Eric Gay / AP

Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum charges that a law requiring insurers to cover prenatal testing is a way to encourage more women to have abortions that will 'cull the ranks of the disabled in our society.'

First birth control, now prenatal testing? Once again a fact of life for many American women has become a jarring issue in the presidential race.

Republican candidate Rick Santorum is making free screenings for birth defects part of his attack on President Barack Obama's health care law. Santorum charges that the law requiring insurers to cover the tests is a way to encourage more women to have abortions that will "cull the ranks of the disabled in our society."

Obama re-election campaign spokeswoman Lis Smith called Santorum's remarks "misinformed and dangerous." She said the tests help bring about safer deliveries for mothers and babies.

See related: Santorum on defensive

Federal health officials and doctors recommend that all pregnant women be offered blood tests and an ultrasound exam that assess the risk of having a baby with a birth defect or genetic disorder, including Down syndrome. If a screening test raises concern, a woman may choose further testing, such as amniocentesis.

How did these commonplace tests spark so much controversy?

— Some women don't want the tests because they know they wouldn't abort their fetus no matter what the results. Others who wouldn't consider an abortion still want the tests, so they can be emotionally prepared and plan for a disabled baby's more complicated care. Babies with Down syndrome can need specialized care at delivery that affects hospital selection.

— Some women avoid amniocentesis, which involves withdrawing amniotic fluid with a needle, because of the small chance it could cause a miscarriage. There are less invasive tests available and newer ones on the way.

— As Santorum noted, studies show that in the vast majority of cases where amniocentesis reveals Down syndrome, women decide on abortion.

— Advocates for the disabled, including many parents of Down syndrome children, worry that couples are choosing abortion without fully considering that their child could lead a happy, fulfilling life. About one in 800 babies has Down syndrome, a condition in which having an extra chromosome causes mental retardation, a characteristic broad, flat face and, often, serious heart defects.

The prenatal testing issues have been debated by abortion foes and obstetricians and wrestled with by prospective parents. But the ethical quandaries and painful emotional decisions received scant public attention before the politically charged remarks from Santorum, who also opposes the government requiring birth control coverage for employees of religiously affiliated organizations.

Until now, perhaps the best-known public reflections on the prenatal testing issue came from two well-known conservatives, each the parent of a Down syndrome child, who reached different conclusions about prenatal screening:

— "I was grateful to have all those months to prepare. I can't imagine the moms that are surprised at the end. I think they have it a lot harder," Sarah Palin said during her 2008 campaign for the vice presidency about the amniocentesis results she received before her son, Trig, was born.

— "What is antiseptically called 'screening' for Down syndrome is, much more often than not, a search-and-destroy mission: At least 85 percent of pregnancies in which Down syndrome is diagnosed are ended by abortions," columnist George Will wrote in a highly personal 2007 column about his grown son, Jon.

Santorum, whose youngest daughter has a different genetic disorder, Trisomy 18, said in a CBS interview on Sunday, "Almost 100 percent of Trisomy 18 children are encouraged to be aborted, so I know what I'm talking about here."

A former top aide to Sarah Palin when she was Alaska governor has paid $11,900 to settle an ethics complaint with the state of Alaska.

Mark Wilson / Getty Images

One of Palin's former aides penned a tell-all book about the abbreviated administration of the former Alaska governor and 2008 Republican vice-presidential candidate.

The complaint by Republican activist Andrée McLeod alleged that Frank Bailey used confidential emails, which were being withheld from the public, to write "Blind Allegiance to Sarah Palin," his tell-all book about the abbreviated administration of the former Alaska governor and 2008 Republican vice-presidential candidate.

The settlement was reached last week and disclosed Tuesday when the attorney general's office informed McLeod.

Documents in the case, in PDF files:

• The ethics complaint by filed McLeod in September 2010
• The settlement agreement released Tuesday

The fines are described in the settlement as $3,600 for using confidential information in drafting his book, $7,200 for disclosing confidential information to his co-authors, and $1,100 for publishing information after the state Department of Law told him it was confidential. The settlement said Bailey withheld more information on the advise of the state lawyers.

More: Reporter Richard Mauer at The Anchorage Daily News has more on the ethics case.

McLeod issued a statement on Tuesday saying more disclosure is needed:

“Justice has yet to be served.  I have called on the Attorney General to reveal all the public’s documents and emails that Bailey confiscated and shared with others when he left state employment.”

McLeod and members of the media have requested all of Palin’s email communications for the time she was Alaska’s governor.  Although some have been revealed, many couldn’t be located because of Palin’s rampant use of private email accounts for official business, and thousands more remain undisclosed as Alaska’s governor’s office cites executive privileges and other delay tactics.

“Every one of those confidential and still undisclosed public documents that were in Bailey’s possession must be made public, immediately, as Bailey broke the chain of custody when he illegally shared them with his co-authors Jeanne Devon and Ken Morris,” McLeod said. 

“This is the second time that Sarah’s go-to guy has been found to have crossed the line.  The first was back in November of 2008 when I filed another complaint against Sarah and her staff, including Bailey,” McLeod said.

McLeod continues, “This agreement proves, yet again, that Sarah Palin’s account of her role in reforming Alaska’s government while governor is truly the only real ‘false narrative’ being bandied about.”

Previous coverage: See our coverage from last summer on the release of many of the Palin administration's emails, including our database where you can read those documents.

Mitt Romney said Tuesday that cutting spending slows growth in the economy -- a rhetorical slip more akin to an argument a Democrat might make than a Republican.

Speaking in Shelby Township, MI, the former Massachusetts governor took a question about the Simpson-Bowles fiscal commission empaneled by President Obama to address the nation's deficit and debt issues. In his response, he said that addressing taxes and spending issues are essential.

"If you just cut, if all you're thinking about doing is cutting spending, as you cut spending you'll slow down the economy," he said in part of his response. "So you have to, at the same time, create pro-growth tax policies."

That sort of comment was sure to raise the eyebrows of fiscal conservatives in the GOP, who have long preached a message of fiscal restraint as a path to economic growth.

"It's hogwash. It confirms yet again that Romney is not a limited government conservative," said Andy Roth, the vice president for government affairs at the fiscally conservative Club for Growth. "The idea that balancing the budget would not help the economy is crazy. If we balanced the budget tomorrow on spending cuts alone, it would be fantastic for the economy."

Romney is set to unveil a new, more detailed economic plan later this week, especially as he works to shore up primary victories in Arizona and his native Michigan.

But he's offered an insight into his thinking by endorsing a previous fiscal plan (the Cut, Cap and Balance plan, which calls for cuts to spending, a cap on the growth of government spending, and a balanced budget amendment) that doesn't necessarily rely on accompanying tax reforms.

The Obama administration has been particularly clear about its view that cutting spending would strangle off any hope of an economic recovery. Jack Lew, the new White House chief of staff made that point in a Feb. 12 appearance on "Meet the Press."

"I think that there's pretty broad agreement that the time for austerity is not today," Lew said. "We need to be on a path where over the next several years we bring our deficit under control. Right now we have a recovery that's taking root and if we were to put in austerity measures right now, it would take the economy in the wrong way."

Romney's comment, if nothing else, would represent a rhetorical departure from the rest of the Republican Party, which has done battle with the Obama administration over the past year about the best course for economic growth.

"We’re listening to the people who sent us here to cut spending so we can grow our economy," House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) said just less than a year ago, at the height of a fight between Obama and congressional Republicans over funding the government.

***UPDATE*** Romney spokesman Ryan Williams commented on the comments:

The governor’s point was that simply slashing the budget, with no affirmative pro-growth policies, is insufficient to get the economy turned around.  However, he believes that budget cuts – especially in the context of President Obama’s unprecedented spending explosion – are a step in the right direction.  As he made clear in his economic plan, he believes that spending cuts that reduce the size of government and balance the budget are crucial to economic growth and job creation.

A super political action committee supporting Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum has refunded a $50,000 donation from a London-based securities firm.

A spokesman for the group said Tuesday that the action was taken because the contribution could have violated a U.S. law that guards against foreign money in American political campaigns.

Al Goldis / AP

A political action committee supporting Rick Santorum has refunded a $50,000 donation from a London-based securities firm.

The donation returned last month was the first acknowledged evidence of foreign money surfacing in the 2012 presidential race. The concern has worried political observers following a landmark 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision that removed restrictions on corporate and individual donations to political committees supporting presidential candidates.

See related: Michigan voters prefer Santorum to Romney 

Stuart Roy, the spokesman for the Red, White and Blue super PAC, said the $50,000 donation made in January by Liquid Capital Markets Ltd. originated with an American executive at the firm. The money was returned, Roy said, because the donation was mistakenly drawn from the foreign firm's accounts.

Under U.S. law, foreign corporations, individuals and governments have been prohibited since 1966 from providing funds for national elections — a ban the Supreme Court upheld earlier this year.

But the court's earlier ruling in the case of Citizens United enabled U.S. corporations and other well-financed donors to give money to political committees that avoid direct coordination with individual campaigns. Later rulings gave these super PACs more latitude by allowing donors to make unlimited donations with minimal disclosure, which spurred alarm about hidden donations from foreign sources.

The Associated Press reported less than two weeks ago, before the disclosure about the $50,000 refund, on growing concerns among election law experts about the prospect of illegal foreign donations because of the massive amounts of money flowing to the super PACs and lax oversight of disclosure. One Federal Election Commission member, Cynthia L. Bauerly, warned of the potential for circumventing existing rules.

