said they would like to hire his staffers.

But even as a contender fades away, the road continues to be a tough one for Santorum.  Polls show him struggling in the Badger State, where he is being heavily outspent.

He'll spend the majority of the time between now and Tuesday's primary in Wisconsin.

Melanie Bloom, wife of the late NBC News correspondent David Bloom, is working to bring awareness to the condition that took her husband's life. Deep Vein-Thrombosis, or DVT, is a fatal blood clot that takes more lives each year than breast cancer and AIDS combined.

Bloom founded the Coalition to Prevent Deep-Vein Thrombosis and her group is focusing this year on bringing awareness to cancer patients because their treatment increases risks.

 "Cancer changes the clotting factors in the blood and so does chemotherapy ... then add to that maybe you’re laying down, you’re having surgery, so you’re not moving around as much ... keeping that blood flowing is very important," Bloom said.

Bloom also reflected on her husband's legacy and the special kinship she feels with military spouses who made the ultimate sacrifice having lost loved ones overseas. 

"You never forget the ones you loved when they go.  It's always fresh and he's missed every single day. I see his face in our daughter's faces," she said. 

Watch the entire PRESS Pass conversation above to hear more from Melanie Bloom about DVT and her husband's relationship with American troops while covering the war in Iraq.

WASHINGTON, DC — Newt Gingrich's campaign is laying off a third of its paid staff, replacing its campaign manager, and lightening the campaign schedule as he continues with poor finishes in elections and is receiving little incoming money for his campaign.

“The campaign is being redesigned to focus on Tampa,” campaign spokesman R.C. Hammond told NBC News.

News of the cutbacks were first reported by Politico Tuesday evening. 

Michael Krull, an Iowan and college friend of Gingrich’s wife, Callista, who took over as campaign manager shortly after most of Gingrich’s original staff ditched him last summer, agreed to resign his position last weekend. Now, Vince Haley, the current deputy campaign manager and policy director, will assume the role.

Hammond refused to comment on what other staff were let go, saying “he will not discuss personnel matters.”

Gingrich’s campaign has been struggling to stay afloat financially for several weeks — posting slightly more debt than cash on hand in the last FEC filing for February. The former House Speaker, though, continues to promise he will go all the way to the Republican convention in Tampa this August unless another candidate obtains all 1,144 delegates beforehand.

Asked earlier today while campaigning in Maryland if he realistically has enough money to last him until the summer, Gingrich said he does.

“The money is very tight obviously,” he told reporters outside the state house.

The speaker even alluded to this apparent staff shake up, as well.

When asked by reporter in Annapolis this morning if he was asking his staff to take pay cuts, Gingrich said: “Well we're working through what it is going to take to get there [to the convention] and I think probably Joe DeSantis or R.C. will have something to say about that in the next day or two.”

Gingrich typically holds anywhere from three to five public campaign events a day but on Wednesday, Gingrich only has one public event scheduled in Washington, D.C. This trend will continue for the campaign as they begin to lighten the number of events.

Communications director Joe DeSantis tells NBC News as far as cutting back travel, “You will see Newt spend longer stretches of time in key states rather than bouncing from state to state.”

The speaker was originally scheduled to spend Wednesday in North Carolina but then cancelled the trip just yesterday.

These shakeups will undoubtedly increase speculation and calls for Gingrich to exit the GOP race. He has only won two states — his home state of Georgia and South Carolina — and is trailing both Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum in the delegate count.

Guest host NBC's Chuck Todd gets day two Supreme Court analysis from NBC's Pete Williams and Savannah Guthrie about whether the justices seemed unsympathetic to the government's pro-mandate argument. Also, analysts Tom Goldstein and Kevin Russell attempt to answer Justice Scalia's question: Can the government force us to eat broccoli?

NBC's Pete Williams, who has been listening in as the Supreme Court hears arguments about President Obama’s health care reform law, says he thinks it’s "very doubtful" the high court is going to find the law constitutional.

Stephen Wermiel, Professor of Constitutional Law at American University, and Politico’s Josh Gerstein discuss whether Congress can mandate Americans to buy health insurance or pay a penalty, and whether this penalty is indeed a tax or not.