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

* Japan: "Amid widening alarm in the United States and elsewhere about Japan's nuclear crisis, military fire trucks began spraying cooling water on spent fuel rods at the country's stricken nuclear power station late Thursday after earlier efforts to cool the rods failed, Japanese officials said. The United States' top nuclear official followed up his bleak appraisal of the grave situation at the plant the day before with a caution that it would 'take some time, possibly weeks,' to resolve."

* President Obama offered an update this afternoon: "The White House sought Thursday to show it is on top of the Japanese nuclear crisis with a Rose Garden statement and a presidential-ordered review to ensure nothing like the Fukushima Daiichi disaster happens here at home." He also urged an evacuation for Americans living within 50 miles of the facility.

* Libya: "Colonel Muammar el-Qaddafi warned Benghazi residents on Thursday that an attack was imminent, as the United Nations Security Council seemed headed for a vote Thursday on a resolution authorizing not just a no-flight zone but additional steps to halt the movement of Colonel Qaddafi's forces."

* The Senate approved the House-passed budget extension this afternoon, with an 87-to-13 vote. It will soon receive the president's signature, and impose a new, April 8 deadline.

* Getting better: "The number of people who filed applications for jobless benefits fell by 16,000 last week to 385,000, the Labor Department said Thursday."

* Of the funds lent to banks through TARP, 99% of the money has been paid back. At the time, it was widely assumed we'd never see that money again.

* James O'Keefe thought he had another big scoop today. As it turns out, his "story" was not only dull, it was common knowledge months ago. (The media really needs to stop taking this guy seriously.)

* Grouping newspaper columnists together by ideology strikes me as a misguided and counter-productive idea.

* I admit I was wrong. I'd hoped that when the Washington Post hired Jennifer Rubin, she'd bring some worthwhile insights from a conservative perspective. That's clearly not happening.

* Those who thought applying to law school would be a great idea are starting to think otherwise.

* In an interesting video, which you'll probably be seeing again, Ronald Reagan proclaimed, "Where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost!" It's a reminder of how little Reagan-lovers have in common with Reagan, and if Democrats today said the same thing Reagan said 30 years ago, Tea Partiers would condemn the sentiments as radical liberalism.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

HOUSE GOP CUTS OFF NPR.... Following an emergency session -- an emergency session -- of the House Rules Committee, the House met today to tackle a pressing matter of great national importance to the new Republican majority. Was it about creating jobs? No, in fact the proposal on the floor would lead to layoffs of roughly 9,000 American workers.

The topic today was NPR.

The House voted on Thursday to cut off funding for National Public Radio, with Democrats and Republicans fiercely divided over both the content of the bill and the manner in which it was brought to the floor.

Under the measure, sponsored by Representative Doug Lamborn, a Republican from Colorado, stations could not buy programming from NPR or any other source using the $22 million the stations receive from the Treasury for that purpose. Local NPR stations would be able to use federal funds for operating expenses, but not content.

Here's the final roll call. Note that zero Democrats went along with this little gambit, and seven House Republicans broke party ranks and voted with Dems. Given the large Republican advantage, the bill passed 228 to 192, but it's unlikely to get much consideration in the Senate.

That's kind of how the House works -- scramble to pass a bill that makes the base happy, knowing full well it won't go anywhere, wasting the entire institution's time for the purposes of a vanity project.

Also note, the House Republican leadership promised the nation that all legislation would be publicly available for 72 hours before it could come up for a vote. The bill to defund NPR was posted just 48 hours ago, meaning that today's vote would break the House GOP's own self-imposed rule.

When pressed for an explanation, Republican officials said their own 72-hour rule wasn't meant to be taken literally.

Seriously, that's what they said.

And if that weren't quite amusing enough, take two minutes to watch Rep. Anthony Weiner's (D-N.Y.) floor remarks. You'll be glad you did.

DEMINT'S OFFICE RUINS ROMNEY'S DAY.... Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), arguably the Senate's most right-wing member, endorsed Mitt Romney's presidential campaign in 2008. I guess that's not going to happen again.

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) "would never consider" endorsing Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney for president again in 2012 unless Romney repudiates the health reforms he sought as governor, a source close to DeMint said Thursday.

A source close to the conservative icon emphasized that, despite comments to The Hill indicating that Romney shouldn't shoulder all the political blame for the Massachusetts healthcare plan, DeMint wouldn't endorse Romney again unless Romney were to admit the plan was mistaken.

