VINSON PUTS HIS OWN HEALTH CARE RULING ON HOLD.... In late January, Federal District Court Judge Roger Vinson issued a bizarre ruling, striking down the Affordable Care Act as unconstitutional. In addition to his strange rationales, Vinson created an unexpected problem: his decision left nearly everyone confused as to the state of the law.

Though Vinson could have issued an injunction stopping implementation of the health reform law, he didn't. On the other hand, plenty of conservatives interpreted his decision as offering the "functional equivalent" of an injunction, meaning that the 26 states that are parties to the case could simply consider the current law null and void in their states.

In something of a gamble, the Obama administration asked Vinson to clarify matters. Today, he did.

A federal judge who struck down the entire healthcare reform law issued a stay of his ruling in order to give the Obama administration seven days to file an appeal.

The administration asked U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson for a clarification of his Jan. 31 ruling after some states said they would stop efforts to implement the law in light of his decision.

The administration is expected to file an appeal with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

This is, in other words, a procedural win for the administration and the ACA. Vinson added, however, that the Justice Department must seek an expedited appellate review of his ruling within the next seven days.

So, bottom line: the Affordable Care Act is still on the books, and whether some far-right state officials like it or not, it must still be enforced.

Update: And just for the sake of adding additional context, I should also note that five federal courts have considered the health reform law on the merits. Vinson is one of two judges to rule against the ACA; the other three found it entirely constitutional.

DEMINT VS THE AMERICAN MAINSTREAM.... If there's one thing the ongoing uproar in Wisconsin helps prove, it's that collective-bargaining rights have become a staple of the American mainstream. Regrettably, some still refuse to see it that way.

Take Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), for example.

DeMint weighed in strongly on behalf of Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R), who's been locked in a protracted battle with public employees over legislation that would strip their unions of most collective bargaining rights.

"It's a bigger issue than people think, and it's something that I'm going to work a lot on, because I really don't think that collective bargaining has any place in representative government," DeMint said on WVOC radio.

This may be an issue DeMint intends to "work a lot on," but he shouldn't expect to have much success.

Greg Sargent's been working diligently lately on highlighting public attitudes on this, and the results all point in the same direction. The new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, for example, finds that a 62% majority believe it's unacceptable to eliminate public employees' collective-bargaining rights.

Greg noted, "[T]his is now the fourth national poll to find the public supports public employees against governors looking to roll back their bargaining rights. Gallup, the New York Times and Pew (to a slightly lesser degree) have all found the same."

Even New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R), whose hatred of public employee unions is unquestioned, told constituents last night, "I love collective bargaining."

The very idea of collective bargaining has no place "in representative government"? Good luck with that, Jim.

THURSDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't necessarily generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:

* Hawaii Sen. Daniel Akaka (D) announced last night that he will retire at the end of his term next year. The 86-year-old incumbent had made no real effort to raise funds for a re-election race, so the news doesn't come as a surprise. He's the seventh senator to announce retirement plans in advance of 2012, and the fifth Democrat.

* On a related note, David Catanese goes through some of the likely contenders for Akaka's seat, which Democratic officials fully expect to keep "blue," especially in a year in which President Obama will be on the ballot.

* In Wisconsin, a recall effort is underway, targeting eight Republican state senators who are cooperating with Gov. Scott Walker's (R) union-busting crusade. A switch of three seats would give Democrats a majority, and the Democratic Party of Wisconsin has offered its official support for the effort.

* Former Louisiana Gov. Buddy Roemer (R), who served in Congress as a Democrat in the 1980s, is launching a presidential exploratory committee today and will be in Iowa on Monday.

* In Virginia, the latest survey from Public Policy Polling shows President Obama leading all of his likely GOP challengers in hypothetical match-ups. Mitt Romney does the best, trailing the president by six points, while Sarah Palin does the worst, trailing by 19 points.

* Speaking of Virginia, former Gov. Tim Kaine (D) will end the suspense next week and announce whether he'll run for the Senate seat being vacated by Sen. Jim Webb (D).