Roy said the $50,000 donation was proposed by an American executive at Liquid Capital Markets in London. Roy said the executive informed super PAC officials he intended to make the donation then mistakenly provided the money from the firm's accounts — which would have violated the ban on foreign money.

Red, White and Blue's officials noticed the discrepancy and quickly returned the donation, Roy said.

"We had spoken to one of the executives there who's an American citizen," he said. "But instead of sending the money himself, he sent it from the company."

Roy did not identify the executive, but Liquid Capital Market's website describes its CEO, Chris Siepman, and his brother, Gregg Siepman, a co-founder of the company, as Americans. There was no immediate response to attempts by the AP to reach Chris Siepman or other Liquid Capital officials.

Relishing a political victory, President Barack Obama said Tuesday that Congress "did the right thing" by extending payroll tax cuts for millions of Americans. He urged lawmakers to push forward on more measures, from assistance to struggling homeowners to increased taxes on the wealthy, saying the looming election was no excuse for inaction in Washington.

Larry Downing / Reuters

President Obama speaks about the importance of the passage by Congress of the extension of the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance.

"Don't stop here. Keep going,'" Obama said during a White House event marking the passage of the tax cuts.

"Keep taking the action that people are calling for to keep this economy growing. This may be an election year, but the American people have no patience for gridlock," he said.

See related story: White House on defense over gas prices

Obama was celebrating a tax cut that is already in place, but due to expire at month's end. He said the extension of the tax cut for the rest of the year will have a spillover effect: More people will spend money and more businesses in turn will be prodded to hire workers, and so "the entire economy" gets a boost.

Congress overwhelmingly passed the $143 billion measure on Friday. The bill extends both a 2 percentage point reduction in the tax that funds Social Security and extends jobless benefits for the long-term unemployed. The measure also averts a big cut in the reimbursements doctors get for treating Medicare patients.

But Tuesday's event was not a bill-signing because the bill is not yet in Obama's hands. Not knowing when the legislation will come down from Capitol Hill, the White House decided to go ahead and hold its event now, while the victory is still fresh in people's minds. No major event is planned for the actual bill-signing.

The payroll tax cut was a centerpiece of the jobs plan Obama unveiled last year — and of a re-election strategy that seeks to cast his GOP foes as protectors of the rich out of touch with the worries of working families.

Obama never mentioned that a real driver of the deal Congress approved Friday was the political fallout on Republicans if they didn't give ground. Having endured a debacle in December, when they were seen as holding up the tax cut before caving, Republicans this time went along, and without demanding that the cost be paid for, either.

The White House said the average family would have lost $40 per paycheck had the tax cut not been extended. Throughout the payroll tax debate, the White House encouraged people to write in on social networking sites about how losing that money would affect their lives.

Several members of the public who submitted their thoughts were invited to join Obama at events promoting the tax cuts, including his remarks Tuesday.

"This got done because of you," Obama said. "Because you called, you emailed, you tweeted your representatives and you demanded action. You made it clear that you wanted to see some common sense in Washington."

White House officials have called the payroll tax cut the last "must-do" legislation Obama has to work with Congress on ahead of the November presidential election. Still, Obama made a push Tuesday for several other priorities outlined in his jobs bill and last month's State of the Union address, including legislation to assist small business owners and struggling homeowners.

Obama earlier this month proposed a vast expansion of government assistance to homeowners that would make lower lending rates a possibility for millions of borrowers who have not been able to get out from under burdensome mortgages. The proposal has special resonance in election battlegrounds such as Nevada and Florida that have faced record foreclosures.

Obama wants Congress to pass legislation that would make it easier for more borrowers to refinance their loans, creating a new program through the Federal Housing Administration that would have the government assume the risk for the new mortgages. The proposal faces a difficult path in Congress.

Obama also said he wants Congress to pass the so-called Buffett rule, which seeks to ensure that people making more than $1 million a year pay at least 30 percent of their incomes in taxes.

The latest sign of the emerging Mitt Romney/Ron Paul bro-mance: The Paul campaign is airing a new TV ad in Michigan that hits Rick Santorum on the very points that the Romney camp has been raising (voted to raise the debt ceiling, increase spending).

Do note that this Paul ad is being released BEFORE Paul even starts campaigning in Michigan (he'll do so in the coming days) and as his team focuses more on the upcoming caucus contests (like Idaho and North Dakota) instead of the Arizona and Michigan contests, which don't appear to factor into the Paul campaign's delegate plans.

After all, Arizona is winner take all, and Michigan is winner take all per congressional district.

Per NBC's Anthony Terrell, the ad will also air in the upcoming Super Tuesday states.

The transcript:
Is this dude serious?
Fiscal conservative, really?
Santorum voted to raise the debt ceiling 5 times
Doubled the size of the Department of Education
Then supported the biggest entitlement expansion since the ‘60’s.
Not groovy.
Santorum voted to send billions of our tax dollars to dictators in North Korea and Egypt.
And even hooked Planned Parenthood up with a few million bucks.
Rick Santorum a fiscal conservative?
Fake.

One week until the Michigan (and Arizona) primary… The most important seven days of Romney’s political life?... Is Romney’s campaign cash drying up? (Check out that burn rate.)… Super PAC fundraising eclipses campaign fundraising on the GOP side, but that isn’t true on the Dem side… Adelson: “I might give $10 million or $100 million to Gingrich”… Santorum increasingly throwing rhetorical red meat… Politics of the pump… Obama to tout payroll tax-cut extension… And Obama camp says Romney, Santorum will increase the deficit.

Adam Eschbach / AP

Republican presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, pauses for a moment during a rally in Boise, Idaho at Guerdon Enterprises Friday, Feb. 17, 2012.

*** One week out: The next seven days until Michigan's primary may very well be the most important of Mitt Romney's political life. They could determine if he becomes the GOP nominee; if he does not; and if we might enter -- as we've described it before -- the political equivalent of Thunderdome, with either a "brokered" or "contested" convention in August. All of these things are on the line for Romney next Tuesday. And in between, he will have two big opportunities to right his campaign’s ship: 1) Wednesday night’s debate in Arizona and 2) Friday’s economic speech in Detroit. 

*** Campaign cash drying up? For Romney, what’s also at stake at next week’s Michigan primary is whether or not his campaign funds begin to dry up. Yesterday, the Romney campaign reported raising $6.5 million in primary funds for the month of January. Yet more importantly, its burn rate was more than 287% (spending $18 million-plus last month, versus raising $6.5 million), and it now has $7.7 million in the bank (compared with President Obama’s nearly $76 million). This begs the question: When will we start seeing Romney writing checks to his campaign, like we saw in 2007-2008? In fact, has he already written the check? (We won’t know that until March 20, the next reporting period.) Here are the other fundraising hauls for January: Gingrich $5.6 million ($1.8 cash on hand), Paul $4.5 million ($1.6 cash on hand), and Santorum $4.5 million (nearly $280k cash on hand). And on Friday, we found out Obama raked in $11.9 million in January, with the DNC and other committees bringing in an additional $17.2 million.

*** It’s a bird, it’s plane, it’s the Super PACs! But to demonstrate the power of the Super PACs and their influence on the GOP race so far, the January fundraising for these Super PACs eclipsed what the actual Republicans raised. “The Super PAC backing Mr. Romney, Restore Our Future, raised $6.6 million in January and spent close to $14 million, much of it on advertisements battering Mr. Gingrich in Iowa and Florida,” the New York Times writes. “A Super PAC backing Mr. Gingrich raised much more that month — almost $11 million… The super PAC backing Mr. Santorum, the Red White and Blue Fund, raised about $2 million in January, much of it from Foster S. Friess.” It’s worth noting that a Michigan loss for Romney also probably dries up much of this Super PAC money, too. What about the pro-Obama Super PAC, Priorities USA Action? According to NBC’s Carrie Dann, the organization raised just $58,815 in January, which probably explains why Team Obama made its reversal on Super PACs…

*** Adelson: “I might give $10 million or $100 million to Gingrich”: Don’t miss these remarks from Gingrich’s top Super PAC benefactor, Sheldon Adelson: “I might give $10 million or $100 million to Gingrich,” he told Forbes magazine. “I’m against very wealthy people attempting to or influencing elections. But as long as it’s doable I’m going to do it. Because I know that guys like Soros have been doing it for years, if not decades. And they stay below the radar by creating a network of corporations to funnel their money. I have my own philosophy and I’m not ashamed of it. I gave the money because there is no other legal way to do it.” And also don’t miss what the Wall Street Journal reported last week -- Adelson is willing to use his money to go after Santorum. (Adelson apparently is uncomfortable with some Santorum’s more conservative social policy positions.) According to the January fundraising report, Adelson and his wife gave a combined $10 million to the pro-Gingrich Super PAC Winning Our Future. Wow.

*** Lots of red meat for the base: Just like the other former surging Romney alternatives before him -- Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich -- Santorum has been tossing around A LOT of rhetorical red meat lately. The theology comment. The criticism of some free pre-natal screenings. The allusion to Hitler. He even made a Rev. Wright reference on Fox last night (as well as last week). The Santorum of Iowa (nice guy trying to show he’s more than just a conservative bomb-thrower) has morphed back into the rhetorical bomb-thrower? Is this what the base wants? As we’ve written about before, there is a chunk of the Republican base that wants someone to talk tougher on the president; at least tougher than Romney talks.

