London Calling: Romney begins first full day of meetings while on his overseas trip… Dem group hits Romney on fundraiser with London bankers tied to LIBOR scandal… Romney’s press-corps faux pas: He doesn’t take questions from U.S. reporters… Yesterday’s contrast on guns b/w Obama and Romney… Breaking down Romney’s interview with Brian Williams… Three months of merged data from our NBC/WSJ/Telemundo Hispanic oversample… And this week’s 10 hottest advertising markets. 

Oli Scarff / Getty Images

Mitt Romney, the Republican nominee for the presidential election, arrives in Downing Street to meet with British Prime Minister David Cameron on July 26, 2012 in London, England.

*** London Calling: On his first full day of business and meetings on his overseas trip, Mitt Romney has already met with former British PM Tony Blair, current Labour Party leader Ed Miliband, British Foreign Secretary William Hague, and Deputy PM Nick Clegg. At publication time, he will visit with British PM David Cameron, and then he holds a fundraiser at 1:05 pm ET. “I’ve begun a number of conversations with leaders present and past and recognize of course the unique relationship which exists between our nations, our commitment to common values, our commitment to peace in the world and our desire to see a stronger and growing economy,” Romney said during his meeting with Miliband, per the pool report. “Obviously, the world is a tumultuous and dangerous place and certainly in many regions in the world and we have great interests – a common effort to see greater peace and prosperity. I also appreciate the work of the military of this great nation and our joint effort in Afghanistan. The people of Great Britain have sacrificed enormously in helping bring peace to that nation.”

*** LIBOR pains: The Democratic-leaning group Americans United for Change is up with a web video noting that in attendance at Romney’s fundraiser in Britain will be bankers with ties to the LIBOR interest-rate scandal. As the New York Times has written, “Several of the events’ hosts are top executives at banks tied to the interest rate-fixing scandal that is now engulfing London’s financial and political world, linking Mr. Romney, however superficially, to a messy moment in the continuing debate over Wall Street excesses.” More: “The former chief executive and a top lobbyist for Barclays, the bank at the center of the scandal, helped organize a Romney fund-raiser. The former chief executive, Robert E. Diamond Jr., has since withdrawn his name as the event’s co-host.”

*** Romney’s press-corps faux pas: During his meeting with Miliband, according to the pool report, Romney answered questions from British reporters but did not take any questions from the American reporters, which isn’t protocol. In fact, it’s considered a bit of an insult to the U.S reporters who are following the presumptive GOP presidential nominee overseas. Even bringing this up will lead some to say, “There goes the media, whining again.” But folks, those of us that have traveled overseas and been involved in these VERY limited press avails have rarely seen heads of democracies TOTALLY ignore their own press corps but answer ANOTHER press corps’ questions. Sure, it would have looked REALLY bad had Romney ignored the U.K. questions. But is the campaign so intent on limiting media access that the candidate won’t call an audible when standing next to a leader from another country who DOES want to take questions? This is a bipartisan challenge for the press corps. Every president in the modern era has decided to pick up on some aspect of limiting media access to the president from their predecessor. The public never cares, because most of them distrust at least half of the press corps. But folks, it’s a slippery slope. Where did Obama get the idea of calling on an ordered list of questioners at press conferences? From George W. Bush. OK, our rant is over.

*** A contrast on guns: In a span of just hours, President Obama and Mitt Romney offered a contrast on guns in the wake of last week’s shooting in Colorado. Speaking before the National Urban League last night in New Orleans, per NBC’s Ali Weinberg, Obama said that Americans shouldn’t have access to assault weapon, especially those who are mentally ill or who have criminal records. “We recognize the tradition of gun ownership being passed on from generation to generation -- that hunting and shooting are part of the cherished national heritage,” he said. “But I think a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of shooters, not in the hands of criminal; that they belong on the battlefield of war not on the streets of our cities. I believe the majority of gun owners agree we should do everything possible to prevent criminals and fugitives from purchasing weapons.” Obama also said that “we should check out a persons' criminal record before they can check out at a gun store, that a mentally unbalanced individual should not be able to get his hands on a gun so easily.” This was the most Obama has said on guns in his 3 ½ years in the White House, but it didn’t contain any specifics on how to achieve these things.

*** Romney: Changing a law won’t make bad things go away: Meanwhile, in his interview with NBC’s Brian Williams in London, Romney flatly stated, “I don't happen to believe that America needs new gun laws,” adding: “A lot of what this young man did was clearly against the law. But the fact that it was against the law did not prevent it from happening. (However, as NBC’s Garrett Haake pointed out yesterday, the guns the Colorado shooter purchased were LEGAL.) Romney went on to say, “We can sometimes hope that just changing a law will make all bad things go away. It won't. Changing the heart of the American people may well be what's essential to improve the lots of the American people.”

*** On his tax returns: Also in his interview with NBC’s Brian Williams, Romney -- once again -- said he wasn’t releasing his tax returns prior to 2010. “I'm following the same precedent that was put in place by John McCain. Two years, and by the way, hundreds of pages of returns for the Democrat operatives to go through and twist and distort and to turn in different directions and try and make a big deal out of.” Romney continued, “[W]hat we've noted is our Democrat friends, take what's there, twist it, distort it, dishonestly use it in attack ads. I just don't wanna give 'em more material than is required.” By the way, this reasoning subtlety implies there is something in there he’s embarrassed about in some form. Never have understood using the excuse of someone else will find something in it to make a negative out of it.

*** On whether his economic plan is similar to George W. Bush’s: Then when Williams asked Romney if his economic policies -- including lowering taxes and reducing regulation -- were different than George W. Bush’s, he replied, “[M]y policies are very different than anything you've seen in the past,” he said, citing 1) expanding domestic energy production, 2) promoting free trade, 3) balancing the budget, 4) creating educational opportunities for workers, and 5) lowering taxes and lessening regulations. But just an FYI: almost all of those prescriptions (energy production, free trade, education, taxes, and regulation) were pursued by the Bush administration.

*** On his faith and his heritage: Williams asked Romney why he doesn’t talk more about his faith and heritage. Romney’s answer: “I speak  actually quite regularly about the fact that my dad was born in Mexico, that with revolution in Mexico, my dad, then I think aged five or six, came back to the U.S. with his family. That they went broke multiple times. His dad was a contractor. My dad didn't complete college, but went on to be head of a car company and then a governor. I think it's a remarkable story.  And I'm very proud of my heritage. I'm without question, I'm a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.  I'm proud of that.  Some call that the Mormon Church, that's fine with me. I'll talk about my experiences in the church.  There's no question they've helped shape my perspective.”

*** And on “Anglo-Saxon” and Rafalca: In addition, Romney said he disagreed with the unnamed Romney “adviser” quoted in the London Daily Telegraph who suggested Obama didn’t understand the United States’ Anglo-Saxon relationship with Great Britain: “I can tell you that we have a very special relationship between the United States and Great Britain. It goes back to our very beginnings -- cultural and historical. But I also believe the president understands that.” And he said he was unable to explain the sport of dressage -- in which the Romneys’ horse is competing in the Olympics -- or even when the Romney horse is competing: “I have to tell you. This is Ann's sport. I'm not even sure which day the sport goes on. She will get the chance to see it. I will not be watching the event. I hope her horse does well. But just the honor of being here and representing our country and seeing the other Olympians is something which I'm sure the people that are associated with this are looking forward to.” (Really? Romney, who’s attending the Olympics, doesn’t know when his wife’s horse is competing or even the rules of the sport? OK….)

*** Our merged NBC/WSJ/Telemundo oversample: With now three months of merged data from our NBC/WSJ/Telemundo Latino oversample, we have a treasure trove of numbers to understand the Latino electorate. According to this merged data, Obama leads Romney here by 40 points, 65%-25%. But there’s an interesting split here. Romney does a bit better among English-speaking Latinos (trailing Obama 64%-26%) than Spanish-speaking Latinos (69%-20%). And he does a bit better among Latinos born in the U.S. (trailing 57%-29%) versus those born outside the U.S. (73%-19%).

*** This week’s 10 hottest markets: Below is our latest weekly look at the 10 hottest advertising markets in the presidential race (per advertising points for the week of 7/23 to 7/29). Reminder: Colorado is missing because of the decisions by both campaigns to pull their ads down post-Aurora. A few other observations: 1) In most of these markets, Obama and Romney are running fairly even, but GOP outside groups are giving Team Romney the edge in advertising points; 2) the states here are Ohio (3 markets), Virginia (2), Florida (2), North Carolina (2), and Nevada (1); and 3)  Roanoke-Lynchburg, VA is this week’s No. 1 market.