* And in still more Virginia news, if Kaine doesn't run, PPP shows former Rep. Tom Perriello (D) looking fairly competitive in a race against leading Republican George Allen.

* Arizona Democrats are holding off on next year's open Senate race, waiting to see whether Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D) is willing or able to run. But if she isn't, Rep. Ed Pastor (D) is apparently interested.

* And in Wisconsin, PPP shows incumbent Sen. Herb Kohl (D) looking pretty strong in advance of next year's race, leading all of his likely challengers in margins ranging from 7 to 15 points. Kohl, however, has not said whether he's running.

THE ONGOING, UNHEALTHY, AND OFFENSIVE PREOCCUPATION WITH THE NBPP.... Attorney General Eric Holder made his first trip to Capitol Hill since the Republican takeover of the House this week, and was immediately pestered with questions about -- what else? -- a 2008 incident involving the New Black Panther Party.

The fact that anyone still cares about this is astounding. The underlying accusation is transparently foolish; and there's bipartisan agreement, even from Fox News contributors, that this is a non-story. The Bush administration, which pushed politicized law enforcement to unseen depths, saw this matter as too meaningless to pursue.

And yet, there was Rep. John Culberson (R-Texas) on Tuesday, accusing the Justice Department of racial bias. Worse, Culberson quoted Bartle Bull's ridiculous testimony to the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, arguing that the inconsequential incident from 2008 was among the most serious acts of voter intimidation in decades, comparable to Jim Crow.

"Think about that," Holder said. "When you compare what people endured in the South in the 60s to try to get the right to vote for African Americans, and to compare what people were subjected to there to what happened in Philadelphia -- which was inappropriate, certainly -- that ... to describe it in those terms I think does a great disservice to people who put their lives on the line, who risked all, for my people," said Holder, who is black.

Holder noted that his late sister-in-law, Vivian Malone Jones, helped integrate the University of Alabama.

"To compare that kind of courage, that kind of action, and to say that the Black Panther incident -- wrong, thought it might be -- somehow is greater in magnitude or is of greater concern to us, historically, I think just flies in the face of history and the facts.," Holder said with evident exasperation.

Adam Serwer, noting the exchange, added:

[I]t's not like you have to be black, or even liberal, to recognize how offensive the comparison is....The comparison essentially erases history. To argue that the worst instance of voter intimidation that ever happened in the segregated South is comparable to two mean looking guys standing outside of a polling place is to pretend that nothing that terrible ever happened. It's not surprising that anyone with any living memory of what it was actually like would take offense. What's disgusting is that the likely response to Holder's understandable reaction to Culberson trivializing apartheid on the right will merely be further certainty that Holder and Obama are racist.

Right on cue, the Wall Street Journal's James Taranto, reflecting on Holder's committee appearance, said this morning that the Attorney General ended up "confirming suspicions of racial bias at the Justice Department" during his testimony, and suggest Holder should resign.

The mind reels.

JOHN BOEHNER AND HIS FOOL'S ERRAND.... House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) isn't in the most comfortable of positions. Indeed, by all indications, he knew going into this Congress that there were traps ahead, which Boehner desperately wanted to avoid.

Two months later, the Speaker seems to have discovered that he's stuck. Boehner wants to avoid overreach, but finds himself being pushed around by wild-eyed freshman. He wants to satisfy public demands, but feels forced to go far beyond what the American mainstream will tolerate.

And it's apparently getting worse for Boehner. The Speaker continues to champion a plan that would slash funding in education, health care, job training, and national security, undermining the economy and making unemployment much worse. It's not quite the plan Boehner wanted to pursue, but his right-wing party demanded it. The public, not surprisingly, hates this policy.

But at least Boehner is satisfying the unhinged base, right? Wrong.

In another display of the Tea Party movement turning on its own ideological supporters, the head of one prominent group has said that House Speaker John Boehner looks "like a fool" as House Republicans push spending cuts in their budget proposal. And that leader wants the Tea Party movement to set a goal for 2012: to defeat Boehner in a Republican primary. [...]