*** On the trail: Romney stumps in Michigan (and so does his wife) before heading to tomorrow’s debate in Arizona… Santorum holds two events in Phoenix, AZ, including a rally at 7:30 pm ET… And Gingrich remains in Oklahoma…

*** Politics of the pump: After previously facing the financial industry’s collapse, the BP spill, the European debt crisis, the Japanese tsunami, and the Arab Spring, here’s the latest external event -- largely outside the White House’s control -- that could impact the U.S. economy: another round of high gas prices. “Just as the recovery is finally looking real, surging fuel prices are once again looming as a major threat to the financial health of U.S. consumers and the broader economy,” the Los Angeles Times says. The politics of gas prices are always dangerous. After all, this is something that almost every American consumer sees, and every news organization (local or national) is ready to cover it (and usually LEAD their broadcasts with it). The one silver lining for the Obama administration: Given that gas prices were at highs just last summer, were consumers already pricing this in their budgets? That said, NBC’s Ali Weinberg notes that the Obama White House pushed several news items yesterday (like a Houston Chronicle story on increased oil production) to deflect charges from Republicans that the administration is to blame for the higher gas prices. The White House moves yesterday also indicate how nervous they are about the politics of the pump story.

*** Obama to tout payroll tax cut extension: And don’t be surprised if you hear President Obama mentioning that the payroll tax-cut extension, which Congress passed on Friday, will get consumers with rising gas prices. At 11:35 am, Obama and Vice President Biden hold an event at the White House, where they will tout the passage of the legislation. “The president,” the White House says, “will be joined by Americans who have shared their stories on WhiteHouse.gov and Twitter about what $40 a paycheck means to them. Because of this bipartisan action, the typical American family will still see an extra $40 in every paycheck.” The White House adds that the actual legislation will be signed into law later this week.

*** Obama camp says Romney, Santorum will increase the deficit: By the way, the Obama campaign is out with this memo from Policy Director James Kvaal: “Gov. Mitt Romney and Senator Rick Santorum claim they will champion spending cuts deep enough to cut taxes and balance the budget. In fact, they have both proposed irresponsible and reckless tax plans that would drive up the deficit by trillions of dollars, while their claims to balance the budget through spending cuts are completely unrealistic. Romney’s plan would increase the deficit by at least $175 billion a year.”

Countdown to Arizona and Michigan primaries: 7 days
Countdown to Super Tuesday: 14 days
Countdown to Election Day: 259 days
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

Click here to sign up for First Read emails.

Jason Reed / Reuters

U.S. President Barack Obama speaks during a Democratic Party fundraiser in Bellevue, Washington February 17, 2012.

This time around, President Barack Obama's message can sound decidedly down-to-earth.

Four years after winning the White House, Obama is dealing with a different economic and political reality as he seeks re-election. He's focused less on a lofty vision for overcoming divisions and remaking Washington, and more on the most basic building blocks of middle-class economic security: a job, a house, a college education for the kids, health care, money for retirement.

Recommended -- Michigan voters: Santorum connects better than Romney 

What Obama describes as the American Dream can seem a spare, fundamental aspiration, tailored for a campaign that looks to be fought over who is best equipped to safeguard the interests of middle-class Americans.

The question is whether it will convince, even as Mitt Romney and the other GOP presidential hopefuls mount a counter-argument that the president has made the American Dream harder, not easier, to achieve. And Obama must overcome the grinding realities many voters confront daily, even with the economy showing signs of life: no jobs, mortgages they can't pay, dwindling retirement funds and college savings.

The president is betting that if he shows voters he understands their yearning for economic stability and security, they'll reward him over Republicans he's casting as just watching out for the rich — even though he hasn't succeeded in fully reviving the economy so far.

"If you're willing to put in the work, the idea is that you should be able to raise a family and own a home; not go bankrupt because you got sick, because you've got some health insurance that helps you deal with those difficult times; that you can send your kids to college; that you can put some money away for retirement," Obama said recently in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

"That's all most people want," he said. "Folks don't have unrealistic ambitions. They do believe that if they work hard they should be able to achieve that small measure of an American Dream."

The goals can seem almost humdrum in comparison with some of the rhetoric from Obama's 2008 White House campaign. But the message sounds made for the times, with the country emerging haltingly from recession, the income gap widening and unemployment stuck above 8 percent.

"He can't run on change because he's the incumbent, and he can't paint too rosy a scenario because things aren't that rosy," said John Geer, professor of political science at Vanderbilt University. "He's got to come up with a theme that appeals to voters, especially middle-class voters, alleviates their fears and gives them reason to believe the future will be better."

The message also creates an implicit contrast with the portrait Democrats are trying to create of front-runner Romney as preoccupied with the concerns of the rich. But Romney is answering Obama's message head-on, seeking a careful balance between sounding optimistic about the nation's future and accusing Obama of destroying the American Dream.

"I've met Hispanic entrepreneurs who thought they had achieved the American Dream and are now seeing it disappear," Romney said after his recent victory in Florida's GOP primary. "We want to restore America to the founding principles that made this country great."

GOP candidates Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich also have accused Obama of tarnishing American opportunity, as Republicans make clear that no matter their nominee, Obama's claim to be the one to restore the American Dream is sure to be challenged.

The candidates' focus on the American Dream is in itself a sign of the times, said Michael Ford, founding director of the Center for the Study of the American Dream at Xavier University. The phrase was coined during the Great Depression and since then has tended to become a central theme during economic downturns, Ford said.

He said rhetoric about the American Dream has been featured during this election cycle more than in decades, which he attributed to the tough times the nation has been suffering.

"It's pretty basic stuff (Obama) talks about and I think as it turns out that's pretty much where the dream is right now," Ford said. "We can say the dream might have been lowered a little bit in terms of its aspiration but the aspiration is still there, and it's always there."

Some polling suggests that, despite voters' continued unhappiness with the economy and Obama's handling of it, the president may be convincing Americans he's on their side. A recent CBS/New York Times poll shows people view Obama as the candidate who best understands the needs and problems of "people like you," and see his policies as more apt than those of the GOP candidates to favor the middle class or the poor.

Obama campaign adviser David Axelrod said "the viability of the middle class is the central economic challenge of our time, so I think that this is very essential in terms of this election."

"He's been talking about this for years, that there are certain things that are pillars of a middle-class life, and he's been very focused on those things and addressing them as president," Axelrod said.

Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum promised Monday to revive manufacturing, cut taxes and shrink government, pledges that drew loud applause from conservative Michigan voters who said he was more in line with their values than native son and GOP rival Mitt Romney.

Santorum's growing connection with Michigan conservatives risks embarrassing Romney in his home state. Romney was counting on a strong finish in Michigan's presidential primary on Feb. 28 to carry him into the big, multistate round of voting a week later on Super Tuesday.

But Santorum, fueled by a recent trio of victories and sensing an opportunity to upset or at least bloody Romney with a strong primary finish of his own, is charging hard at a state that he says shares many of the same characteristics as his blue-collar state of Pennsylvania. Santorum pledged Monday that, under his administration of less government and more individual freedom, "manufacturing jobs will come back here to Muskegon."

See related: Romney criticizes Santorum fiscal record

Many of those at the standing-room-only rally at a Muskegon Holiday Inn said Santorum's message of religious and social conservatism was more in line with their values.

"I see Mitt Romney as more of a politician who has flip-flopped on some issues," said Hal Sisson, a 57-year-old media consultant from Norton Shores who, like Santorum, has seven children. "Rick Santorum has repeatedly been very conservative and has always stuck by his principles."

After holding a second rally at Hope College in Holland, Santorum got a standing ovation from GOP activists in Grand Rapids after criticizing President Barack Obama's policies, declaring they're "destroying business" and "crushing the economy of this country."

Back in September, Romney easily won just over 50 percent in a straw vote among nearly 700 GOP activists gathered on Michigan's historic Mackinac Island, compared to Santorum's seventh-place finish with 3.4 percent. Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, looked especially strong in a Nov. 9 GOP presidential debate in Michigan where Santorum wasn't much of a factor. But Santorum since has gained significant ground on Romney.

A recent poll of 500 likely Michigan GOP primary voters by Glengariff Group Inc., conducted after Santorum swept contests in Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri, showed 34 percent backing the former Pennsylvania senator while 30 percent were behind Romney, within the 4.4 percent margin of error.

Romney has sensed the threat and has stepped up his attacks on the former senator, hitting him as a big-spending Washington insider. Romney planned to campaign in Michigan on Tuesday. His wife, Ann, also a native, campaigned in the state Monday and was making a pair of appearances Tuesday.

Romney is counting on his fatter campaign bank account and superior campaign organization to edge Santorum aside in the week left before Michigan votes. He has the backing of most of the state's GOP leaders, including Gov. Rick Snyder. In the state's most prosperous county — Oakland, just northwest of Detroit — county Executive L. Brooks Patterson predicted Romney's business expertise and his longtime ties to Michigan will pull voters in.

"Romney is a known quantity to us," Patterson said. "The people who know him and get to understand his positions and get to understand what he's capable of doing will flock to his side."

Although Santorum didn't mention Romney in his speech or the question-and-answer period that followed, he clearly echoed what many in the crowd thought of his opponent.

"I don't change like a well-oiled weather vane," Santorum said. "You may not agree with me, but you know where I'm going to stand."