1. Roanoke-Lynchburg, VA: 4 advertisers (Obama 1100, Romney 1000, Crossroads GPS 650, RNC 215)

2. Tampa, FL: 5 advertisers (Romney 840, Obama 775, Crossroads GPS 670, American Crossroads 600, Priorities USA 200)

3. Cincinnati, OH: 5 advertisers (Romney 1100, Obama 1000, Crossroads GPS 400, American Crossroads 265, RNC 100)

4. Toledo, OH: 5 advertisers (Obama 1000, Romney 980, Crossroads 400, American Crossroads 350, RNC 200)

5. Reno, NV: 5 advertisers (Obama 1300, Romney 650, Crossroads GPS 450, American Crossroads 370, RNC 250)

6. Greenville-New Bern, NC: 5 advertisers (Romney 970, Obama 600, Crossroads GPS 550, American Crossroads 515, RNC 350)

7. Richmond-Petersburg, VA: 5 advertisers (Obama 1200, Romney 1100, Crossroads GPS 270, Priorities USA 240, RNC 125)

8. Columbus, OH: 6 advertisers (Obama 1000, Romney 1000, Crossroads GPS 370, American Crossroads 260, Priorities USA 140, RNC 150)

9. Orlando, FL: 5 advertisers (Obama 875, Romney 860, Crossroads GPS 475, American Crossroads 425, Priorities USA 274)

10. Charlotte, NC: 5 advertisers (Romney 1000, Obama 800, American Crossroads 420, Crossroads GPS, 390, RNC 240)

Countdown to GOP convention: 32 days

Countdown to Dem convention: 39 days

Countdown to Election Day: 103 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

LONDON-- Mitt Romney said Wednesday that more restrictive gun laws would likely not have prevented last week's deadly mass shooting at a Colorado Cineplex, and argued that it would take Americans changing their hearts, not their legislation, to prevent similar future attacks.

"Political implications, legal implications are something which will be sorted out down the road," Romney told NBC's Brian Williams during an exclusive interview here in London. "But I don't happen to believe that America needs new gun laws. A lot of what this young man did was clearly against the law. But the fact that it was against the law did not prevent it from happening."

Romney, who enacted an assault weapons ban as governor of Massachusetts (with the support of a Democratic legislature) would not say whether he still believes that weapons like the AR-15 assault rifle used in the Colorado shooting were "instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people," as he described them during the bill signing ceremony in 2002.

When Williams followed up later in the interview on the Aurora attack, Romney argued that it would take a change in heart, not laws, to stop future violence.

"Well, this person shouldn't have had any kind of weapons and bombs and other devices and it was illegal for him to have many of those things already. But he had them," Romney said, although the guns used in the shooting were all purchased legally.

"And so we can sometimes hope that just changing the law will make all bad things go away. It won't. Changing the heart of the American people may well be what's essential, to improve the lots of the American people."

NBC News

NBC's Brian Williams interviews Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney in London on Wednesday, July 25, 2012

Romney used the interview to shore up several policy and strategic positions laid out by his campaign in recent weeks, reiterating that he would only release two years of tax returns so as not to provide fodder for Democratic operatives to " twist and distort and to turn in different directions and try and make a big deal out of." He also repeated the major planks of his economic plan, which he says differentiates him from the last Republican president, George W. Bush.

Williams also asked the candidate about controversial comments on the front page of a British newspaper, reportedly given by an unnamed Romney adviser, who called President Barack Obama a "novice" in foreign affairs, and said the Democrat did not fully value the "Anglo-Saxon" nature of the relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom.

“We are part of an Anglo-Saxon heritage, and he feels that the special relationship is special. The White House didn’t fully appreciate the shared history we have,” the adviser is quoted telling the Daily Telegraph.

Earlier today, Romney spokesperson Andrea Saul flatly denied the comments came from anyone inside the Romney camp, or that those views were shared by the former Massachusetts governor. Romney said he was generally "not enthusiastic" about adopting the comments of unnamed advisers in newspaper stories, and pointed out he gets "advice" every day along rope lines and on the street.

“But I can tell you that we have a very special relationship between the United States and Great Britain," Romney said. "It goes back to our very beginnings, cultural … and historical. But I also believe the president understands that. So I don't know agree with whoever that advisor might be. But do agree that we have a very common bond between ourselves and Great Britain."

When it comes to selecting a vice presidential nominee to join him on the Republican ticket, Romney told Williams he has still not made a final decision, and confirmed that he would not be announcing his pick until at least next week, after he returns from his week-long trip abroad.

"While I'm overseas, I'm not gonna announce my vice presidential running mate. But when the decision is made, I'll make that announcement. It's not made yet," Romney said. "I can't tell you when it's gonna be. That's … that's something which we'll decide down the road."

This visit was timed to coincide with the opening ceremonies of the 2012 Olympics, where Ann Romney’s horse, Rafalca, is competing in the equestrian sport of dressage. Will the presumptive GOP nominee be cheering it on?

"I have to tell you, this is Ann's sport. I'm not even sure which day the sport goes on," Romney said. "She will get the chance to see it, I will not be watching  the event.  I hope her horse does well.  But just the honor of being here and representing our country and seeing the other Olympians is something which I'm sure the people that are associated with this are looking forward to."

WASHINGTON -- Portman. Pawlenty. Rubio. Jindal.

Those are just a few of the headliners of Mitt Romney’s summer surrogate tour, a whirlwind blitz that begins Thursday and will feature the presumptive nominee’s most prominent supporters hitting swing states throughout the country while he is overseas.

NBC News has learned at least eight surrogates will make campaign stops in the key battleground states over the next six days.  Some of those names are believed to be under heavy consideration to be named Romney’s vice presidential running mate in the coming weeks.

While speculation was rampant last week that the former Massachusetts governor could make his VP pick before heading off to London, at least one benefit of delaying his pick will be on display this weekend.

Instead of having just one running mate to campaign in the states while Romney is abroad, he’ll instead have a team spread throughout the country, most of which will be getting attention as the potential next vice president of the United States.

Voters in six battleground states -- Iowa, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, and Wisconsin -- will see Romney campaign buses traveling the state and hearing the politicians on the stump.

The surrogate surge begins on Thursday when Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal head to Iowa.

“I've told Governor Romney anything I can do to help him win in Virginia or any other state, I'm glad to do. So they asked me to go to Iowa and I'll be there with my friend Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and we're going to talk to the people of Iowa about what's important for the country when it comes to getting us back on track,” Gov. McDonnell said while speaking at one of Romney’s “We Did Build This” events in Richmond, Va. today.

Also on Thursday and Friday, South Dakota Sen. John Thune will be in Virginia where he will bracket President Barack Obama’s visit to the Old Dominion state on Friday.

On Friday, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani heads to Florida, a place where voters know him well.  During his 2008 presidential run, Giuliani spent the majority of his time and campaign resources in the Sunshine State.  He’ll even host a “Cafe Con Rudy” to reach out to Hispanic voters.

On Saturday, former Minnesota governor and one-time presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty will make an appearance in Raleigh, North Carolina.  It was in the Tar Heel State last month where he gave a rousing and well received speech at the state's Republican convention.  While North Carolina has seen limited attention from Republicans in recent weeks, it will likely be a hotbed for activity next month as Republicans prepare to distract from the Democratic National Convention being held in Charlotte at the beginning of September.

And while Pawlenty is in the East, one of the party’s most popular young conservatives will be representing the Republican ticket in the West.  Florida Sen. Marco Rubio will spend Saturday in Las Vegas, NV, the city where he spent a majority of his youth. There he will hold a rally in the elementary school he attended as a child, marking his first solo public appearance on Romney’s behalf.

Also on Saturday, Jindal hopscotches to Florida to hold an event for the presumptive nominee.

Republican National Committee chair Reince Priebus will be traveling on a bus through Wisconsin this Sunday.  Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin may also join.

Not to be forgotten is the man who many consider the frontrunner in the VP search -- Ohio Sen. Rob Portman. He has spent most of his weekends away from Washington helping Romney in some capacity in his home state.  Last Friday he attended a Romney fundraiser in Lima, Ohio, and the weekend before that, he both bracketed  President Obama’s campaign stop in Cincinnati, OH and helped to open a Romney Victory office the southwest part of the Buckeye State.

On Monday he’ll take his act on the road to campaign in Pennsylvania.  It will mark the second time Portman will hit the Keystone State in hopes of turning the traditionally blue state to red.