"We're getting more of the same political games as we have gotten in the past," [Tea Party Nation founder Judson Phillips] told CNN. "Boehner can redeem himself if they will get serious about cutting spending."

When asked if he was delivering an ultimatum, the Tea Party leader responded: "Yes."

"If Boehner doesn't get up there, get on the ball, and start getting us some serious budget cuts -- I'm going to do whatever I can to have someone run a primary against Boehner."

The irony is almost amusing. John Boehner is pursuing an agenda that's intended to satisfy the ridiculous demands of the Republican base, and no one else. But the effort itself is a fool's errand -- it's practically impossible to satisfy right-wing GOP activists. If Boehner did manage to meet the hysterical right's expectations, it would cost the Republicans their majority.

So the Speaker keeps pandering, giving in to far-right demands, doing what extremists tell him to do, and for his trouble, he has Tea Party activists running to the media making threats and ultimatums.

HOUSE REPUBLICAN RAISES SPECTER OF IMPEACHMENT.... Late last week, disgraced former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), who knows a little something about the practice, raised the prospect of presidential impeachment. The Republican, perhaps best known for leading the crusade against President Clinton, said he was so incensed over the Obama administration's policy on the Defense of Marriage Act, impeachment should be on the table.

Soon after, Gingrich's office quickly walked this back, saying "impeachment is clearly not an appropriate action" under these circumstances. How gracious of him.

As it turns out, though, some Republicans aren't letting go of the idea so easily.

[I]n the right's furor over the administration's announcement that it will not defend the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) is calling for Obama to be impeached.

After the Arizona Republican advocated defunding the Department of Justice if it does not defend Section 3 of DOMA -- "I would support that in a moment," remarked Franks -- he went on to say that he would "absolutely" favor impeaching President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder if such a move "could gain collective support."

Specifically, Franks was asked, "I know Newt Gingrich has came out and said if they don't reverse course here, we ought to be talking about possibly impeaching either Attorney General Holder or even President Obama to try to get them to reverse course. Do you think that is something you would support?"

The Republican congressman replied, "If it could gain the collective support, absolutely."

Franks, by the way, was recently named the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee's panel on the U.S. Constitution. Just thought I'd mention that.

In case anyone's concerned about the substance here, let's also emphasize that the Obama administration will still enforce the law. All the Justice Department said is that officials now consider DOMA unconstitutional and will no longer defend it in court. Previous administrations, from both parties, have done the same thing. It's hardly outrageous, and to consider it an impeachable offense is stark raving mad.

I'd also note for context that Trent Franks has an odd appreciation for the rule of law. He was entirely comfortable, for example, with the Bush administration ignoring federal laws when it suited the White House's purposes. Franks was also on board with Bush issuing signing statements, announcing his intention to pick and choose which parts of the law he'd honor.

But Obama's reluctance to defend a bad law against lawsuits is evidence of "high crimes"?

In a more sensible political environment, this would make Franks a laughingstock, and probably cost him his chairmanship of House Judiciary Committee's panel on the Constitution. In our political environment, it's just considered Thursday.

CANTOR'S CONFOUNDING CONFUSION.... House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) was asked yesterday about projections showing 700,000 job losses resulting from his caucus' spending plan. The Republican dismissed the projections and said what really matters is the judgment of the Fed chairman.

"[L]ook, we had the chairman of the Federal Reserve yesterday indicate that the cuts that we were proposing, $61 billion off of the oh-10 levels, were not going to in any way significantly reduce the prospects for growth."

If Cantor is inclined to take Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke's perspective seriously, I'm delighted. Indeed, the House Majority Leader made it sound as if Bernanke's judgment is the only one that matters.

No problem. It might interest Cantor to know, then, that Bernanke believes the House Republicans' proposed cuts would slow the U.S. economy and force 200,000 American workers out of their jobs.

What's more, Bernanke went on to say that plans to cut education and job-training spending -- the exactly agenda Cantor's caucus is pursuing -- will undermine America's competitiveness.