Part of Romney's problem in Michigan is he seems to be struggling to reconnect with voters who backed the Detroit native four years ago, when he first ran for president, after promising to save jobs in the beleaguered auto industry as then-rival John McCain warned that lost auto jobs would never return.

Now Romney seems to be on the opposite side, opposing the federal bailout of General Motors and Chrysler. Fewer voters remember his father, George, who ran American Motors Co. before serving three terms as Michigan governor in the 1960s. And while Romney was seen four years ago as the conservative alternative to McCain, Santorum is the one many Michigan Republicans say they'll back in the state's presidential primary a week from Tuesday.

"I was a non-supporter of anybody until he came on the scene," Jody Kuhn, a 74-year-old retired community college staffer from Muskegon, said of Santorum. Kuhn said she likes his conservative views.

Not everyone thinks Santorum can go the distance, however.

Clarkston resident Rick Sutkiewicz said recently that he's backing Romney because he stands a better chance of beating President Barack Obama.

"Not that I like Romney best as a candidate," the 45-year-old said while eating dinner in Auburn Hills, home to Chrysler's headquarters and Sutkiewicz's heating and air conditioning business. Sutkiewicz likes a lot of what Santorum says but worries he has too many issues that can be exploited by opponents.

"There's a lot to pick at with Santorum," he said.

Access to college has been the driving force in federal higher education policy for decades. But the Obama administration is pushing a fundamental agenda shift that aggressively brings a new question into the debate: What are people getting for their money?

Students with loans are graduating on average with more than $25,000 in debt. The federal government pours $140 billion annually into federal grants and loans. Unemployment remains high, yet there are projected shortages in many industries with some high-tech companies already complaining about a lack of highly trained workers.

Meanwhile, literacy among college students has declined in the last decade, according to a commission convened during the George W. Bush administration that said American higher education has become "increasingly risk-averse, at times self-satisfied, and unduly expensive." About 40 percent of college students at four-year schools aren't graduating, and in two-year programs, only about 40 percent of students graduate or transfer, according to the policy and analysis group College Measures.

College drop-outs are expensive, and not just for the individual. About a fifth of full-time students who enroll at a community college do not return for a second year, costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars annually, according to an analysis released last fall by the American Institutes for Research.

Recommended: White House on defense over gas prices 

There's been a growing debate over whether post-secondary schools should be more transparent about the cost of an education and the success of graduates. President Barack Obama has weighed in with a strong "yes."

During his State of the Union address, Obama put the higher education on notice: "If you can't stop tuition from going up, the funding you get from taxpayers will go down," he said. "Higher education can't be a luxury— it's an economic imperative that every family in America should be able to afford."

He wants to slightly reduce federal aid for schools that don't control tuition costs and shift it to those that do. He also has proposed an $8 billion program to train community college students for high-growth industries that would provide financial incentives to programs that ensured their trainees find work. Both proposals need congressional approval.

At the same time, the administration is developing both a "scorecard" for use in comparing school statistics such as graduation rates as well as a "shopping sheet" students would receive from schools they applied to with estimates of how much debt they might graduate with and estimated future payments on student loans.

American's higher education system has long been the backbone of much of the nation's success, and there's no doubt that a college degree is valuable. It's now projected that students with a bachelor's degree will earn a million more dollars over their lifetime than students with only a high school diploma, Education Secretary Arne Duncan says.

But Obama's statement to Congress jolted the higher education establishment, which believes that college isn't just to create foot soldiers for industry and that the use of measured outcomes would hurt the humanities, meaning fewer students will turn to Shakespeare and instead study engineering, said Anthony Carnevale, director of the Center on Education and the Workforce at Georgetown University. The community has already been reeling over an earlier administration decision to require career college programs — many of which are at for-profit institutions — to better prepare students for "gainful employment" or risk losing federal aid.

"It's the notion that the ...federal government will begin to say we want to know what we're paying for and we want to make sure that people don't pay for education programs that take them nowhere, especially if the program is supposed to get them a job, we want it to get them a job, Carnevale said.

Some fear that Obama might want to apply the "gainful employment" standards to traditional four-year degree programs. Robert Moran, director of federal relations at the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, said reporting requires time and resources, and it's even more difficult to gauge the success of a graduate with an English degree than someone with a very specific career certificate.

Duncan said in an interview he doesn't see a big need to go in that direction now, although he does think it's important to track factors such as graduation rates and tuition costs. He said he tracked his graduates while serving as chief executive officer of the Chicago Public Schools and noticed that some universities were graduating them at rates of 75 percent or more, while others were graduating them at a small fraction of that.

"Colleges aren't too dissimilar to high schools. Some have done a great job building cultures around completion and obtainment and some haven't," Duncan said.

Historically, policy conversations have centered on getting students into college. Duncan said graduating is just as important.

"To be real clear, I think that's been the problem with federal policy in the past is 100 percent has been focused on the front end on inputs, that's clearly important, but that's the starting point. That gets you in the game. The goal isn't to get to the game, the goal is to get to the finish line," Duncan said.

Obama isn't the first president to encourage dialogue on making higher education more affordable and accountable. In addition to convening a commission to study higher education in America, Bush's administration issued grants to states to link transcript data with other records to better track the success of graduates from public institutions. The Obama administration has continued the program.

But Obama is taking the conversation to another level. That doesn't mean, however, he's abandoning the issue of accessibility. His administration has expanded the availability of Pell grants, supported a tax credit for tuition costs and is attempting to make it easier for some graduates to pay back loans.

Experts say some of the challenges in higher education result from too many students entering the doors without basic math and English skills. There's also the question of how to measure how effective colleges are and whether tuition increases are appropriate — especially for public institutions facing dramatic budget cuts.

Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., the former president of Mayland Community College, said the issues raised by Obama are being addressed at the state and local level, where she said they should be handled, and that many schools are coming up with innovative ways to cut costs and to find ways to work with local industry. As an example, she recalled developing, while a community college president, a course in supervisory training after local industry sought it.

"All of these things the president talks about can be done at the local and state level, and are being done at the local and state level," Foxx said. "It isn't the role of government to guarantee somebody a good job after they graduate from college or community college."

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., takes a different view.

"Right now, the information about the potential of various careers, the track records of colleges and the like is essentially strewn all over the countryside," said Wyden, who authored a bill on making college costs more transparent.

He added, "I think students and their parents are now saying in addition to accessibility, we want to wring the maximum value out of every dollar we're spending on education."

EAST MACHIAS, Maine -- Ron Paul has gained 83 votes on Mitt Romney following a Republican presidential caucus in eastern Maine, where voting last week had been postponed due to bad weather. Romney still holds a 156-vote lead over Paul in statewide totals.

Paul received 163 votes in Saturday's Washington County caucus, where Republicans from more than two dozen towns gathered to cast their votes. Romney received 80 votes. Rick Santorum got 57 votes and Newt Gingrich received four votes.

The Maine Republican Party last week declared Romney the winner of the state's GOP caucuses, but Washington County Republicans were angered their votes weren't counted after their caucus was postponed last Saturday because of a snowstorm.

County Chairman Chris Gardner says the state party should include the caucus tally in the final results.

The Republican State Committee will consider the request next month.

Pablo Martinez Monsivais / AP

Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin listens during a news conference about a compromise deal on the payroll tax cut, Thursday, Feb., 16, 2012, on Capitol Hill in Washington.

Updated at 2:58 pm ET - By a vote of 60 to 36, the Senate passed a bill Friday to keep the Social Security payroll tax at its lower 4.2 percent rate and to extend unemployment benefits. 

Republican leaders were split on the measure, with GOP Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky voting for it, but GOP Whip Jon Kyl of Arizona voting against it.

Forty-six Democrats and 14 Republicans voted for the bill, while five Democrats and 31 Republicans voted against it.

The Congressional Budget Office said the bill would increase federal deficits by $89.3 billion over the next ten years.

Among the five Senate Democrats voting "no" was Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa who objected to a $5 billion cut in a preventive care program which was part of the 2010 health care overhaul. House Republicans referred to the Harkin program as “an ObamaCare slush fund.” The cut was one of the provisions in the bill that helped to partially offset its cost.

The Senate vote came with no debate and only about 45 minutes after the House passed the bill by a vote of 293 to 132.

The support in the House was bipartisan, with 147 Democrats and 146 Republicans voting for the bill, while 41 Democrats and 91 Republicans opposed it.

Speaking at the Boeing plant in Everett, Wash., President Barack Obama celebrated the bill's passage, saying, "I'm going to sign this bill right away when I get back home," adding, "I want to thank members of Congress for listening to the voices of the American people."

Passage of the bill came after weeks of negotiations among congressional leaders over how, or if, the extensions would be paid for.

The payroll tax cut alone will cost $94.5 billion, according to the CBO.

A worker making $50,000 a year would pay $2,100 in Social Security taxes this year, instead of $3,100 if the tax were at its normal 6.2 percent level. The lost revenue for Social Security benefits will be replaced by drawing money out of general tax revenue, adding to the budget deficit.

The legislation will also continue payments to the unemployed for another ten months, but will limit them.

By the end of the year, in states in which the unemployment rate is at or close to the national average of 8.3 percent, the bill reduces the maximum number of weeks of jobless benefits from 93 to 63. In states that had unemployment rates of 9 percent or higher, it reduces the maximum number of weeks of benefits from 93 to 73.