South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, who has not campaigned for the GOP nominee for months, will also hit the trail in the coming days.  She will travel to Michigan on Romney’s behalf.

Two potential VP contenders -- New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte -- are notably not on this weekend’s surrogate blitz. However, both Christie and Ayotte have campaigned for Romney in recent weeks.

The rush of Romney surrogates over the next five days across the country seems to indicate it will be a full on sprint from now until the November election for the Romney campaign.

NBC's Lisa Myers reports on a new book by Neil Barofsky, the watchdog who oversaw the controversial $700 billion bank bailout known as TARP. He claims TARP was much more about taking care of Wall Street, than helping Main Street. 

Neil Barofsky, the inspector general in charge of the massive bank bailout is out with a controversial new book, in which he claims the bailout made all about helping the banks' bottom line, and not about helping Americans struggling with foreclosures.

PHILADELPHIA -- Mitt Romney doesn't "get" fire fighters, Vice President Joe Biden charged Wednesday, marking the complete return to political combat after last weekend's pause following the Colorado theater shooting.

Speaking to over 3,000 fire fighters at their annual convention in Philadelphia, the vice president said that Romney "means well" but that he and his party fail to grasp the motives of public sector workers who put their lives in jeopardy for others in their communities.

"I think part of the problem is I don't think he gets you," Biden said. "I don't think he really understands - I mean this sincerely - I don't think he understands what you're all about, what makes you tick, what makes you decide to go into this profession, which you couldn't pay enough to 90 percent of the population -  including me  - to do what you do every day."

Biden, who emotionally referenced the role of firefighters in saving his sons' lives in the 1972 crash that killed his wife and daughter, lamented a "perfect storm" of economic woes and anti-union campaigns that have hit at the core of the hook-and-ladder profession.

"They act like you're the community's problem," he said of Republican lawmakers aiming budget cuts and other reforms at unionized public sector workers. "As if you're not part of the community. As if somehow you're from some other place. As if you haven't been as affected by this recession as your neighbors have, not because you're a firefighter, because you're a middle class citizen."

The vice president, whose recent comments describing a de-facto "depression" for America's unemployed were vigorously highlighted by Republicans, on Wednesday described the country as "barely" out of the economic recession.

"This is about shared responsibility," he said, noting the administration's push for tax hikes on high earners. "You know as well as we do the country is out of this recession but barely and struggling to move forward. I mean, you have ... blood brothers, blood sisters, who because of this recession are out of work."

The Romney campaign responded with a statement from Fred Donnelly, a retired battalion chief of the Philadelphia fire department.

“Joe Biden can come to Philadelphia, and he can try and tell the hard working men and women of this city that he understands what we’ve been going through. But no matter what he says, he can’t cover up the words of the president," Donnelly said. "The President may think the private sector is ‘doing fine.’  He may want small businesspeople to believe that they ‘didn’t build that.’  But we know that he is simply out of touch with the struggles that middle-class Americans are going through, and that he doesn’t understand what drives the American economy.” 

Biden's remarks, while perhaps slightly less pointed than a typical campaign speech, marked a public return to the partisan punches that preceded last week's massive shooting at an Aurora, Colorado theater.

Mentioning the heroism of rescue squads in that community, Biden lauded fire fighters for aiding at the massacre's scene and for dismantling the shooter's booby-trapped apartment.

"You were there ready to do whatever was needed if the worst happened," he said.

In an exclusive interview with NBC's Brian Williams, presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney discussed gun laws in the wake of the Aurora shooting:

WILLIAMS: "On things however like Aurora, Colorado, do you see why Americans get frustrated at politics.  They can see and hear your words from earlier in their career, people are hurting out there. Perhaps they want to start a national conversation about whether an AR-15 belongs in the hands of a citizen, whether a citizen should be able to buy 6-thousand rounds off the internet. You see the argument?"

Anthony Quintano/NBC News

NBC's Brian Williams interviews Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney in London on Wednesday, July 25, 2012

ROMNEY: "Well this person shouldn't have had any kind of weapons and bombs and other devices and it was illegal for him to have many of those things already. But he had them. And so we can sometimes hope that just changing the law will make all bad things go away. It won't. Changing the heart of the American people may well be what's essential, to improve the lots of the American people."

The full interview airs tonight on NBC Nightly News. 

Updated at 6:35pm ET If you’re the parent of a college student and that first semester tuition bill just arrived in your mailbox, Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., held a hearing of particular interest to you on Wednesday.

J. Scott Applewhite / AP

Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., a member of the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, steps off the Senate floor.

The issue Baucus was addressing: whether the array of tax breaks for higher education – 18 separate provisions in the tax code – can be simplified.

But if you’re that tuition-paying parent (or student) you probably already knew one point the expert witnesses made to the committee: the welter of different tax preferences for higher education – engineered by different Congresses over many years – is complex, probably duplicative in some cases, and not particularly user-friendly.

Recommended: Romney fights to retain economy as trump card

Baucus himself pointed in dismay at the 87-page Internal Revenue Service guide for obtaining education tax credits. “Based on the complexity of this guide, one would think the IRS expected all of America’s future students to want to major in accounting,” he said.

Even more disheartening was the message delivered by James White, director of Strategic Issues for Congress’s watchdog agency, the Government Accountability Office: The experts just don’t know which of the tax breaks is effective in getting students to attend and, more importantly, to finish college or university. (About 45 percent of students who start at a four-year institution don’t finish by getting a degree, according to the National Center for Education Statistics.)

The two biggest education tax preferences are the deduction for charitable contributions to colleges and universities (worth about $6.5 billion a year) and the Hope education tax credit (worth about $5 billion a year).

“Which ones work the best? Which ones do we pare back or perhaps even eliminate? We’ve got 529 (savings) plans, Coverdell (education savings accounts), the American Opportunity tax credit, a couple of others. What works for students and what really doesn’t work that much?” Baucus asked.

“We don’t know the effect on price (tuition) nor do we understand very well the impact on students’ access to education – the extent to which these programs affect that,” White replied. “What’s needed here to get you to the answer to the questions you’re asking is some better research by the Department of Education about the effect of these different programs on students’ access to education … the extent to which they go on to graduate, and what the ultimate outcome is for the billions of dollars being spent on these programs right now.”

Recommended: First Thoughts: Two opposing forces

Sen. John Thune, R- S.D., then asked how the different higher education tax breaks compare to each other in their cost effectiveness, and if Congress were forced to pick only one, which one should survive? Is an outright grant more effective than a tax credit?

White’s answer was equally discouraging: “Part of the problem here is that we are spending tens of billions of dollars on these programs and we don’t know the answer to the question you are asking,” he told Thune.

White said in an interview after the hearing, “You have to try to estimate statistically what would have happened without the (federal) assistance, and then you can figure out what difference the assistance makes. But that’s a challenging thing to do statistically and that’s why it hasn’t been done.”

He added, “you want to look at the ultimate benefit that the country is getting from the large amount of money that we’re spending on these programs."

Later Wednesday when the Senate approved a bill to extend current tax rates for most income earners, the bill included a one-year extension of the one of the education tax credits, the American Opportunity tax credit, first created in 2009. Baucus voted for the bill.

Asked about White's testimony about the lack of evidence about which breaks are effective, Baucus said, "Lots of other people do think they have an idea (about the effectiveness of education tax preferences). Financial aid directors at American colleges and universities have a pretty good idea of what students need, what works, what doesn't work."

As for the American Opportunity credit, Baucus said, "I think it's pretty effective."

Earlier at the hearing, another witness, Prof. Susan Dynarski from the University of Michigan School of Public Policy, suggested one practical step to help parents and students: make education tax breaks “advance-able” – paid at the time when people pay the tuition so they need not wait until the following April when they file their returns.

She also told the committee there was strong evidence in the research that streamlined financial aid forms would lead more students to attend college or university. “College attendance rose 7 percentage points among those allowed to use a vastly simplified proves for applying for aid,” she said in her written testimony.

Next year is shaping up as the moment for a once-in-a generation fundamental tax reform – eliminating tax breaks, flattening rates and broadening the tax base by making more income subject to taxation.

The result: a tax code that will be simpler, more efficient, less riddled with favors for specific groups, and – depending on your point of view – fairer.

If the Democrats retain control of the Senate, tax reform will be designed in large part by Baucus, who’s up for re-election in 2014.