In other words, the one official Cantor is willing to rely on as a credible source for economic projections believe Cantor's own plan would hurt the economy, cost jobs, and make the nation less competitive.

Remind me, how'd this guy get to be House Majority Leader?

THE PUBLIC ISN'T BUYING WHAT THE GOP IS SELLING.... If there's any good news for Republicans in the new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, it's hiding well.

Republican pollster Bill McInturff, who conducted the survey with Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart, says these results are a "cautionary sign" for a Republican Party pursuing deep budget cuts.

He points out that the Americans who are most concerned about spending cuts are core Republicans and Tea Party supporters, not independents and swing voters.

"It may be hard to understand why a person might jump off a cliff, unless you understand they're being chased by a tiger," he said. "That tiger is the Tea Party."

Literally every day for the last few months, GOP officials have argued, ad nauseum, that "the American people" want and expect Republicans to pursue their far-right agenda. The public wants deep spending cuts, they say. Voters are demanding austerity measures, they insist.

And yet, the evidence to the contrary is overwhelming -- the party's agenda is appealing to its far-right base, not the American mainstream.

On the party's union-busting efforts, for example, a 62% majority believe it's unacceptable to eliminate public workers' collective-bargaining rights as way to deal with state budget deficits. Only 33% think it's acceptable.

On national priorities, most Americans believe job creation and economic growth -- not deficit reduction -- should be policymakers' top issue. Similarly, a 52% majority of Americans believe GOP budget tactics "go too far" in "cutting programs and reducing federal spending."

But the results that should cause Republican leaders to break out in a cold sweat were the ones on how Americans would like to see policymakers reduce the deficit.

The most popular: placing a surtax on federal income taxes for those who make more than $1 million per year (81 percent said that was acceptable), eliminating spending on earmarks (78 percent), eliminating funding for weapons systems the Defense Department says aren't necessary (76 percent) and eliminating tax credits for the oil and gas industries (74 percent).

The least popular: cutting funding for Medicaid, the federal government health-care program for the poor (32 percent said that was acceptable); cutting funding for Medicare, the federal government health-care program for seniors (23 percent); cutting funding for K-12 education (22 percent); and cutting funding for Social Security (22 percent).

In other words, the most popular ideas are the one Republicans refuse to even consider, while the least popular ideas are Republican favorites.

GOP pollster McInturff added that the numbers should "serve as a huge flashing yellow sign to Republicans."

Of course, Republicans aren't likely to see that huge flashing yellow sign if they're busy running from a tiger that's chasing them off a cliff.

For the full results from the poll, the 20-page pdf is online here.

MIKE HUCKABEE'S FEVER SWAMP.... He didn't "misspeak."

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) lashed out at President Obama on Tuesday, insisting repeatedly that he "grew up in Kenya," lying about the president's upbringing, suggesting there are legitimate questions about the president's birth certificate, and engaging in an ugly, borderline-racist smear.

By late Tuesday, the conservative preacher-turned-politician-turned-media-personality said he "misspoke," though the walkback was detached from reality. Yesterday, Huckabee decided to go for an encore, digging a little deeper.

Talking to the American Family Association's Bryan Fischer, Huckabee agreed when the host argued that Obama's childhood is responsible for instilling some "fundamentally anti-American ideas" in the president, responding, "Well, that's exactly the point that I make in the book."

The former governor went on to say of the president:

"...I have said many times, publicly, that I do think he has a different worldview and I think it is, in part, molded out of a very different experience. Most of us grew up going to Boy Scout meetings and, you know, our communities were filled with Rotary Clubs, not madrassas."

The president of the United States has been in office for more than two years, and Mike Huckabee isn't quite done trying to make him out to be less American than he is.

The far-right Arkansan didn't "misspeak" on Tuesday; he's appealing directly to right-wing pathologies, stoking the fires of extremists' basest instincts.

Any sense of decency or moral standing Huckabee likes to claim is quickly evaporating. He appears to be so filled with contempt that he just can't help but spew vile attacks.