The unemployment benefits extension will cost $309 billion.

The bill also prevents a scheduled 27 percent cut in payments to doctors who treat Medicare patients, a provision which will cost $18 billion.

The bill achieves some of its savings to partially offset its costs by requiring new federal employees to pay more for their pension benefits. This part of the bill will raise $15 billion in revenues over ten years.

Most federal civilian employees make a contribution toward a defined benefit pension equal to 0.8 percent of their basic pay. The bill increases by 2.3 percent the employee pension contribution for federal employees entering service after this year.

On the House floor, Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer, whose Maryland district is home to many federal workers, angrily denounced the decision to pay for some of the cost of the bill by requiring federal workers to pay for more their pensions.

America, he said, needed “an energized, high-morale educated federal work force.” And he said “you will not have that, ladies and gentlemen, if we keep along this path of every time we come to bill that’s a little bit of trouble, the pay-for is to reach in the federal employees’ pockets.”

A CBO analysis released last month found that the federal government paid its workers 16 percent more in total compensation than it would have if compensation had been comparable with that in private sector firms.

The biggest difference is in benefits: “The cost of hourly benefits was 48 percent higher for federal civilian employees than for private-sector employees with certain similar observable characteristics,” the CBO said.

Shades of Schiavo?... Is the return of the culture war bad news for the GOP?... As GM goes, so goes the Obama presidency… Romney and allies have a 3-to-1 spending advantage over Santorum and allies in Michigan (and 8-to-1 nationally)… Pro-Santorum Super PAC goes on the air… Team Obama releases its January fundraising numbers: $29.1 million… White House gets criticized for full day of fundraising… And “Meet the Press” to interview Paul Ryan and Chris Van Hollen.

*** Shades of Schiavo? When the Terri Schiavo controversy first turned into a full-blown national story -- in March 2005 -- no one was sure of its political implications. Even some Democrats feared it was a loser for them. But after congressional Republicans and the Bush White House acted to keep the Schiavo alive, despite being in a vegetative state and despite her husband's wishes that her feeding tube be removed, their move backfired. The American public thought they went too far, and it marked the beginning of the end of GOP control over Congress and the White House. Flash forward almost seven years later, and is history repeating itself? Just like with the Schiavo case, we're unclear how the debate over contraception, women's health, and religious liberty will play out. But after the Obama White House initially bungled its contraception rollout and especially after it released its accommodation compromise, there are warning signs this week that the GOP has taken that issue -- and other social ones -- too far.

Science & Society Picture Librar / Getty Images Contributor

Montage of various types of contraceptive pills and their packaging.

*** Yesterday’s House hearing, Foster Friess, and the Virginia House: At a congressional hearing yesterday -- entitled "Lines Crossed: Separation of Church and State. Has the Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience?" -- a Democrat walked out in protest over no women being included in a morning panel. Another, Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., asked, “Where are the women?” Then Foster Friess, perhaps Rick Santorum’s most important financial backer, told NBC’s Andrea Mitchell yesterday: “This contraceptive thing, my gosh, it's so inexpensive. Back in my days, they used Bayer aspirin for contraceptives. The gals put it between their knees, and it wasn't that costly.” (Santorum distanced himself from the remark, which seemed to imply that women should put an aspirin between their legs so they don’t open them. And Friess has since apologized.) And also this week, the Virginia House passed bills 1) declaring personhood at conception, which would outlaw abortion in the state; and 2) requiring women to have a “transvaginal ultrasound” before getting an abortion.

*** Where’s the focus on the economy? Remember, this is Virginia -- a presidential battleground state that President Obama carried by nearly seven percentage points in ’08; a state with a key Senate contest in 2012; and a state whose GOP governor, Bob McDonnell, is a potential VP pick. How will these bills play in Virginia come November? Well, McDonnell has said he’ll sign the ultrasound legislation if he comes to his desk, but he hasn’t taken a position on the personhood bill. Democrats, meanwhile, are already seizing on both pieces of legislation. First Read has spoken with several GOP strategists, and their conclusion is pretty much the same: Republicans should be talking about the economy, not social issues. Meanwhile, per the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent, Dems Stanley Greenberg and James Carville have issued a polling memo that says, “[V]oters may wonder why the Republicans are consumed with pushing back health coverage for women rather than continuing to focus on the economy, spending and debt. We may yet look back on this debate and wonder whether this was a Terry [sic] Schiavo moment.”

*** As GM goes… : In 2009, we made this prediction: As GM goes, so goes the Obama presidency. And right now, it appears the Obama administration’s gamble with the bailout has paid off. Here are some of the headlines from yesterday’s news: Boston Globe: “GM rebounds with record $7.6b profit”; Detroit Free Press: “GM stock surges on record $7.6-billion profit for 2011”; the Detroit News: “GM employees to reap profit benefits.”

*** Here’s the latest look at the ad-spending race: In Michigan, Romney and his allies have a 3-to-1 advantage over Santorum and his allies. It’s Restore Our Future $1.9 million, Romney campaign $1.2 million, Red White and Blue Fund $655,000, and Santorum campaign $480,000. In addition, the pro-Romney Restore Our Future Super PAC placed an additional $2 million broadcast buy in AZ, OH, GA, OK, MS, TN and AL. That brings its ad spending to a grand total of $20.8 million -- the biggest spender in the GOP race. It’s followed by the Romney campaign at $13.4 million, Paul at $6.1 million, the pro-Gingrich Super PAC Winning Our Future at $5.1 million, Gingrich at $2.7 million, Red White and Blue Fund at $2.1 million, and the Santorum campaign at $2.1 million.

*** Pro-Santorum Super PAC on the air in Michigan: By the way, the Red, White, and Blue Fund has released its new TV ad in Michigan. Per NBC’s Andrew Rafferty, it’s a fairly positive ad – calling Santorum “father, husband, a champion for life, the leader with a bold plan to restore America’s greatness.” 

*** Team Obama releases its January numbers: Via President Obama's twitter account, the Obama campaign announced that it raised $29.1 million for the month of January -- between the re-election campaign, the DNC, and its other accounts. (To put that haul into perspective, Team Obama and the DNC raised a combined $68 million in the months of October, November, and December.) The campaign says 98% of the donations were less than $250. We have now entered the stage in the presidential contest where the campaigns have to report monthly to the Federal Election Commission -- by the 20th of each month. (So for the January numbers, the deadline is Feb. 20.) We have yet to receive numbers from the GOP campaigns.

*** Fundraiser-in-chief: With his four fundraising events in California yesterday -- but no official business event -- the White House has begun to receive criticism that it is using Air Force One and other White House infrastructure for campaign purposes. The White House’s response, per NBC’s Shawna Thomas: It abides by all rules -- just like Bush 43 and Clinton did -- that govern how campaign costs are picked up by the campaign. NBC’s Ali Weinberg and Kristen Welker note that an Obama campaign official, its California field director, made this comment at one of Obama’s fundraising events last night: "There are people who say California's in the bag, and we're just an ATM. And you know what, they're kind of right," said Mary Jane Stevenson, the California field director for Obama for America, the president's campaign branch. "California's in the bag for president, and we are a bit of an ATM.” But, she added, California's in-the-bag status allowed Obama volunteers in 2008 to focus on making phone calls in swing states so that supporters in those states could spend more time going door-to-door and interacting with key voters.

*** On the trail, per NBC’s Adam Perez: Santorum makes a stop in Shelby, MI then travels to Ohio, campaigning in Mason and Georgetown… Romney fundraises in Boise, ID…  Paul hosts two events in Washington  then makes hits Moscow, ID… And Gingrich stumps in Peachtree City, GA… Also this weekend, as Romney heads to Utah, the DNC is up with a video noting how the 2002 Olympic games that Romney oversaw got $1.3 billion from the federal government.

*** “Meet” on Sunday: NBC’s David Gregory interviews House Budget Committee Chair Paul Ryan (R) and Ranking Member Chris Van Hollen (D). 

Countdown to Arizona and Michigan primaries: 11 days
Countdown to Super Tuesday: 18 days
Countdown to Election Day: 263 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 3:35 pm ET

When congressional Republicans try to figure out how to avert cuts in defense spending, or offset the cost of an extension of unemployment insurance, it is often federal workers they look to for the money.

A dispute over making federal employees pay a bigger share of their pensions was one snarl that delayed the bipartisan accord announced Wednesday night on a bill to extend the payroll tax cut, continue unemployment benefits for long-term jobless people, and avert a 27 percent cut in payments to doctors serving Medicare patients.

Pete Marovich / Getty Images

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., proposed to come up with the money to fend off cuts to the defense department by hiring only two workers for every three who leave federal employment.

For months, Republicans have been pushing bills to reduce the federal workforce through attrition. Republicans point out that since 2007 the federal workforce has grown by 14 percent, even as the recession decimated private sector jobs.

Earlier this month when Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. and a phalanx of other pro-military Republican senators warned of automatic spending cuts looming at the end of the year, they proposed to come up with the money to fend off those cuts by hiring only two workers for every three who leave federal employment.

Related: House speaker says payroll tax bill won't add jobs

McCain and his allies also wanted to maintain the freeze on cost-of-living wage increases for federal employees until mid-2014. The House voted last month to keep the cost-of-living pay freeze for this year and next year. Even with the freeze, federal workers still do get pay increases based on performance and length of service.