But Baucus’s hearing Wednesday showed that despite the rhetoric about fundamental reform, the urge to engineer a better society through the tax code remains powerful. Baucus indicated that even after next year’s reform, both tax preferences for higher education and direct federal spending such as Pell Grants will continue to exist.

Stating one of the things on his to-do list for next year’s reform effort, Baucus ended the hearing by saying, “It seems to me we’ve got to simplify and streamline both the law” and the forms parents and students use to seek aid.

Despite a month’s worth of efforts looking to knock down his credentials, presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney retains an advantage over President Barack Obama in the new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll on questions of which candidate would better manage the economy.

Still, while Romney holds a small lead on the central issue of the election, voters seem find Obama’s message about fairness and boosting the middle class more agreeable than the Republican alternative, which emphasizes free markets and small government.

Rich Pedroncelli / AP

Republican presidential candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney addresses the 113th National Convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Tuesday, July 24,2012, in Reno, Nev.

These crosscurrents set the stage for the dogfight between Obama and Romney on the issue of the economy that’s set to play out over the next 104 days.

Related: NBC/WSJ poll: Negative campaign takes toll on candidates; Obama up six points

Romney leads Obama by seven points – 43 percent to 36 percent – on the question which candidate has better ideas for how to improve the economy, the poll found. On the more direct question of which candidate would better deal with the economy, 43 percent of registered voters preferred Romney, versus 37 percent who thought the president would do better.

Given how much time Romney has spent emphasizing his economic acumen, said Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, a veteran Democratic campaigner, the former Bain Capital executive’s margin should be even wider.

“It shows that Romney has a much weaker starting hand than he thought. His so-called experience was going to be a trump card. But it’s more of a wild card,” said Van Hollen. “This is supposed to be his strongest argument, and yet he’s far short.”

The president’s re-election campaign has sought to drive that perception by an effort over the past month to tear down and redefine Romney’s business record, along with questioning the propriety of the GOP candidate’s personal finances.

Republicans contend Obama’s offensive is little more than an effort to shift the blame for his own difficulties.

“Barack Obama’s positioning statement is, I may have sucked, but this guy will make the economy suck even more,” joked Republican pollster Jim McLaughlin.

But the Romney campaign has shrugged off most of the attacks as a distraction, betting a bad economy will overwhelm any misgivings voters might have about the Republican nominee come Election Day. And Romney’s headquarters in Boston might be heartened by increased economic pessimism contained in the poll; the number of registered voters who expect the economy to improve declined 8 percent in the last month alone, and more voters expect the economy to get worse in the next year. 

“Romney, if he is aggressive, he’s going to be fine on the economy,” said Republican Georgia Rep. Jack Kingston. “If he can’t win on the economy, he can’t win it anyhow.”

The presumptive GOP nominee’s latest tack has been to seize on a comment made earlier this month by Obama in Virginia, in which the president seemed to suggest businessowners’ successes were more rooted in government support than their own efforts.

The president’s comment gave such kindling to the Romney campaign, though, because it cuts to the core of his argument on how to fix the economy’s ills. Romney has stressed the primacy of business in spurring job creation, asserting that allowing businesses greater flexibility and lower taxes would help boost growth.

Suggesting that this attack has had some success, Obama on Tuesday released a new TV ad in response, saying, “of course Americans build their own businesses.”

Sixty-eight percent of voters said in the NBC/WSJ poll that this kind of message – one who “wants to restore the values of economic freedom, opportunity and small government” – would make them more likely to vote for a candidate for president. But a message like Obama’s tests better. Eighty percent of voters said they’d be more likely to support a candidate who “will fight for balance and fairness and encourage the investments needed to grow our economy and middle class.”

“I think what they miss is that it’s not simply a referendum on the economy,” Democratic strategist Jamal Simmons said of the Romney campaign. “People are choosing someone to be the captain of the American ship, and they’ve got to trust you at the helm.”

The election might fall, then, on the question of whether Obama’s vision should trump Romney’s résumé. It explains why Obama has gone so forcefully after Romney’s business record – Democrats call it “contrast,” Republicans say it’s “negative.”

It’s a line of attack meant to play out primarily in swing districts across a series of states that will decide the election. And despite the fact that these attacks have driven up negative perceptions of the Obama campaign, it’s a strategy with which Democrats express happiness 

“I don’t think it’s been overly negative. He’s pointing out what Romney’s record really has been, and quite frankly, the most negative voices against Romney has been some of his own people,” said Democratic Rep. Tim Ryan, who hails from the kind of eastern Ohio district that could swing the election.

“I think he’s hit his stride on the message. I think this is the crispest and clearest message he’s had since he’s been in office,” Ryan added.

For Republicans, preserving Romney’s advantage on the economy is a matter of being aggressive. McLaughlin says he “wouldn’t have let [the Obama campaign] have the advantage in the swing state spending that they’ve let him have,” and another Capitol Hill Republican said he was “floored” that Romney didn’t have a better response ready on Bain and his taxes, given the way those issues were litigated in the Republican primary.

“Any presidential election is going to have distractions and bad days,” said the Republican. “He’s got to have more good days than bad days, but he doesn’t need to have a perfect campaign.”

DNC Executive Director Patrick Gaspard discusses the Romney campaigns recent attacks on the President's "You didn't build that" quote.  But is the Romney campaign the only one taking things out of context?  Chuck asks Gaspard what he thinks about the issue.

President Barack Obama remains broadly popular with Hispanics, a key voting bloc in this fall’s election, according to new data from the NBC-Wall Street Journal-Telemundo poll.

The president leads presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney 67 to 23 percent among Latino registered voters, much wider than the six-point margin the president holds among all registered voters nationally.

Hispanics are the fastest-growing group in the country, fueling their increasing political importance, particularly in several swing states. More than one-in-six Americans identify as Hispanic or Latino, according to the U.S. Census, and they are an important pillar of the president’s hopes of winning a second term.

Saul Loeb / AFP - Getty Images

President Barack Obama waves after speaking during a campaign event at the Fox Theatre in Oakland, Calif.

Click here for the full NBC-Wall Street Journal-Telemundo Hispanic oversample.

But while Obama continues to lead among Latinos by similar margins to what he won in 2008, there are indications that Latinos’ intensity continues to be lacking.

To measure enthusiasm, the pollsters asked respondents to say how interested they are in this November’s contest, on a scale of one to 10. Adding up the 8s, 9s, and 10s gives a good measure of who the most likely voters will be this fall.

By that measure, just 68 percent of Latinos put themselves in this high-interest category – similar to what they reported last month – off from the average of 79 percent of all respondents in the poll.

One glimmer of hope for the Obama campaign is that the number of Hispanics calling themselves 10s has gone up six points from last month. But even that number is down 10 points from where it was in July 2008.

A big reason Hispanics favor Obama by such a wide margin is a shared philosophy. On every category asked – from looking out for the middle class to dealing with immigration or the economy – Latinos say Obama would be better than Romney by much wider margins than all respondents.

In fact, on handling of the economy, all respondents give President Obama just a 44 percent approval rating. But, among Hispanics, it’s 58 percent. And they think Obama would be better than Romney in dealing with the economy by a 15-point margin. That’s the reverse of all respondents, who say they prefer Romney by six points.

Latinos are also more optimistic about the direction the country is headed. They are almost evenly divided about it with 41 percent saying the country is headed in the right direction and 45 percent saying it’s on the wrong track.

Compare that to all respondents, just 32 percent of whom say the country’s going in the right direction versus 60 percent, who say it’s off on the wrong track.

Romney also continues to have an image problem with Latinos. While the former Massachusetts governor is viewed more negatively than positively with all Americans, it’s even worse with Hispanics – just 22 percent view him positively; 44 percent view him negatively.

By contrast, 64 percent of Hispanics say they have a favorable view of Obama.

NBC News-Wall Street Journal-Telemundo has sponsored two polls since the president’s immigration announcement, which halted the deportation of illegal immigrants younger than 30 and who were brought to the United States as children.

There is no significant movement in support from Hispanics, but that support appears to have solidified. The president’s challenge, however, continues to be turning out these voters in the numbers he will need this November.

POLL NOTES… With the Olympics starting this week, there was an interesting difference that emerged in the poll between Hispanics and all respondents when it comes to Olympic viewing preferences. A plurality of all Americans (29 percent) named gymnastics as their favorite Olympic sport. But nearly 4-in-10 Hispanics (39 percent) say they prefer team sports.

That’s no surprise, considering cultural differences in views relating to soccer -- a.k.a. “fútbol.”