"It's obvious Jim was just trying to be nice to the guy he backed over McCain, as many conservatives did in 2008," said the source. "But he would never consider backing Romney again unless he admits that his Massachusetts health care plan was a colossal mistake."

There's a lot of this going around. Mike Huckabee wants Romney to apologize for his only major policy accomplishment; Rudy Giuliani is urging him to reverse course; Karl Rove wants Romney to admit he was wrong; and prominent conservative activists throughout the GOP base are demanding that he "acknowledge he made a mistake."

DeMint, however, is of particular interest. In 2008, the South Carolinian was largely unknown. In 2011, he's a far-right kingmaker with a political operation so large, it may rival the NRSC's next year. DeMint's presidential endorsement will be one of the most widely-sought in the entire party next year.

In fairness to Romney, if DeMint really is waiting for the former governor to "admit" his health care policy was a "colossal mistake," it makes DeMint look worse than Romney. After all, Romney's health care policy was already complete and in place when DeMint endorsed his presidential campaign. In the years since, the policy has worked extremely well. If it was a "colossal mistake," why didn't DeMint notice three years ago? Did DeMint not look into this before making his endorsement?

We know the truth -- DeMint doesn't like "RomneyCare" because of its striking similarities to the Affordable Care Act -- but that doesn't make it any less foolish.

For the record, there's simply no way for Romney to do as the far-right asks. It's simply too late.

It was Romney's signature accomplishment during his one term as governor -- his only experience in public office. It demonstrated his ability to tackle major policy challenges and work with members of both parties to pass a sensible, mainstream legislative milestone. It was the sort of thing a governor could build a presidential campaign around.

Just a few weeks ago, Romney's spokesperson said, "Mitt Romney is proud of what he accomplished for Massachusetts in getting everyone covered."

Of course he is, and he should be, but reality has surprisingly little value in GOP politics in the 21st century.

Romney has flip-flopped on practically every issue imaginable, but the one position he has to stick to is the one Republicans find wholly unacceptable.

Update: Greg Sargent turns up a gem, noting that DeMint praised Romney's record on health care when he endorsed the governor in '08. Indeed, as far as DeMint was concerned at the time, the Massachusetts law was based on "good conservative ideas."

In 2008, this made perfect sense -- remember, the indidivual mandate, which now causes hysterical breakdowns in GOP circles was a Republican idea -- and wasn't the least bit controversial. In 2011, it's apparently a different story.

THE VOICE OF REASON.... Once in a while, President Obama receives support from unlikely sources.

In a Fox Business Network interview, Former Vice President Dan Quayle defended President Obama from Republican criticism that he plays too much golf when there are so many troubles around the world.

Said Quayle: "I'm glad he's out playing golf. I happen to be a golfer. I think presidents deserve down time. And believe me, he is in constant communication with what's going on... I mean, what do you want him to do, stay in his house and be on the phone with the ambassador to Japan all the time?"

Ponder this little development for a moment: Dan Quayle has become the voice of reason in the Republican Party.

PENCE'S LITTLE POWER PLAY.... We're accustomed to congressional Republicans being pretty united on almost everything, but some fissures are starting to become apparent.

This week, for example, Rep. Michael Grimm (R-N.Y.) complained about "the extreme wing" of the Republican Party, which would prefer a government shutdown to a bipartisan compromise. He wasn't the only one questioning his own party's extremists and their budget tactics.

In an interesting move, Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) argued this morning that the Republican leadership will "denounce" those who criticize the right-wing's efforts.

"Look, I have no doubt that Speaker John Boehner and Republican Leader Eric Cantor and the rest of our leadership will privately, and if needs be, publicly denounce any effort to essentially bad mouth the intentions of Republicans that are simply fighting for fiscal responsibility," Pence said on the Hugh Hewitt radio show.

Pence's comment is essentially a power play to force GOP leadership into giving political cover to House conservatives, especially the Tea Party freshmen, who have clashed with establishment Republican lawmakers.

This offers the potential for entertainment. Remember, Boehner and House GOP leaders have a decision to make when it comes to how best to approach the budget negotiations -- side with the radicals in their caucus, who wouldn't even go along with a temporary extension shaped by the leaders of their own party, or reach a compromise that includes House Dems.

Pence, one of the highest-profile members of the right-wing contingent, seems to be trying to flex a little muscle here, saying that Boehner and Cantor "will ... denounce" those who dare to criticize the hard-liners pushing for a shutdown.