Why do Republicans look to federal workers as the money source?

One obvious reason is Republicans’ aversion to tax increases – and their knowledge that the real struggle over taxes will begin only after Election Day, when a lame-duck Congress and President Obama will get down to haggling over the income tax rates and tax credits that expire on Dec. 31.

But Republicans also turn to federal workers for the money because they point out that they’re better compensated than workers with comparable skills and experience in the private sector, according to an analysis released last month by the Congressional Budget Office.

The CBO said that overall, the federal government paid 16 percent more in total compensation than it would have if compensation had been comparable with that in private sector firms.

The biggest difference is not in pay, but in benefits: “On average for workers at all levels of education, the cost of hourly benefits was 48 percent higher for federal civilian employees than for private-sector employees with certain similar observable characteristics,” the CBO said.

And the thing that federal workers have that most private-sector workers do not -- the defined-benefit pension plan – was a bone of contention in the bargaining over the payroll tax package.

In the end, instead of increasing the amount all federal workers must pay for their pension benefit, the accord makes only new federal employees pay more.

With Maryland having 137,000 executive branch workers, House Budget Committee ranking member Rep. Chris Van Hollen and Senate Finance Committee member Sen. Ben Cardin, both of Maryland, fought hard to limit the damage to those workers in the deal that was announced Wednesday night.

Cardin said Wednesday before the agreement was clinched, that those putting together the deal “are asking… that a large part of the offsets that help working families that are out of work be paid for by other middle-income working families” -- by federal employees. “To me that’s not fair,” Cardin said.

In a joint statement Thursday, Cardin and Van Hollen said that altough they were happy the final deal didn't affect current federal workers, "we still strongly oppose the provision that raises $15 billion to help offset the cost of this package from future workers."

They argued that it was "inherently unfair" that the money to offset the cost of extending unemployment insurance came from "additional sacrifice from other middle-class families rather than the very wealthiest Americans who can afford to pay more but continue to pay less."

The battle over federal workers here on Capitol Hill is another front in the long-running GOP struggle against public-sector unions that played out in Wisconsin last year where Republican Gov. Scott Walker fought to have public-sector workers pay more of their pension and health insurance costs and signed a law curbing their right to collective bargaining.

How did Romney get here?... Romney targets Big Labor, but could that hurt him in a general election?... The GOP united in targeting labor is a recent phenomenon… Santorum releases his tax returns… Obama: “Right now!”… And payroll tax cut legislation deal appears to be finalized.

*** How did Romney get here? As Mitt Romney finds himself in a real battle to win Michigan -- a state where he holds so many advantages -- it raises an inevitable question: How did he get here? How did he get to yet another moment where perhaps his entire candidacy is on the line? After all, he didn’t stumble in a debate (as he did in South Carolina). He didn’t commit a serious gaffe. And he isn’t on unfriendly turf (as he was in Iowa and South Carolina). Romney appears to be his current predicament 1) because he and his team gave Rick Santorum an opening in the contests of Colorado, Minnesota, and Missouri; and 2) because of ideology. Indeed, according to the polls, Santorum has become the latest conservative flavor of the month (or week) due to the support he’s getting from conservatives and Tea Party supporters. The good news for Romney: He’s been in this position before. After losing in South Carolina and after seeing polls showing Gingrich with momentum heading into Florida, Romney EASILY won the Sunshine State. Less than two weeks from now, we’ll see if he and his campaign can accomplish the same feat. Picking up the endorsement (and endorsement op-ed) of Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder is a big help.

Gerald Herbert / AP

Republican presidential candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney speaks at a campaign rally in Kentwood, Mich., Wednesday, Feb. 15, 2012.

*** Are we headed for Thunderdome? But the bad news for Romney: He’s been in this position before. And what if the same tricks just simply don’t work. Team Romney may have the ability to throw 100 mph fastballs and most batters swing and miss. But if the ONLY pitch they have is a high hard fastball, then eventually the batter catches up to it. And the batter in this case is both Santorum and the voters. Less than two weeks from now, we’ll see if he and his campaign can accomplish the same feat and put another high, hard one past another conservative alternative batter. Because if he doesn’t, the GOP race for delegates and that nomination could become… well, we’ll let George Costanza say it: “Anything goes. It’s like Thunderdome.”

*** Romney targets Big Labor: As NBC’s Garrett Haake reported last night, Romney made his Michigan strategy clear at his rally in Grand Rapids: pick a fight with organized labor. "The president finally came around to my own view that Detroit needed to go through managed bankruptcy,” Romney said when talking about the auto industry. “But he gave the companies to the UAW [United Auto Workers] when he was finished with the process. That again is something which I think is consistent with the fact that he got a lot of money from organized labor and felt that he should give them a favor." He also said that Obama “got hundreds of millions of dollars from labor bosses for his campaign, and so he's paying them back in every way he knows how. I've taken on union bosses before, and I'm happy to take them on again."

*** But could it hurt him in a general election? This Romney strategy appears to have two components. One, it’s a way to set up a contrast with Santorum, with the Romney camp noting that the former Pennsylvania senator voted on organized labor’s side when he served in the Senate. (We’re betting Team Romney never planned on going this anti-union in their rhetoric, but it’s the best policy contrast they can draw to make Santorum look out of touch with rank-n-file conservatives). And two, the strategy is a way to explain his position on the auto bailout. (However, Romney’s auto talk produced this response from the Obama campaign: “Had Mitt Romney had his way, the government would have not provided the funding that GM and Chrysler needed to stay afloat during their managed bankruptcy and both companies would cease to exist.”) But Romney’s tough words on unions raise this question: Will it be a problem for him in a general election? After all, as Haake notes, 12% of Michigan’s workforce belongs to a union. And in the 2008 general election, per the exit polls, 34% of Michigan voters said that someone in their household was a union member (and Obama won 67% of that vote, though McCain still won 31%). There’s a fine line between bashing UNIONS and UNION MEMBERS, and it’s a tricky line for Republicans in the Rust Belt and Midwest.

*** The GOP united targeting of labor has been a recent phenomenon: And Michigan isn’t the only presidential battleground state with a sizable union population; there’s also Ohio, Wisconsin, and Santorum’s home state of Pennsylvania. It’s worth noting that it’s only been in the last three years that the Republican Party has been united in targeting labor and with such intensity. In recent times, several GOP politicians -- Dick Lugar, George Voinovich, Spence Abraham -- tried to win over union voters. And, of course, those famous “Reagan Democrats” that the nation’s 40^th president won in 1980 and 1984 were always considered to be folks from union households in places like Michigan. But those days are long gone.

*** Romney in ’08: “I actually believe that the union vote is very important to Republicans”: Here’s a final point on Romney and organized labor. When he was campaigning in the state four years ago -- in Jan. 2008 -- he made a pitch to the state’s union workers. "I actually believe that the union vote is very important to Republicans," he told FOX's Neil Cavuto a day before the ‘08 Michigan primary, adding: "We're in this together. The auto industry is going to succeed or fail. And if it fails, it's going to hurt not just the shareholders, but all the employees." A Romney campaign official tells First Read that Romney believes it’s still important for unions and management to work together. But the campaign draws a distinction from “union bosses” and the rank-and-file. “That is why he supports labor law reforms that will take power from union bosses who have no interest in a constructive relationship with management, and return it to workers,” the campaign official says.

*** Santorum releases his tax returns: Today, Rick Santorum campaigns in Michigan by giving a speech at the Detroit Economic Club and then addressing the Oakland County GOP Lincoln Day Dinner. And last night, according to NBC’s Andrew Rafferty, he released four years of his tax returns (from 2007 through 2010). They showed the Santorums filed an adjusted gross income of $659,637 in ’07, $945,100 in ’08, $1.1 million in ’09, and $923,411 in ’10. The largest portion they paid in taxes was in 2010, when their effective rate was over 28%. That rate, as Rafferty notes, is larger than Romney’s 13.9% from 2010 but smaller than Gingrich’s 31.5%. The tax returns also tell us something else: Santorum made money off being a former senator, though not to the extent that other ex-politicians have.

*** Right now: Traveling with President Obama yesterday in Wisconsin, NBC’s Ali Weinberg was struck by this exhortation from the president: Do it now! "Don't wait. Get it done. Do it now. Let's get it done," he said at his event in Milwaukee. Obama added, "This Congress should send me these tax reforms right now. I will sign them right away.” Weinberg recounts that a woman then shouted from the crowd, "Right now!" "Right now!" The president responded, smiling and eliciting cheers. Then, the chant, crescendoing as more of the crowd joined in: "Right now! Right now! Right now!" The Obama campaign has been looking for a sequel to their “fired up” mantra from four years ago that did help create passion at their rallies. Don’t be surprised if they try and reprise this “right now” again, especially since it appears this was actually organic… By the way, the president’s entire public schedule today is all fundraisers. Four separate events (L.A. and San Francisco). That ties for the most fundraising events he’s done in a day as president. In 2010, he had a handful of days where he did four events as well.

*** Payroll tax cut deal appears finalized: “Congressional negotiators gave final approval early Thursday to an economic plan worth more than $150 billion that would extend a payroll tax holiday and unemployment benefits,” the Washington Post writes. “A key roadblock was overcome when the lawmakers agreed to require new federal workers to contribute more to their pension plans, clearing the way around 12:30 a.m. for a majority of the House-Senate conference committee to begin signing onto the deal.” NBC’s Frank Thorp reports that Democrats in the Senate were able to secure enough votes to pass the plan through conference by changing a provision that would increase the amount federal workers pay into their pension funds. The new provision requires that ONLY new federal employees will have to pay more into their pensions. The provision was a major sticking point for Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD), who had originally held out because the cost to federal workers.