The Hispanic oversample of the NBC-Wall Street Journal poll was conducted by Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart and Republican pollster Bill McInturff from July 18-22. It has a margin of error of +/- 5.7%.

This election is a tug between who Americans like and the economy … The negative campaign takes a toll … who are the undecideds and why isn’t Romney talking to them … NBC/WSJ/Telemundo Hispanic oversample coming at noon ET … NBC’s Brian Williams interviews Romney … Obama responds to “you didn’t build that” … Romney’s hot rhetoric on foreign policy – does it match up with most Americans? … Plus, he shifts on support for timelines … Pro-Obama Super PAC goes very negative against Romney during Olympics.

*** Two opposing forces: Our new NBC/WSJ poll clearly shows that there are two forces at play in this presidential election: the economy (which is a drag on Obama) vs. likeability/values (which is a drag on Romney). Which force is stronger? The answer to that question will likely decide the election. Let's start with the growing economic pessimism in our poll:

*** The economy is Obama’s anchor: Just 27% think the U.S. economy will improve in the next year, which is down eight points from the last month, per the poll. Also, a majority of respondents -- 55% -- say they are less optimistic about the economy after what they've seen, read, and heard in the last few weeks, which is up six points from June. What's more, only 44% approve of Obama's handling of the economy (versus 49% who approve of his overall job performance), and Romney is seen as having better ideas on the economy. But Obama might find some comfort that his economic messaging of “fairness” tests better than Romney's messaging of “freedom,” and that he scores better on looking out for the middle class.

Justin Sullivan / Getty Images

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney speaks during the 113th National Convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S. at the Reno-Sparks Convention Center on July 24 in Reno, Nevada.

*** Romney continues to have a likeability and relatability problem: The other force at play, however, is likeability and values/background. A combined 47% say they like Romney personally, including 19% who disapprove of his policies. But that's compared with 67% who say the same about Obama. Another shortcoming for Romney is that voters don't necessarily relate to him. Just 42% say he has a background and set of values that they can identify with, while 50% say that about the president. And there's Romney's upside-down fav/unfav at 35%-40%. Consider this: Since 1996, no other GOP presumptive presidential nominee had a net-negative fav/unfav heading into his convention. In 1996, Bob Dole's score was 39%-36%; in 2000, George W. Bush's was 52%-32%; and in 2008, John McCain's was 42%-30%. Obama's fav/unfav in this current poll is 49%-43%.

*** The Horse Race: Overall, the president continues to lead Romney, 49%-43% in this survey. (By the way, we aren’t saying the president increased his lead, just that he CONTINUES to lead. Why? There’s a difference in Party ID from this month to last. Last month was +4 Democratic, this month it’s +11. If the poll was re-weighted to last month, the president would still lead but by between 2-3 points, according to our pollsters.) A few other nuggets on the horse race: The president leads in the swing states by the same 8-point margin he led by last month (49%-41%) but Romney leads the president among those voters who are the most “interested” in this election (48%-46%). In fact, that’s another takeaway from this poll, two of the president’s strongest demographic groups: Hispanics and voters 18-34, continue to lag behind the rest of the president’s support groups on the question of “interest in the election.” That’s a big potential turnout red flag for Chicago.

*** Negative campaign takes a toll: Yet maybe the biggest headline in our poll is the toll the negative contest has taken on Obama and Romney. Both candidates have seen their "very negative" ratings increase to all-time highs (32% for Obama and 24% for Romney). What's more, pluralities say that what they've seen, heard, and read about the two candidates in recent weeks has given them less favorable impressions of each man. Remember, there’s been an unusually early flurry of campaign ads. Seriously, go back in time and find a July that has seen so many negative TV ads being aired in swing states. It’s unprecedented. This was bound to take a toll, and it explains why the Obama campaign is suddenly putting their guy talking DIRECTLY to camera trying to soften the edges. (Here’s more from last night’s NBC Nightly News.)

*** Obama unlikely to win undecideds: One final very important point about the poll. Our pollsters went back through the last three months and gathered together all of the people who have said they are either “depends,” “neither,” or “not sure” when it comes to Romney vs. Obama to create a comprehensive look at the undecideds. And it’s not good news for the president. About the only thing the “undecided” are undecided on is the horse race. They have “decided” on how they view the president and the country. The “undecideds” are more pessimistic about the direction of the country and the economy and the job the president’s doing overall and on the economy. By any stretch, these should be people willing to fire Obama and vote for Romney – EXCEPT that they don’t like him very much at all. While Obama’s fav/unfav with the group is an abysmal 29%/42%, Romney’s is even WORSE – 16/44. 16!!! These voters, if they vote, won’t likely evenly split. It will be because Romney convinced them they should vote for him. But so far, almost none of his messaging/rhetoric looks like it’s appealing to them – and Obama’s Bain attacks likely are making an impact. As Tom Edsall wrote this week, the cynical hope for Obama here is that they stay home. By the way, these undecideds score low on the “interest”-in-election scale, even lower than Hispanics and young voters.

*** Hispanic oversample coming: Stay tuned for a noon ET release on the latest NBC-WSJ-Telemundo Hispanic oversample from the poll. Were there any changes from last month? What about intensity? Are they any more likely to vote for Obama now that the immigration policy has had a month to set in?

*** The ‘you didn’t build that’ dog barked: The Obama campaign is out with a new ad, responding to the “You didn’t build that” attack line. And it features the president again speaking direct to camera: “Those ads taking my words about small business out of context; they're flat out wrong. Of course Americans build their own business. Everyday hard-working people sacrifice to meet a payroll, create jobs, and make our economy run. And what I said was that we need to stand behind them as America always has. By investing in education, training, roads and bridges, research and technology. I'm Barack Obama and I approve this message because I believe we're all in this together." The Romney campaign responded this morning with a release with this in the subject: “He said it, he meant it.” Mark McKinnon on MSNBC’s Morning Joe asked Obama adviser David Axelrod, “We have a saying, ‘A hit dog barks, and it sounds like you’re barking, so does that mean you’re hit?” It’s a great way to put it, and it’s likely the case. Axelrod tried to downplay they campaigns’ hyper reaction. But it was a hyper reaction. You wouldn’t do this if it wasn’t showing up in some of their data. By the way, there have to be a few in Boston disappointed – strategically – to realize that their most effective hit so far on Obama was starting to stick and now their principal is going away on an overseas trip. Romney’s camp will be holding 24 “We Did Build This” events across the country today – in PA, WI, VA, OH, IA, FL, MO, NC, MI, NH, NM, NV – “to allow small business owners the chance to respond to Pres. Obama’s claims that ‘if you've got a business—you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen’,” the campaign says. But it’s just tougher to do with the candidate away.

*** Did Obama say to ‘stand behind’ businesses? “What I said was, ‘we need to stand behind them.’” Obama never said those exact words in his July 13 Roanoke, VA, speech. He did say: “I want to let every single person refinance their homes and save about $3,000 a year because you’ll spend that $3,000 on some of these stores right here in downtown. You’ll help small businesses and large businesses grow because they’ll have more customers.” And he called for “an economy where everyone, whether you are starting a business or punching a clock, can see your hard work and responsibility rewarded.” He also made a shared responsibility argument. “We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people….” It is notable, however, that in a speech in Virginia Beach later in the day he didn’t use the same “you didn’t build that” language. Clearly, the attacks have gotten to the campaign, and they felt like they needed to respond. Doing so with the candidate is an even further sign that the president and his team feared how damaging this line of attack could have been.

*** Going negative on Romney during Olympics: A new hard-hitting ad from pro-Obama SuperPAC Priorities USA Action pokes fun at Romney's tenure at the helm of the SLC Olympics, NBC’s Carrie Dann notes. Using footage from the 2002 opening ceremonies, the ad shows athletes of various nationalities entering the Olympic stadium, with a commentator pointing out each country's links to Romney's record. For example: "India! Which also gained jobs thanks to Romney, an outsourcing pioneer."  And: "Ya gotta say this about Mitt Romney. He sure knows how to go for the gold...for himself," it concludes. The group claims it will run during the Olympics in Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia and is part of a larger $20 million TV and online buy, according to staff. But realistically, don’t expect to actually see this ad make it on air. We guarantee you the Olympic Committee will come down hard on them and any affiliate that tries to air it.