And if they don't, presumably Pence will feel inclined to denounce them.

Mike Pence recently ruled out a presidential campaign, but is there any chance he wants to be Speaker?

HERE'S HOPING POTUS IS 'A NANCY PELOSI DEMOCRAT'.... Republican Rep. Paul Ryan, the far-right chairman of the House Budget Committee, apparently has a new rhetorical line: "President Obama is going to have to decide. Is he an Erskine Bowles Democrat or a Nancy Pelosi Democrat?"

It's an interesting formulation. Bowles, of course, is the "centrist" Democrat who helped lead the Bowles-Simpson deficit-reduction commission, while Pelosi is the progressive former Speaker. Ryan would obviously prefer the White House emulate the moderate from North Carolina, not the liberal from San Francisco.

But as is often the case, Ryan's perspective is shaped by flawed assumptions. While the GOP budget chief assumes centrists are more committed to fiscal responsibility than liberals, Jonathan Cohn reminds us how mistaken this is.

It was Pelosi and liberal Democrats who crusaded for the Affordable Care Act, a law that included enough new revenue and entitlement cuts to offset the program's expense and actually reduce the deficit. It was Pelosi and the liberal Democrats who have protested extension of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, without which the short- and medium-term budget forecasts would be far less scary.

And the centrists? I'm not familiar enough with Bowles' record specifically to comment on him. But, as a group, centrist Democrats are the ones pushing to extend all of the Bush tax cuts. They're also the ones who scream the loudest about reforms within the Affordable Care Act that would reduce spending over the long term by taking money away from provider groups.

That's true, and the progressive record on pursuing a fiscally responsible agenda is too often overlooked. For all the ambitious lawmaking Pelosi oversaw in 2009 and 2010, let's not forget that the big-ticket items -- health care, Wall Street, student loans, etc. -- were all paid for and didn't add a dime to the debt. On the contrary, they made the debt smaller, not bigger.

Indeed, let's also not forget that Nancy Pelosi Democrats have also presented a wide variety of other policy ideas -- including cap-and-trade and the DREAM Act -- that would reduce, not increase, the deficit. If the assumption is that centrist Dems, not liberals, are the ones who care about the deficit, that ignores all of the available evidence.

And while Cohn's entirely right, I'd point to two related angles here. The first is that Ryan wants President Obama to be "an Erskine Bowles Democrat," but when it came time to vote on Erskine Bowles' deficit reduction plan, Paul Ryan said no. This is pretty important -- Ryan is suggesting he'd be more inclined to negotiate with a White House more aligned with Bowles, but when given a chance, Ryan said Bowles wasn't good enough.

The second is that it continues to amuse me to hear Republicans talk about fiscal responsibility at all. It was Ryan's GOP colleagues -- not Democrats -- who voted for the Bush tax cuts, and added the costs to the national debt; voted to finance the war in Afghanistan by adding the costs to the national debt; voted to put the costs of the war in Iraq onto the national debt; supported a massive expansion of the government's role in health care, Medicare Part D, and voted to pile all of its costs right onto the national debt; and then backed the financial industry bailout, and added the bill to the national debt.

Ryan wants to know if Obama will be a centrist Dem or a liberal Dem on the budget. My response is, both wings of the Democratic Party have more credibility than the GOP.

As Paul Krugman recently explained, "Democrats aren't fiscal saints. But we have one party that has been generally responsible, and tries to pay for what it wants, and another party that consistently, deliberately, takes actions to increase deficits in the long term. Saying this may be shrill; but not saying it is being deceptive."

Postscript: On a related note, Bowles doesn't really know what he's talking about anyway.

MANUFACTURED NONSENSE, PART MCCXVII.... In the absence of real White House controversies and scandals, we apparently have to put up with routine "outrages" over manufactured nonsense. It's getting pretty annoying.

How many times have conservatives pretended to be incensed over some meaningless flap? Remember the not-so-scandalous Department of Homeland Security report about potentially violent extremists, which prompted some conservatives to call for Janet Napolitano's resignation? Or how about the apoplexy over President Obama encouraging kids to do well in school? Remember the comparisons to Watergate when the White House offered a congressman a job?

This week, we're apparently stuck watching Republicans hyperventilate because the president appeared on ESPN for nine minutes to fill out an NCAA tournament bracket.