*** On the trail, per NBC’s Adam Perez: Romney, remaining in Michigan, campaigns in Monroe and Farmington Hills before heading to Ohio… Santorum stumps in Detroit and Oakland County… Gingrich and his wife are still in California… And Paul makes stops in Idaho and Washington state. 

Countdown to Arizona and Michigan primaries: 12 days
Countdown to Super Tuesday: 19 days
Countdown to Election Day: 264 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

Elise Amendola / AP

Former Mass. Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy II, left, hugs his son, Joseph P. Kennedy III during a campaign event for Martha Coakley in 2010. The younger Kennedy is expected to announce his candidacy for Congress on Thursday.

Joseph Kennedy III said Wednesday he's formally jumping into the race for the congressional seat now held by retiring U.S. Rep. Barney Frank.

Kennedy, the son of former U.S. Rep. Joseph Kennedy II and a grandson of the late Robert F. Kennedy, said he would work hard to earn every vote and if elected would bring a "fight for fairness to the U.S. Congress."

 "I believe this country was founded on a simple idea — that every person deserves to be treated fairly, by each other and by their government, but that's not happening in America anymore," Kennedy, a Democrat, said ahead of an announcement scheduled for Thursday.

The campaign source told NBC News that Kennedy would make a video announcement in the morning, followed by a half dozen events throughout the district. 

Kennedy recently moved from Cambridge to Brookline, part of the state's newly redrawn 4th Congressional District. The Kennedy family has deep ties to the Boston suburb.

Kennedy announced last month that he was forming an exploratory committee to look at a possible run for the seat.

At least two other Democrats and two Republicans are considering runs.

Kelly O'Donnell, NBC's Capitol Hill correspondent, and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Mark Wilson / Getty Images

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius defended the Obama administration's ruling that religious-affiliated institutions must include birth control as part of their health insurance plans.

Testifying before the Senate Finance Committee Wednesday, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius defended the Obama administration’s ruling that religious-affiliated institutions must include birth control as part of their health insurance plans.

On Friday the administration announced a modification that allows religiously-affiliated employers to shift contraceptive costs to insurance companies. For some Democrats, such as Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, President Obama still hasn’t settled the question of how to treat the employers who self-insure and do not contract with an insurance company to cover their employees.

But Obama seems to have quieted at least some dissident Democrats by issuing last week's adjustment. And that may be all he needs to do in order to defuse the political problem in his own party that the HHS contraceptive mandate created.

Related: Obama revamps contraceptive policy

With the election-year furor over contraceptives seemingly abating, Sebelius and Obama face a far larger imponderable: whether they will be able to implement the highly complex health care law -- even if it survives a Supreme Court decision on its constitutionality, which will come this June.

Three days of oral arguments before the high court begin March 26.

Meanwhile, Sebelius and her department are working with state governments to set up the new state-based insurance marketplaces, or “exchanges” in which uninsured American will be able to buy coverage, beginning in 2014.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, at least 22 states have legislation pending to establish a health insurance exchange. But some states are refusing to set them up, and others have joined the litigation to overturn the health care law.

“Right now I think it’s impossible to tell you exactly how many states will have a state-based exchange” Sebelius told Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D- Mont., “What I am confident about,” she said, is the states will begin enrolling individuals in fall of 2013 so the exchanges can be operating by 2014.

Recommended: New defense cuts threaten bases, shipyards

One Finance Committee Democrat, Sen. Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, told Sebelius he was worried about states setting up information technology systems to run their exchanges that will be unable to communicate with each other and unable to provide data for the HHS. Bingaman said he was concerned about “everyone inventing the wheel in every state in the union.”

Sebelius replied, “Your concern is well-placed and well-founded” and described steps HHS is taking to ensure IT compatibility and more uniformity across state lines.

Another Democrat on the committee, Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey, illustrated the complexity of the 2010 law when he complained to Sebelius about three problems that he said HHS was slow in resolving: defining behavioral treatment to cover treatments for autism (New Jersey has the highest incidence of autism of any state), a program for treating post-partum depression for mothers, and a waiver for the state’s Medicaid program from certain federal regulations.

Menendez told Sebelius it was “frustrating” to be kept in the dark about the Medicaid waiver because the process “goes on behind closed doors without public notice and certainly without public input.”

After the hearing Menendez said of his three concerns: “I am waiting for them to act upon them and I am concerned in some ways about how they are acting upon them,” he said. Sebelius’s answers   “are not totally satisfactory.”

And not surprisingly, Republicans continued their strategy of predicting failure for Obama’s health care overhaul, which every Republican senator voted against in 2010.

Sen. John Cornyn, R- Texas, told Sebelius that “the administration has grossly underestimated the number of employers who will drop their employees from coverage” and “the costs will explode” for the health care exchanges. But Sebelius cited the insurance overhaul signed into law by former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney as evidence that when insurance buying exchanges are set up, employers do not drop workers’ coverage.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, the ranking Republican on the Finance Committee, told reporters after the Sebelius hearing: “She’s pretty well admitted that they’re way behind on their regulations, they’re way behind on implementation, they’re way behind on exchanges.”

The most significant and intricate features of the law, such as the exchanges and the requirement for virtually all Americans to buy insurance, if they’re not already covered, will take effect in 2014.

“That bill is going to be almost impossible to implement and I think they are starting to realize that,” Hatch said.

Saul Loeb / AFP - Getty Images

President Barack Obama speaks with employee Eric Hammerer as he tours the manufacturing facility at Master Lock, maker of security locks, prior to speaking on the economy in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, February 15, 2012.

President Barack Obama called Wednesday for tax cuts for American manufacturers and higher taxes for companies that move overseas, pressing what he hopes will be a winning campaign issue.

Appearing at a Milwaukee padlock plant, Obama said the U.S. must do everything it can to make it more attractive for American businesses to stay put and grow here home, "and the place to start is our tax code."

The president visited Master Lock, a manufacturer that has brought jobs back to the United States. Reprising ideas from his State of the Union address, he asked Congress to approve tax system changes right away, including a minimum tax on multinational companies, so that American firms can't skirt taxes by moving jobs and profits overseas. He also pushed for tax breaks for businesses that move into communities that have been hurt by factories leaving town.

"Don't wait. Do it now. Get it done," Obama shouted, his jacket removed and shirtsleeves rolled up, as he stood in front of a pile of stacked orange metal boxes, including one stamped "Made in the USA."

Recommended: How much support would Romney have given to automakers? 

Obama, who is en route to a three-day West Coast fundraising swing, said he decided to visit Master Lock "because this company has been making the most of a huge opportunity that exists right now to bring jobs and manufacturing back to America." And he called on other businesses to follow its lead and take advantage of rising costs overseas and growing productivity at home.

Master Lock brought back 100 jobs to the U.S. from China in response to higher labor and logistical costs in Asia.

Pointing to a rebound in manufacturing and pushing U.S. businesses to extend it, the president said: "Ask what you can do to bring jobs back to your country, and your country will do everything we can to help you succeed."

The president made his economic pitch as Congress was poised to advance a key component of the jobs agenda he unveiled last September. Lawmakers from both parties were praising an emerging deal Wednesday on extending a payroll tax cut through the end of the year and renewing jobless benefits for the long-term unemployed. They hoped to send the measure to Obama within days.

The extension would be a win for Obama, who has said the cut in the Social Security payroll tax — amounting to about $40 per paycheck for the average worker — is vital to keeping the economy on the right path.

"I'm glad to see that Congress is making progress," Obama said. "It will make a real difference in the lives of millions of people and as soon as Congress sends an extension of this tax cut and unemployment insurance to my desk, I will sign it right away."

Obama has repeatedly talked up the nation's manufacturing base as an engine of growth and a sign of a recovering economy. He has urged companies to promote "insourcing," promising new tax incentives for businesses that bring jobs to the U.S. instead of shipping them overseas and eliminating tax breaks for companies that outsource jobs.

The manufacturing sector was hard-hit for more than a decade. Manufacturers shed 5.8 million jobs from 1999 to 2009 as many companies shifted jobs overseas to take advantage of lower costs and many plants were modernized and automated, allowing firms to do more with fewer workers.

But the sector has shown more vitality in recent months, bolstering Obama's case. Manufacturers added 50,000 jobs in January, the most in a year, and added 237,000 jobs in 2011, the largest annual boost since 1997. Of the 3.2 million jobs added by the economy since February 2010, about 400,000 are in manufacturing.

Obama carried Wisconsin by 14 points in 2008 but is expected to face a more difficult challenge this year after Republicans captured nearly every statewide office two years ago and the president's standing declined in parts of the Midwest. Obama's visit coincided with the one-year anniversary of the first widespread protests against proposals from Republican Gov. Scott Walker to effectively end collective bargaining rights for most public workers.

Walker, who greeted Obama at the airport, had been scheduled to join him for the event at Master Lock but decided at the last minute not to attend. Walker's spokesman, Cullen Werwie, said the governor was recovering from the flu and had to cancel his plans to go to the event.