*** Romney’s foreign policy shot: Romney assailed President Obama yesterday on foreign policy during his speech before the VFW. It was long on criticism and short on vision. And what part of that speech appealed to independents? (He did tip that he wouldn’t criticize Obama on foreign policy during his trip abroad: “[S]ince I wouldn't venture into another country to question American foreign policy, I will tell you right here - before I leave - what I think of this administration's shabby treatment of one of our finest friends.” A Romney doctrine is not at all clear at this point. There have been no “dumb war” moments for him. Put simply, there wasn’t a lot of meat on the bones. Ex-McCain campaign manager Steve Schmidt on MSNBC’s Morning Joe was really tough on the speech, calling it an “unsophisticated” speech, not much more than a “paint-by-numbers Republican critique.” This is the risk for Romney this week – by wide margins, Americans say they prefer President Obama on foreign policy, according to the latest NBC/WSJ poll. They just simply don’t share Romney’s contempt for the president’s policy as it relates to the world. Where Romney has the edge is on the economy, and this week will take him off that message, though he’ll get right back on it next week just in time for the Aug. 3 July jobs report.  By the way, will we hear more specifics on foreign policy, when NBC’s Brian Williams interviews Romney later today? Check out NBC Nightly News for more.

*** Romney’s timeline shift: Also notice this: Romney has been firmly against timelines, but adopted the president’s timeline on Afghanistan yesterday. In April 2010, he criticized Obama for “announcing the day he's pulling out” of Afghanistan. “If I'm Karzai, I say holy cow before the job is done these guys are going to leave. What does that mean about my life and livelihood?” And on NPR in March 2010, he explicitly said: “I would not have announced the date we're going to start pulling people out. I think that makes it more difficult at the time you're just adding troops.”  Yet, here was Romney yesterday at the VFW: “I have been critical of the President’s decision to withdraw the surge troops during the fighting season, against the advice of the commanders on the ground.  President Obama would have you believe that anyone who disagrees with his decisions is arguing for endless war.  But the route to more war – and to potential attacks here at home – is a politically timed retreat. As president, my goal in Afghanistan will be to complete a successful transition to Afghan security forces by the end of 2014. I will evaluate conditions on the ground and solicit the best advice of our military commanders.  And I will affirm that my duty is not to my political prospects, but to the security of the nation.”

Countdown to GOP convention: 33 days
Countdown to Dem convention: 40 days
Countdown to Election Day: 104 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

The Senate is bracing for a tax-cut showdown that is all about Democrats and Republicans showing voters their differences over taxing the well-off while accusing each other of threatening to shove the government over a fiscal cliff.

Senators planned to vote Wednesday on a $250 billion Democratic bill that would extend expiring tax cuts next year for all but the highest earners. Democrats will need 60 votes to advance the proposal, which they do not have.

It seemed unlikely that senators also would vote on a rival GOP plan that includes the best-off Americans in the tax reductions, a measure that was destined to lose.

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, was ready to push legislation through his chamber next week that closely mirrors the Senate GOP measure. Republicans there introduced their bill on Tuesday, accompanied by another measure designed to speed work next year on legislation overhauling the entire tax code.

Recommended: Four years after bailout, taxpayers still own AIG, but does TARP remain a political liability?

The clash in the Senate underscored how little the partisan tax-cutting duel had to do with actually passing a law this year. If anything, it highlighted how entrenched both parties' views were.

"Democrats will simply never agree we should hand out more tax breaks to the richest 2 percent of Americans while this economy is in the situation it's in now," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, sponsor of the Democratic bill.

"Our friends on the other side are practicing what could best be described as 'Thelma & Louise' economics," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said.

"Let's just march the whole country right off the cliff and see how that works out," McConnell said, referring to the movie's memorable climax.

If the two sides don't compromise, a massive $600 billion in tax increases and spending cuts for 2013 would be triggered automatically in January — the so-called fiscal cliff, which analysts say would jar the already weak economy.

Mostly following President Barack Obama's proposal, the Democratic bill would continue Bush-era tax cuts for everyone except individuals making at least $200,000 yearly and couples earning more than $250,000.

Those taxpayers would face top rates of 36 percent and 39.6 percent, respectively, instead of today's 33 percent and 35 percent. That would mean higher taxes for 2.5 million households, or 2 percent of all 140.5 million tax returns, according to 2009 data from the Internal Revenue Service.

Democrats say levies on the wealthy should rise because all income groups should contribute to deficit reduction. Republicans say those tax increases would burden the owners of many companies, leaving them less money to create jobs.

The Democratic bill also would let the top estate tax rate grow to 55 percent next year, with only the first $1 million in an estate's value exempted. That's an uncomfortable move for Democratic senators from farming and high-cost states.

Republicans would renew today's milder 35 percent top rate, exempting the first $5.12 million. Congress' nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation says the lower Democratic threshold would affect the owners of 46,700 estates projected to die next year — a tiny percentage of Americans, but far more than the 3,600 who would be exposed under the GOP's terms.

Democrats would impose top tax rates next year of 20 percent on dividends and capital gains, two sources of income enjoyed disproportionately by the wealthy. The GOP top rate would be 15 percent.

The GOP bill ignores some tax reductions for low- and middle-income families that Democrats want to extend.

These include the American opportunity tax credit, worth up to $2,500 to cover college expenses; language making the earned income tax credit more generous for large working families and some married working couples; and a boost in the tax refunds some families get under the child tax credit.

All were part of Obama's 2009 stimulus bill, which Democrats say were meant to be permanent but Republicans say were only a short-term response to the recession.

Combined, those Democratic provisions would provide tax breaks averaging $1,000 to 25 million families, according to Treasury Department figures distributed by the White House.

Republicans also proposed bigger tax write-offs than Democrats did for small businesses taking deductions for the costs of buying some equipment.

Updated at 9:38 AM ET Congress passed the bailout – TARP or Troubled Asset Relief Program -- amid the October 2008 financial crisis with the support of then-Sen. Barack Obama and GOP presidential candidate Sen. John McCain.

TARP special inspector general, Christy Romero, an Obama appointee, said Wednesday in her quarterly report that taxpayers still own 61 percent of the common stock of TARP’s biggest investment, the insurance giant, American International Group, and that AIG still owes the Treasury $36 billion from the rescue.

AIG’s involvement in financial vehicles called credit default swaps (CDS) went spectacularly bad in 20008, and the firm was careening toward collapse but was saved by a $182 billion rescue engineered by the Federal Reserve and by Congress through TARP.

The company’s stock -- worth over $1,400 per share in 20007 -- plummeted to less than $9 per share in 2009. It is now worth about $30 per share.

Now four years after the bailout, “AIG continues to maintain a portfolio of CDS and continues to engage in securities lending, albeit much smaller than prior to TARP,” Romero said in her report.

In an interview, Romero explained that the focus of her concern is a subsidiary called AIG Financial Products Corporation (AIGFP). “The size of AIGFP’s trading book is greatly diminished, but it may come as a surprise to some that any of AIGFP still exists at all,” her report said.

Recommended: Cost of health care overhaul down, but uninsured up due to Supreme Court ruling

Romero’s report Wednesday said, “There is currently no Federal banking regulator with responsibility for overseeing AIG’s noninsurance financial businesses.” Referring to AIGFP, she said, “The concern comes with lack of regulation of that entity. This was an entity whose risky actions nearly brought down AIG and because of the size and interconnectedness of AIG, regulators determined at the time that AIG was too big to fail.”

The 2010 Dodd-Frank law set up a process for the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC), headed by Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, to designate AIG and other non-bank financial firms to as “Systemically Important Financial Institutions” (SIFI) and thus to be regulated by the Federal Reserve, but that has yet to happen.

“It’s not even clear what the time frame for them to do that is; it’s not even clear whether they’re going to do that,” Romero said. “Right now, there’s been no signal from federal regulators that they are going to designate AIG as a SIFI under Dodd Frank.”

Until that happens, she said, “there’s a big unknown as to whether there’s going to be any kind of federal regulator with oversight over all of AIG’s financial business.”

Geithner will testify Wednesday before the House Financial Services Committee and Thursday before the Senate Banking Committee on FSOC’s work and other issues.

“Congress can certainly urge – and some members of Congress have urged – FSOC to move on these designations. Even if they don’t move on all designations, decide on AIG,” Romero said.

AIG has paid back most of the $182 billion, partly through asset sales.

The Treasury has gradually sold off some of its holdings in AIG stock. And FSOC said in its annual report last week that the Treasury’s stake in AIG and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s investment in AIG “are likely to produce an additional profit for the U.S. public.”

“AIG has taken significant action since the crisis -- working with Treasury and the Federal Reserve -- to restructure, reduce risk, and streamline its operations to focus on its core insurance business,” Treasury spokesperson Matt Anderson said Wednesday.