And for the record, Obama grew up in a Hawaii community with a Rotary Club and a Boy Scouts council. He did not attend a madrassa.

WEDNESDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits:

* Germany: "A man armed with a handgun attacked a bus carrying U.S. Air Force troops at Frankfurt airport Wednesday, killing two airmen and wounding two others before being taken into custody, authorities said."

* Libya: "Rebel fighters repelled powerful ground and air assaults on this key oil port Wednesday as forces loyal to Moammar Gaddafi launched their first offensive against the opposition-controlled eastern part of Libya."

* Tragedy in Afghanistan: "Nine boys collecting firewood to heat their homes in the eastern Afghanistan mountains were killed by NATO helicopter gunners who mistook them for insurgents, according to a statement on Wednesday by NATO, which apologized for the mistake. The boys, who were 9 to 15 years old, were attacked on Tuesday in what amounted to one of the war's worst cases of mistaken killings by foreign-led forces. The victims included two sets of brothers. A 10th boy survived."

* The Senate approved the measure to keep the government open for two additional weeks today, following a 91 to 9 vote. Soon after, President Obama signed it into law.

* Economic expansion: "A Federal Reserve survey released Wednesday showed that all 12 of the Fed's regions reported growth at a 'modest to moderate pace' and it pointed to a pickup in job creation in each."

* The Ohio state Senate narrowly approved Gov. John Kasich's (R) union-busting measure today, 17 to 16. Six Republicans voted with Democrats, but seven were needed to protect Ohio workers.

* Wisconsin Republicans will now fine Democrats in the state Senate $100 per day until they return. The Dems' paychecks are already being withheld.

* On a related note, Wisconsin Republicans now hope to criminalize prank phone calls. I can't imagine why.

* The U.S. Senate approved a measure to ensure that members of Congress will not receive compensation if the federal government shuts down. The GOP-led House has not yet acted.

* This GAO study has the potential to be a fairly big deal: "With Congress and the White House set to debate the merits of massive spending cuts, federal auditors have identified hundreds of overlapping government offices and programs that if merged or eliminated could save taxpayers billions of dollars. The U.S. government has, for example, more than 100 programs dealing with surface transportation issues, 82 that monitor teacher quality, 80 for economic development, 56 for 'financial literacy,' 20 offices or programs devoted to homelessness and 17 grant programs for disaster preparedness, according to a Government Accountability Office report released Tuesday. Among other redundancies, 15 agencies or offices handle food safety, and five agencies are working to ensure that the federal government uses less gasoline."

* Hiring Erick Erickson was arguably the dumbest thing CNN has ever done.

* And finally, "The President's Speech," not to be confused with "The King's Speech," is one of the funniest clips of the week. Thanks to R.G. for passing it along.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

PROTECTING EVEN DISGUSTING SPEECH.... Free-speech rights are so much easier to appreciate when the speech isn't disgusting. The Supreme Court reminded us this morning that the First Amendment makes no such distinction.

The First Amendment protects hateful protests at military funerals, the Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday in an 8-to-1 decision.

"Speech is powerful," Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. "It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and -- as it did here -- inflict great pain."

But under the First Amendment, he went on, "we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker." Instead, the national commitment to free speech, he said, requires protection of "even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate." [...]

Chief Justice Roberts used sweeping language culled from the First Amendment canon of foundational decisions in setting out the central place free speech plays in the constitutional structure. "Debate on public issues should be robust, uninhibited and wide-open," he wrote, because "speech on public issues occupies the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values."

The case stemmed from a lawsuit filed by Albert Snyder, whose son, Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew A. Snyder, died in Iraq. The monsters who make up the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan. -- to my mind, America's most disgusting people -- protested at the Snyder funeral. The father sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress and received a hefty sum from a jury.

Today's ruling undoes that award. The Westboro Baptist Church's members can't threaten anyone, block access to the funeral, or disrupt the services, but as far as the eight-member majority of the Supreme Court is concerned, they can stand at a distance waving loathsome signs and chanting disgusting slogans.