The governor has been targeted for a recall election that could come in the spring or summer and has sought to define the outcome as a bellwether of how Obama will fare in Wisconsin next fall. Walker has said a win would deliver a "devastating blow" to Obama's re-election campaign.

But despite the political undertones Obama got a friendly tarmac welcome Wednesday from Walker, who presented him with a Milwaukee Brewers' jersey that bore the number 1 and Obama's name.

The two smiled and shook hands and Walker took a diplomatic tone in comments to a pool reporter at the airport: "Today's the president's day. I'm appreciative he's in Wisconsin, appreciative he's focused on manufacturing. We'll leave politics for another day."

The scene stood in stark contrast to Obama's tarmac moment with Arizona's Republican governor, Jan. Brewer, last month.

Most of Obama's trip will be devoted to fundraising. The president is holding eight fundraisers for his re-election campaign in the Los Angeles area, San Francisco and Seattle.

After departing Milwaukee, Obama was to attend two fundraisers in Los Angeles. The first is an outdoor fundraising reception at the home of soap opera producer Bradley Bell and his wife, Colleen, featuring a performance by the rock band the Foo Fighters. The campaign expects 1,000 supporters to attend, with tickets starting at $250.

Obama is also attending a dinner at Bell's home co-hosted by actor Will Ferrell and his wife, Viveca Paulin. Eighty people are expected to attend the dinner, with tickets costing $35,800. The fundraising will benefit the Obama Victory Fund, a joint fundraising committee for Obama's campaign and the Democratic National Committee. 

Just how much of a role would the government have played in supporting Chrysler and General Motors if Mitt Romney had been president?

As First Read reported yesterday, the former Massachusetts governor has worked to couch his opposition to President Barack Obama's decision to bail out the two car companies -- a decision which Romney, who was raised in Michigan, is being forced to confront heading into the state's Feb. 28 primary.

Democrats and the Obama campaign have made a big issue of Romney's 2008 op-ed in The New York Times entitled, "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt," especially in light of the signs of encouragement in the auto industry since the bailout. He penned it just weeks after Obama secured the presidency.

Related: Obama touts manufacturing at Wisconsin plant

The piece, published as the automakers were facing a major cash crunch, called for what he dubbed a “managed bankruptcy.” He said the car companies needed to restructure their labor agreements; replace each company's management and rid them of corporate perks; and increase government spending on alternative energy and fuel economy research, which would benefit the industry indirectly.

Of direct government assistance, Romney wrote: "The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk." He stated, declaratively, “Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check.”

Since then, Romney has spoken publicly about the bailout, essentially trying to take ownership for the successes of the auto industry's turnaround while decrying Obama's management of the process.  Romney argues that the administration basically ended embracing a variation of the strategy he originally advocated.

"The indisputable good news is that Chrysler and General Motors are still in business," Romney wrote Tuesday in The Detroit News. "The equally indisputable bad news is that all the defects in President Obama's management of the American economy are evident in what he did."

The separation between Romney and Obama on the issue of the bailout stems from two issues. First, Romney argues that interests of the labor unions were unfairly favored over some of GM and Chrysler's private creditors. The government-supervised bankruptcy did this, he argues, by allowing the autoworkers’ retirees program an equity stake in the restructured GM in exchange for providing financial support for the bankruptcy.

Second, Romney appears to differ with the president over the extent to which government itself should have stepped forward with money to help stave off liquidation of GM and Chrysler and provide for the restructuring process. The administration's approach did this in the case of GM by essentially establishing a new, restructured company in which the government became a majority shareholder. (Romney argued Tuesday for the government to divest itself from the company.)

Romney's position in the past has been that the private sector could have stepped forward to finance and more effectively manage the bankruptcy process -- especially in a way that would have treated private stakeholders in the companies more fairly.

The right-leaning editorial page of The Detroit News weighed in Wednesday:

But on the key question of whether the automakers could have managed themselves through a traditional bankruptcy without assistance from the government, Romney is wrong. The loans provided by Bush and then by Obama allowed the domestic auto industry to survive the darkest hour of its history and return to thriving operations today.

Critics also contend that Wall Street might not have been in the position to give that financial assistance to Detroit in 2009, as Lehman Brothers collapsed and global credit tightened.

But Romney appeared to add more uncertainty into his position surrounding the bailouts in an interview Wednesday on Detroit talk radio station WJR. Romney said that the government should have been available to step in and provide financing during a structured bankruptcy by way of a bridge loan -- the initial way in which the Bush administration propped up GM and Chrysler at the end of 2008.

Romney explained:

They needed to go through bankruptcy, and if, as part of that process, they needed financial help to get out of bankruptcy -- a bridge loan, or guarantees on sales of cars and so forth -- I said the government should be there to provide that. But the point was they took the wrong process, they wasted a lot of money, and ended up giving the companies to the UAW.

That doesn't necessarily mean that Romney would have pursued the exact path as the Obama administration for restructuring GM and Chrysler, but it does indicate some willingness for a more expansive role for the government during bankruptcy. Spokesmen for the Romney campaign didn't immediately respond to an inquiry seeking clarification.

But in addressing some of the political flak he's taken over the bailout, Romney added on WJR: "I don't imagine that anyone could think I had any interest other than to see the companies to thrive and survive, and that's why the original op-ed piece I wrote describes what I thought was the best way to get that done."

Congressional leaders of both parties praised an emerging deal Wednesday to extend a payroll tax cut and extra jobless benefits through 2012, but cautioned that bargainers still had to nail down final details.

The rare, bipartisan consensus reflected a desire by both parties to put the long-running drama over the issue to rest and a shared sense that their tentative agreement was probably the best deal they could get. The pact came together after House Republicans conceded that the roughly $100 billion payroll tax cut would not have to be paid for with spending cuts.

"I do expect, if the agreement comes together like I expect it will, the House should vote this week," House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, told reporters.

Recommended: First thoughts -- Sweet Home Michigan?

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said Democrats were pleased that the package will extend the payroll tax cut and extra jobless benefits and block a 27 percent cut in doctors' Medicare reimbursements. Without action, the tax cut, added unemployment benefits and current rate of Medicare benefits would otherwise expire March 1.

"We're way down the road from where we were just a few days ago," she said in a brief interview.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., one of the bargainers on the legislation, said there were "just a couple of little wrinkles" left that he believed would be resolved on Wednesday.

"I think a lot of people realize Congress is not enjoying a great reputation," he told reporters. "Both sides recognized the need to get this done."

Lawmakers said among the unresolved items were details of the savings to be used to pay for about $50 billion of the roughly $150 billion package.

Once finalized, the measure would be an election-year victory for President Barack Obama, who made the payroll tax cut a keystone of his largely ignored jobs creation plan in September.

On Tuesday, House Republicans emerging from a closed-door meeting said reaction to the package was generally positive, with some saying it reflected a desire to avoid spending months debating an issue that cost them dearly last year.

In December, the House GOP initially opposed a two-month extension of the tax cut and other benefits that were about to lapse, only to retreat under pressure from outside party leaders and conservatives.

"We've got to move onto another issue," said Rep. Dennis Ross, R-Fla. "I think that's what the mood is."

Republicans were determined that Obama not be able to claim that the GOP was standing in the way of a middle-class tax cut. They would rather spend the months leading up to the November presidential and congressional elections focused on GOP themes of opposing tax increases, higher spending and Obama administration regulations that they say stifle job creation.

The tentative compromise would extend through December the current 2 percentage-point cut in the usual 6.2 percent Social Security payroll tax deducted from workers' paychecks. That reduction, which saves $1,000 a year for families earning $50,000, would affect 160 million workers and would otherwise expire on March 1.

Excluded, aides said, was a collection of expiring tax breaks, largely for businesses buying equipment and other corporate expenses that had been sought by some lawmakers of both parties.

Participants said the Medicare payments to doctors would be paid for by reducing Medicare reimbursements to hospitals and by cutting about $5 billion from an $8 billion program under Obama's health care overhaul aimed at battling obesity and smoking.

The unemployment benefits would be financed with a collection of savings that include government sales of parts of the broadcast airwaves to wireless companies and from boosting federal workers' contributions to their pensions.

In private, some Democrats called it a victory, pointing to the payroll tax cut and unemployment benefit extensions while heading off the GOP's earlier demand that the entire measure be financed with spending cuts and other savings. Others complained that the jobless benefit extensions were not generous enough.

Republicans claimed victory, too, noting their rejection of early Democratic efforts to pay for the payroll tax cut by boosting taxes on millionaires, and with jobless extensions that would be less than the 99 weeks under current law that Democrats wanted to renew.

Aides said the current 99-week maximum would fall gradually to 73 weeks by late summer in states with the worst unemployment, though a GOP aide said most states' ceiling would be 63 weeks. Republicans had wanted to cut the maximum to 59 weeks.

Republicans abandoned provisions from a House-passed bill that would have required the jobless to pursue a high school equivalency degree to get benefits and let states require recipients to undergo drug testing.

States would be able to test applicants who lost their job because they failed a drug test or are seeking a job that requires one.

They also dropped other House-passed language forcing low-income people to have Social Security numbers to get government checks by claiming the children's tax credit, a move that was aimed at illegal immigrants and caused a furor among many Hispanics.

Early Tuesday, Obama tried turning up the heat on Republicans to strike a deal.

"Just pass this middle-class tax cut. Pass the extension of unemployment insurance," he said at a White House appearance. "Do it before it's too late and I will sign it right away."