But Romero asked, “Where is the exit strategy for AIG to get out of TARP? I haven’t seen a clear exit strategy.”

She added, “The purpose of TARP is financial stability -- so whatever strategy Treasury comes up with in terms of exiting this investment in AIG has got to be done in a way that assures financial stability.”

With the trauma of 2008 having faded, it’s not clear whether voters still care about TARP -- or are even aware of its continued existence. But TARP did play a significant role in several 2010 races, helping defeat members who voted for it.

Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, Utah Sen. Robert Bennett, and South Carolina Reps. Bob Inglis and Gresham Barrett lost 2010 GOP primary contests partly due to their votes for TARP.

And in Pennsylvania Democratic Senate candidate Joe Sestak – facing Republican Pat Toomey who ran anti-TARP ads -- felt compelled to run an ad telling voters it “made me sick” to vote for the bailout and comparing his vote to cleaning up his dog’s excrement. Sestak lost.

This year it may be a sleeper issue in at least one Senate contest.

Nevada Sun political columnist Jon Ralston wrote two weeks ago that Republican Sen. Dean Heller, in a competitive race with Democrat Rep. Shelley Berkley, hasn’t yet used against her “what his team considers a potential silver bullet issue — Berkley’s vote for TARP, which for him polls off the charts….”

Ralston added in an e-mail Tuesday, “The Heller folks have long had polling data that TARP -- bailing out the evil banks -- is a potent issue. Heller voted against it (when he served in the House in 2008), so they think it is a contrast.”

On Tuesday, President Barack Obama kicked off day two of his five-state, mostly West Coast trip, during which he slammed GOP presumptive nominee Mitt Romney for trying to paint him as anti-business and out of touch. Romney, meanwhile, focused on foreign policy and accused the Obama administration of leaking classified national security information. NBC's Kristen Welker reports.

Mitt Romney set the stage for his impending foreign policy tour with a speech leveling sharp criticism of President Barack Obama, accusing his administration of having weakened America's standing on the international stage.

In a speech before the Veterans of Foreign Wars national convention, the presumptive Republican nominee accused the administration of leaking classified intelligence information for political reasons, and demanded that automatic defense cuts included in last summer's debt ceiling agreement be undone before taking effect in 2013.

The former Massachusetts governor's alternative, he said, would amount to an "American Century" in which the U.S. wouldn't flinch from a leading international role.

Justin Sullivan / Getty Images

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney speaks during the 113th National Convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars on July 24 in Reno, Nevada.

"This is very simple: if you do not want America to be the strongest nation on earth, I am not your President. You have that President today," Romney told VFW members gathered in Reno, NV.

The speech was Romney's last official event in the U.S. before embarking on a key journey abroad intended to bolster his foreign policy credentials versus Obama. The trip will take Romney to the United Kingdom, as well as two other nations he name-checked in the speech, Israel and Poland.

Tuesday's speech, along with the trip, comes amid new data in the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll that shows Obama with a 10-point advantage over Romney on the question of which candidate would serve as a better commander-in-chief.

To that end, Romney sought to weaken Obama's standing on national security issues by highlighting the recent controversy over leaks of classified information - including details of the raid that killed Osama Bin Laden and covert subterfuge meant to slow Iran's nuclear progress - that many Republicans believe were orchestrated by the White House for political gain.

"This conduct is contemptible. It betrays our national interest. It compromises our men and women in the field." Romney said."Whoever provided classified information to the media, seeking political advantage for the administration, must be exposed, dismissed, and punished.  The time for stonewalling is over."

Romney also attacked the planned cuts to the defense budget agreed to in a bipartisan debt deal as "wholesale reductions in the nation’s military capacity," and laid full blame at the president's feet. He also linked the cuts to care for veterans - the singular issue in which many in the crowd said they felt the greatest personal investment.

"Mark my words: These cuts would only weaken an already stretched VA system and our solemn commitment that every veteran receives care second to none," Romney said. "If I am president of the United States I will not let that happen."

Romney opposed the deal that congressional Republicans struck with the White House to raise the debt ceiling, though the former Massachusetts governor hasn't specified how else he would have structured such an agreement.

Romney name-dropped two nations that he will visit on his foreign tour, beginning tomorrow, as part of his attack on President Obama by accusing the president of "abandonment" in the case of Poland, which had planned missile defense sites pulled, and of "shabby treatment of one of our finest friends" in Obama's treatment of Israel.

Also notable was what Romney did not say in this major address. He never mentioned Al Qaeda and made only passing reference to Iraq. Two new policy details, flagged by aides to his campaign, were buried in a speech heavier on red rhetorical meat than policy details.

In a fact sheet released during the speech, the Romney campaign called for all future military aid to Egypt to be tied to that nation's upholding of a peace agreement with Israel, and future civilian aid would be linked to good governance measures.

On the prospect of a nuclear Iran, of which Romney said there is "no greater danger in the world today" he pledged yet again to employ "every means necessary to protect ourselves and the region" from the dangers of a nuclear Iran. The fact sheet released by the campaign made clear that this included making sure any negotiated agreement with Iran ascribe to the international "redline" on nuclear enrichment -- that no deal would be considered without Iran fully halting its enrichment activity.

Updated 5:49 p.m. - President Obama sought to directly explain to voters what he meant by a comment about small business that has reverberated through Republican attacks on his re-election.

The new ad, “Always,” which will air in in Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, Ohio, Iowa, and Nevada, argues that Republicans were mischaracterizing a comment he’d made that seemed to suggest that small businesses weren’t solely responsible for their own successes.

“Those ads taking my words about small business out of context - they’re flat out wrong. Of course Americans build their own businesses,” Obama says in the ad.

"It's clear what President Obama believes because he told us: 'if you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.’ He said it, and he meant it," Ryan Williams, a Romney campaign spokesman, responded.

Obama’s initial comments earlier this month came in the context of a speech about how government, through spending and investment on projects, can help foster an environment in which businesses can better succeed.

"If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the internet," the president said July 13 in Virginia.

Republicans have seized on the “you didn’t build that” portion by itself. Presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney’s campaign sported new signage at an event on Monday, saying, “We DID Build It.”

And Romney called the initial Obama remark indicative of the president’s ideology at an event last week.

"It wasn't a gaffe. It was instead his ideology," Romney said at a stop last week in Massachusetts. "The president does, in fact, believe that people who build enterprises like this really aren't responsible for it. But in fact it's a collective success of the whole society that somehow builds enterprises like this. My view, we have to celebrate people who started enterprises and employ other people."

In the new Obama campaign ad, the president speaks directly to the camera looking to dispute the GOP-led attack.

His full quote:

Those ads taking my words about small business out of context -- they’re flat out wrong. Of course Americans build their own businesses. Every day, hard-working people sacrifice to meet a payroll, create jobs, and make our economy run. And what I said was that we need to stand behind them, as America always has, by investing in education and training, roads and bridges, research and technology.

Updated at 5:33pm ET In the growing election-year furor over leaks of U.S. intelligence information, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, distanced herself Tuesday from attacks on President Obama made by Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney.

Earlier Tuesday in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) convention in Reno, Nev., Romney accused Obama’s White House staff of revealing “classified material for political gain,” citing recent comments by Feinstein that appeared to support the attack.

This prompted Feinstein to say in a written statement that she was “disappointed” by Romney’s inclusion of her remarks in the speech.

The leaking of intelligence information “betrays our national interest,” Romney told the VFW. “It compromises our men and women in the field… Exactly who in the White House betrayed these secrets?  Did a superior authorize it?  These are things that Americans are entitled to know – and they are entitled to know right now.”

Romney added that “These events make the decision we face in November all the more important. What kind of White House would reveal classified material for political gain?”

At a World Affairs Council event on Monday in Washington, Feinstein said people in the White House appeared to be responsible for some leaks of classified information.

"I think the White House has to understand that some of this is coming from their ranks," Feinstein said.

In seeking to clarify her remarks, the California Democrat explained in her statement Tuesday following Romney’s speech that “I was asked whether the White House might be responsible for recent national security leaks. I stated that I did not believe the president leaked classified information. I shouldn’t have speculated beyond that, because the fact of the matter is I don’t know the source of the leaks.”

She added that, “I regret my remarks are being used to impugn President Obama or his commitment to protecting national security secrets. I know for a fact the president is extremely troubled by these leaks. His administration has moved aggressively to appoint two independent U.S. attorneys. There is an investigation under way, and it is moving forward quickly.”