The lone dissent came from Justice Samuel Alito, who argued unpersuasively that our civil liberties are not "a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case."

I suspect all decent people are repulsed by this so-called church, but I have no doubt that the Supreme Court made the right call today.

As Adam Serwer noted this morning, "It's one of those rulings that reminds you that at least on some very basic understandings of what 'free speech,' means, both conservative and moderate jurists on the court are on the same page: You don't forfeit your First Amendment rights just by being an asshole."

COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE IRS CUTS CONTRADICT DEFICIT GOALS.... For a party that claims to be obsessed with deficit reduction, and tackling a debt they perceive as threatening the fabric of civilization, congressional Republicans don't seem to care for credible ideas that actually reduce the deficit.

This comes up all the time. Democrats have presented a wide variety of policy ideas -- health care reform, cap and trade, the DREAM Act, Clinton-era tax rates for the wealthy, an end to pointless subsidies to the oil industry -- each of which would reduce the deficit. And in each case, Republicans balk.

But each of those proposals involves some kind of shift in the status quo. With that in mind, This GOP move is simply ridiculous.

Every dollar that the Internal Revenue Service spends on audits, liens and property seizures from tax cheats brings in more than $10, a rate of return so good that the Obama administration wants to boost the agency's budget.

But House Republicans, wary of the too-heavy hand of government, differ. They voted to cut the IRS budget by $600 million this year and want bigger cuts in 2012.

The IRS has dramatically increased its pursuit of tax cheats in the past decade. Audits are up, property liens are up, and asset seizures are way up. President Obama and Democrats in Congress see stepped-up enforcement as a good way to narrow the nation's budget deficit without raising taxes or cutting popular programs.

"It makes little sense to cut the agency that collects revenue," said Rep. Jose E. Serrano (N.Y.), the top Democrat on the House subcommittee that oversees the IRS budget.

Sure, the IRS is unpopular. And sure, Republicans have horror stories of IRS abuse, some of which may even have happened in reality.

But if GOP officials believe there have been abuses, they should identify those responsible, and approve rules to prevent these mistakes from happening again. Slashing the IRS budget, though, only does one thing: make it harder to collect revenue.

In other words, the Republican plan to reduce the deficit is almost certain to increase the deficit.

This happens all the time, and it's precisely why Republican claims about fiscal irresponsibility are such a weak joke. If the GOP were sincere about deficit reduction, they'd jump at any measure that would help bring the budget closer to balance. Instead, the party's response is effectively, "If it doesn't hurt working families, we're not interested."

FOX NEWS SUSPENDS GINGRICH, SANTORUM.... One of the unfortunate truths of the political landscape is that the Republicans' cable news network currently keeps several likely Republican presidential candidates on the payroll.

As of this afternoon, at least for two White House hopefuls, that's no longer the case.

The Fox News Channel said Wednesday that it had suspended the contracts of two employees, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, who are considering running for president.

Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Santorum are both Fox News contributors. By suspending the two men, Fox appears to be addressing long-standing questions about how to handle pundits who are contemplating political bids. [...]

Bret Baier, the network's political anchor, came on Fox News just before noon on Wednesday to announce the decision to suspend Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Santorum.

"The suspension is effective for 60 days," Mr. Baier said. "Then on May 1, their contracts will be terminated unless they notify Fox that they are not running for president."

The concern has long been that candidates who collected paychecks from Fox News would be receiving literal in-kind contributions, rather than the routine de facto in-kind contributions the network provides party officials every day. By suspending Gingrich and Santorum, Fox News is resolving at least part of the problem.

Of course, the next question is why Fox News limited the announcement to the disgraced former House Speaker and the defeated former senator. One wonders if the network has been led to believe that such a move is unnecessary for Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, and John Bolton -- all of whom have expressed interest in the 2012 race, and all of whom receive checks from Fox News.

More likely, though, it's just a matter of timing. Gingrich and Santorum appear likely to launch campaigns sooner rather than later, prompting today's move, while the network will probably make identical moves in the future, should Palin, Huckabee, and/or Bolton take steps in that direction.