Limbaugh was agitated about this on Tuesday, followed by RNC Chairman Reince Priebus whining soon after. Fox News spent much of Wednesday obsessing over this, and it even came up during the White House press briefing yesterday, with a reporter asking -- in between questions about a nuclear crisis in Japan -- whether the president's ESPN appearance was "entirely appropriate" or not.

This morning, disgraced former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, not wanting to get left out, complained that he thinks it's "sad" for the president to "hide from his job behind NCAA picks." I haven't the foggiest idea what that's even supposed to mean.

What's especially discouraging, though, is when those who ought to know better fall for the nonsense. Take this item, for example, from NBC's First Read.

Republicans had a field day yesterday with the president's appearance on ESPN, laying out his NCAA bracket and then attending a DNC event for big-money fundraisers at a Washington hotel last night at a time when Japan is in a nuclear crisis and the situation in Libya remains dire....

The president is obviously engaged on the crises, taking an 11:00 pm ET phone call with prime minister of Japan and doing work behind the scenes. The White House is taking solace in the fact that "Real America" isn't paying much attention to these snipes. But they should be aware that perception could become reality for swing voters, especially if some of this starts landing in late-night monologues; the last few days haven't been stellar ones for those in charge of Obama's presidential image.

I'd hoped those who help shape the conventional wisdom would say, "Why are Republicans investing so much in a pointless attack?" rather than, "Obama's presidential image suffers when he appears on ESPN for nine minutes."

Our discourse has to be smarter than this. Republicans may have had "a field day" pretending to care about trivia, but there's no reason for the rest of us to pretend their manufactured outrage is legit. It's not.

I'm all for watching the president like a hawk, and having opposition parties do what opposition parties are supposed to do -- cutting the White House no slack at all. But can the political world at least make distinctions between transparently silly attacks and real news?

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:

* In Nevada, failed Senate candidate Sharron Angle (R) announced yesterday that she's running for the U.S. House, in a seat being left vacant by Dean Heller (R) who's running for the Senate. Angle, one of 2010's more ridiculous and borderline-dangerous personalities, will face a crowded GOP primary field, which will include Lt. Gov. Brian Krolicki among others.

* President Obama hasn't literally said he's running for a second term, but he's obviously begun fundraising like someone who'll obviously be a candidate.

* A couple of county-level officials with the Democratic Party in Michigan are facing felony counts after trying to put bogus Tea Party candidates on the ballot to draw votes away from Republicans. Among other things, the duo have been charged with perjury and forgery.

* Rick Santorum isn't the only Republican presidential candidate with a "Google problem." Using the search engine to look up information about Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour turns up all kinds of materials related to his alleged racism.

* With Democrats increasingly confident that DNC Chairman Tim Kaine will run for the Senate in Virginia next year, attention now turns to his possible replacement at Democratic National Committee HQ. The leading contender appears to be former Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland.

* In Missouri, a new survey from Public Policy Polling shows Sarah Steelman as the early frontrunner in the GOP Senate primary, though Rep. Todd Akin would be a strong contender if he runs. The winner will face Sen. Claire McCaskill (D).

* In New Mexico, home to an open U.S. Senate race next year, there will be several Democrats vying for the party's nod, but the early favorite appears to be Rep. Martin Heinrich. Former Lt. Gov. Diane Denish is a close second.

* And Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton effectively ruled out holding government office after 2012, telling CNN she doesn't want to serve in a different cabinet role or run for national office again.

GINGRICH'S ANTI-GAY GENEROSITY.... The American Family Association, a leading anti-gay hate group, was one of the driving forces behind a campaign to remove Iowa Supreme Court justices who ruled in support of marriage equality last year. At the time, the AFA boasted quite a bit about all the money they were receiving to "defend traditional marriage."

What we didn't know at the time was that a big chunk of that money was coming from one man who doesn't seem to appreciate "traditional marriage" much at all.

Last year, former Speaker Newt Gingrich offered his vocal support for the ultimately successful campaign to oust three of the nine Iowa Supreme Court justices who had unanimously ruled in favor of marriage equality. As Gingrich courts social conservatives while exploring a possible presidential bid, new disclosures from his camp indicate that he and his associates bankrolled more than one-third of the $850,000 campaign to remove the Iowa justices.