But Republican senators, led by Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, and Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, have said that Attorney General Eric Holder's appointment of the two U.S. attorneys to investigate the leaks is inadequate and have called for the appointment of an independent counsel.

Cornyn has said that the fact one of the prosecutors whom Holder appointed, Ronald Machen, contributed to the 2008 Obama campaign and worked on the vetting of Obama's vice presidential choices compromises his independence. Holder defended Machen saying he “has the capacity to investigate this case in a non-partisan, independent, thorough and aggressive way.”

At issue are stories such as a recent New York Times page one feature on Obama’s weighing of which al Qaida operatives to order to be killed in drone strikes in Yemen and elsewhere, and a book by New York Times reporter David Sanger, Confront and Conceal: Obama's Secret Wars and Surprising Use of American Power, which is based on interviews with national security officials in the White House.

Updated 4:45 p.m. - Mitt Romney re-emphasized Tuesday a shared goal with President Barack Obama, to transfer control of Afghanistan to that country’s security forces by the end of 2014.

Speaking Tuesday before the annual meeting of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Romney noted his past criticism of the pace of the drawdown of U.S.-led security forces in Afghanistan, which was set to culminate in a handover of responsibility to Afghan forces in 2014.

But the presumptive Republican nominee said that it would be his own goal, as well, to complete a transition of power by 2014 – a stance that is difficult to distinguish from the president’s.

“As president, my goal in Afghanistan will be to complete a successful transition to Afghan security forces by the end of 2014,” he said in Nevada.

Romney didn’t offer specifics when it comes to what that would mean for the precise level of U.S. forces that would remain in Afghanistan over the course of the transition, relying on his usual rhetoric about deferring to the judgment of commanders on the ground.

“I will evaluate conditions on the ground and solicit the best advice of our military commanders,” he said. “And I will affirm that my duty is not to my political prospects, but to the security of the nation."

In a separate fact sheet, the Republican’s campaign said that Romney, as president, would order an interagency review of the transition in Afghanistan during his first 100 days in office.

The Afghanistan announcement was just one part of a multifaceted speech outlining the presumptive Republican nominee’s foreign policy vision before he embarks on a tour of the United Kingdom, Israel and Poland meant to burnish his credentials as commander-in-chief. Still, Romney’s pronouncement today on Afghanistan would seem, if nothing else, to mark a significant departure in the rhetoric he’s used toward the situation in Afghanistan.

But readers might be forgiven for reading Romney's speech today as a more forgiving assessment of the way Obama has managed the war in Afghanistan. Obama first launched a surge in troops in Afghanistan, a move that was generally applauded by Republicans.

Before officially launching his current presidential bid, Romney said in a March 2010 interview with NPR: “I was pleased that the president made the decision to take action to root out the Taliban in Afghanistan. I think he made a couple of errors, even in doing so, that makes it a little more difficult - or potentially substantially more difficult for our troops to be successful there.”

He continued, “Number one, when the military came and said we need a minimum of 40,000 more troops, I would not have been inclined to cut that to 30,000. My inclination would be to give him at least 40 or maybe 50,000. Number two, I would not have announced the date we're going to start pulling people out. I think that makes it more difficult at the time you're just adding troops.”

But his decision to withdraw those troops by September of this year had turned into the centerpiece of Romney's criticism of Obama.

Romney said in his June 2, 2011 speech launching his current White House run that Obama was “wrong” to announce a date by which U.S. troops would withdraw from Afghanistan.

Aides to the presumptive Republican presidential nominee said that Romney's disagreement with Obama stems from the pace of the withdrawal of troops, particularly in 2012, during the height of the fighting season in Afghanistan. Romney, aides said, would have more closely heeded military leaders' guidance to keep surge troops there longer.

But Romney shares an end goal of having only a small level of troops in Afghanistan at the time of the handover, pending the success in standing up the Afghan government.

"The timetable, by the end of 2014, is the right timetable for us to be completely withdrawn from Afghanistan, other than a small footprint of support forces," he said at a Nov. 13, 2011 presidential debate.

The pace of withdrawal Romney would pursue as president is unclear, though; commanders haven't issued their recommendations, and Romney's words at a Jan. 2012 debate underscored just how uncertain the conditions that would warrant a drawdown can be.

But Romney otherwise said he opposed negotiations with the Taliban that would end the fighting in Afghanistan. The solution, he said at an NBC News debate on Jan. 23, 2012, was to defeat the Taliban outright – a strategy that would seem to open the door to a potentially interminable engagement in Afghanistan and, for that matter, Pakistan.

"By beating them," Romney said of his strategy to end the fighting in the region. "By standing behind our troops and making sure that we have transitioned to the Afghan military, a capacity for them to be successful in holding off the Taliban."

"Our mission there is to be able to turn Afghanistan and its sovereignty over to a military of Afghan descent -- Afghan people that can defend their sovereignty. And that is something which we can accomplish in the next couple of years," he added.

The Congressional Budget Office said Tuesday that due to the Supreme Court’s June 28 decision on the 2010 health care overhaul, the law will cost $84 billion less over 10 years than CBO had previously estimated.

But CBO said 3 million more people will be left uninsured compared to its previous estimate of the number of uninsured in 2022 – that’s because at least some states are expected to forgo the Medicaid expansion that had been mandated by Affordable Care Act (ACA).

“Fewer people will be covered by the Medicaid program, more people will obtain health insurance through the newly established exchanges, and more people will be uninsured,” the CBO said in its report Tuesday.

The law – as upheld and limited by the Supreme Court – will leave 30 million nonelderly U.S. residents uninsured by 2022, the end of the budget forecasting window.

Before the Supreme Court’s decision, the CBO had estimated the number of uninsured in 2022 would be 27 million.

The CBO issued its new estimate based on its assessment of the effects of the Supreme Court’s ruling, which upheld much of the ACA but also said the federal government couldn’t coerce states into acceding to the law’s expansion in the number of people eligible for Medicaid coverage.

The court ruled that the federal government couldn’t penalize states by withholding all their federal Medicaid funds if they chose to not participate in the expansion, which is set to take place in 2014.

If some governors and legislatures opt out of the expansion, about 3 million people who would’ve been covered by the expansion will be eligible for more expensive taxpayer subsidies in the new health insurance exchanges set up by the law.

Some governors – such as Govs. Rick Scott of Florida and Rick Perry of Texas – have said their states would not participate in the Medicaid expansion, but it’s still too soon to know which states will adopt the program and which ones won’t.

The CBO said Tuesday “the reductions in spending from lower Medicaid enrollment are expected to more than offset the increase in costs from greater participation in the exchanges.”

That will be true, it said, “despite the fact that the government’s average additional costs per person in the exchanges will be greater than its average savings per person for those who, as a result of the Court’s ruling, will not enroll in Medicaid.”

It explained that the number of additional people entering the exchanges as a result of the Supreme Court ruling will be “only about half the number who will not be obtaining Medicaid coverage, many of whom will be ineligible to participate in the exchanges.”

The CBO emphasized the uncertainty in its projections. It said, “How flexible executive branch agencies will be regarding the choices that states will have — particularly states’ options for pursuing partial (Medicaid) expansions — is unclear. Hence, what states will be able to do and what they will decide to do are both highly uncertain.”

Two weeks ago in previewing the CBO’s new estimate, former CBO chief Doug Holtz-Eakin, now president of a conservative advocacy group American Action Forum, pointed out that since expansion does not take place until 2014 governors and state legislatures have time to weigh the costs and benefits of the Medicaid expansion. “It’s a far from obvious decision. They should take their time and do the calculus carefully,” he said.

Under the ACA, the federal taxpayers will pay 100 percent of the cost of covering the people made eligible for Medicaid for the first two years and then will pay 90 percent of the costs for the newly eligible until 2020, at which point the normal federal matching formula would apply. That matching formula varies depending on per capita incomes of people in each state -- so poorer states such as Arkansas have more of their Medicaid costs paid for by the federal taxpayers than richer states such as Connecticut do. The minimum federal match is 50 percent.

Early in 2010, the CBO had estimated that the entire ACA would cause a net reduction in federal deficits of $143 billion over the 2010-2019 period. It estimated that the additional cost of providing insurance to 32 million more Americans would be more than offset by cost savings imposed on Medicare and the tax increases in the law.

That CBO estimate was crucial since it gave some congressional Democrats in competitive districts and states the political cover they needed to vote for final passage of the bill.

NBC's Chuck Todd and the Washington Post's Chris Cillizza share details from the NBC News/ WSJ poll.