BERNANKE GETS SPECIFIC ON GOP-FORCED JOB LOSSES.... Congressional Republicans seemed quite pleased with themselves yesterday after Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke commented on the GOP's spending-cut plan. As Bernanke sees it, economic projections showing 700,000 job losses resulting from the Republican proposal were overstated.

GOP officials were delighted. They shouldn't have been.

Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke said Wednesday that House GOP's 2011 spending plan would likely cost "a couple hundred thousand jobs," a number he called "not trivial."

Bernanke's testimony Wednesday was more specific than what he offered Tuesday before a Senate committee, in which he said he couldn't put a number on the number of jobs the GOP spending package would eliminate.

His comments buttress House Democrats' warnings that the bill will put people out of work.

Ya think?

Look, I realize that different economists have come up with different numbers. Bernanke believes the Republican plan would cost the nation a couple hundred thousand jobs; Moody's Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi puts the number at 700,000 job losses; the Economic Policy Institute projects job losses of just over 800,000; and data from the Center for American Progress found the proposal would force roughly 975,000 Americans from their jobs. Goldman Sachs didn't offer specific numbers on job losses, but it believes the GOP plan would cost us up to 2% of GDP, pushing the U.S. economy closer to a recession.

They obviously can't all be right. But there's one thing all of the projections have in common: they all show the Republican plan making American unemployment much worse.

The question Congress has to ask itself is why on earth anyone would push a proposal that would cost the United States hundreds of thousands of jobs right now.

The question the media has to ask itself is why this, and not the size of proposed spending cuts, isn't at the heart of the debate. If there's an argument over which of these numbers is the most accurate, fine, let's have the argument. But at this point, we haven't even reached a he-said/she-said dynamic ("Democrats said the GOP plan would make unemployment worse; Republicans said, 'So be it.'") If Republicans have competing projections, let's see them.

For a month, the debate has been limited to who wants to cut what, and consequences have been left out of the conversation. If even Bernanke -- a Republican, no less -- sees what Democrats see, isn't it time for a shift in the debate?

MORE MISPLACED WHINING.... I don't generally consider White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley as a go-to guy for pushback against unfair criticism, which made this all the more encouraging.

A top aide to President Barack Obama pushed back hard on Tuesday against an accusation that the president was "anti-business," bluntly calling out Obama's critic by name.

"I was amazed to see the critical comments George Buckley, chief executive and chairman of 3M, made in the Financial Times this week, when he dubbed the president as 'anti-business'," Obama chief of staff William Daley wrote on the London-based newspaper's website.

Daley, the former JP Morgan Chase executive brought into the White House in January to make it more business-friendly, said the president was committed to boosting the U.S. economy and making the country more competitive.

3M's Buckley apparently went on quite a little tirade, condemning President Obama for having "Robin-Hood-esque" instincts, and arguing -- in all seriousness -- that the administration's policies are so misguided, manufacturing may start moving to Canada or Mexico.

(Buckley might have missed the latest data, showing U.S. manufacturing activity reaching its highest levels in seven years.)

Honestly, I'm amazed sometimes at the whining we see from some in the corporate world. After two years of these "Robin-Hood-esque" efforts, corporate profits have soared, the private sector is where nearly all of the new jobs are being created, and all of the major investment indexes are way up. The president is reaching out to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, he's pushing trade deals that the business community wants to see, and he's even raised the prospect of reforming the corporate tax code. Hell, Daley himself was brought in from the corprorate world.

If the White House is driving an "anti-business" agenda, officials aren't executing this nefarious scheme very well.

"We are seeing positive signs as a result of these efforts. Two years ago our economy was in freefall. Today, it is growing," Daley said yesterday. "There is plenty of work to do. But the stakes are too high to give credence to the kind of comments Mr. Buckley made this week, or to believe those who would question Mr. Obama's commitment to our economic recovery."

Good for Daley. Here's hoping Buckley and his buddies noticed.