ThinkProgress previously reported on $200,000 that Gingrich funneled from an anonymous donor to the anti-marriage equality group Iowa for Freedom, which was also being funded by AFA Action, the political arm of the virulently anti-gay American Family Association. The Associated Press revealed yesterday that one of the cogs in Gingrich's vast network of business enterprises and front groups, ReAL Action, provided $125,000 to AFA Action. The Des Moines Register reported this morning that ReAL Action also contributed $25,000 to yet another Iowa anti-LGBT group, the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition.

Gingrich did all of this "quietly." If I had multiple wives and mistresses, including two divorces under cruel and ugly circumstances, I might want to be "quiet" about this, too.

Regardless, the fact that the disgraced former House Speaker went to all of this trouble suggests (a) Gingrich really is running for president, and this won't be another false start, and (b) he intends to run as a favorite candidate for the religious right, the irony of that notwithstanding.

PAWLENTY, BARBOUR SPLIT OVER DEFENSE SPENDING.... Ask the American mainstream which parts of the budget should get cut, and more often than not, one of the more common responses is the Pentagon budget. But in Republicans politics, it's not nearly this simple.

There's a contingent within the GOP that's so desperate to cut federal spending, they're willing to put defense on the table. But in the larger context, it's a fairly small contingent -- most of the Republican Party, alleged deficit-reduction goals notwithstanding, consider funding for the military off-limits. You'll notice, for example, that the House GOP is unwavering in its drive to slash spending, but only from non-defense, domestic discretionary funds.

As it turns out, this might be one of the few areas of division when it comes to the 2012 Republican presidential field, which necessarily makes it an issue worth watching.

Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour (R) surprised some folks this week while campaigning in Iowa, arguing that defense cuts make sense. "Anybody who says you can't save money at the Pentagon has never been to the Pentagon," Barbour said. "We can save money on defense and if we Republicans don't propose saving money on defense, we'll have no credibility on anything else."

And sure enough, one of his top rivals, campaigning in South Carolina, pounced.

A day after Haley Barbour called for cuts in defense spending, Tim Pawlenty went the other way.

"I don't think we should be talking about cutting the Pentagon's budget," the former Minnesota governor told POLITICO after a speech at the Aiken Republican Club here. "I think we should be talking about looking for those areas where we might some efficiencies or redeploying money spent on defense to higher-priority areas within defense. In other words keep the defense budget intact, but if we find some savings, some efficiencies, some ways to redeploy money we should do that."

We're spending $700 billion a year on defense, nearly as much as every other country on the planet combined. Pawlenty wants to make sure that total "continues to grow," though he's willing to consider moving money around within the Pentagon budget. How responsible of him.

It's too soon to say whether Barbour will stick to this line, and how much pushback he'll receive. As a rule, vowing to cut defense spending isn't a winning strategy for a Republican presidential hopeful, and it's easy to already imagine the ads about those who would dare "cut funding for our military during a time of war and international terrorist threats."

But the Mississippi governor deserves credit for taking the risk, and I'll look forward to the reactions from the GOP base that claims to put spending cuts at the top of their to-do list.

REALITY-SHOW STAR PLAYS AN ELABORATE PRACTICAL JOKE ON POLITICAL WORLD.... About a month ago, Jon Chait pondered whether Donald Trump's alleged interest in a presidential campaign is some kind of joke. Suggesting the burgeoning campaign from the reality-show star might be a "parody," Jon asked, "Is Donald Trump putting us on?"

On "Good Morning America" earlier, we appear to have received an answer to that question.

Speaking about the president, Trump --- in line with "birthers" who question the president's citizenship -- said he, too, had his doubts that Obama was born in the U.S.

"Everybody that even gives a hint of being a birther ... even a little bit of a hint, like, gee, you know, maybe, just maybe this much of a chance, they label them as an idiot. Let me tell you, I'm a really smart guy," he said.

He explained the source of his doubt: "He grew up and nobody knew him. You know? When you interview people, if ever I got the nomination, if I ever decide to run, you may go back and interview people from my kindergarten. They'll remember me. Nobody ever comes forward. Nobody knows who he is until later in his life. It's very strange. The whole thing is very strange," he added.

He went on to criticize House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) for crying too much; boasted, "I'm very rich"; described the United States as "weak"; and said of U.S. policy towards Russia, "Give me an admiral and a couple of ships and [I'll] wipe them out of the sea so fast. Think of it."*

No one is quite this stupid unless they're trying to be stupid.

In other words, "Is Donald Trump putting us on?" Yeah, I'm pretty sure he is.

* Correction: He was apparently referring to Somali pirates, not Russia, when talking about "wiping them out of the sea." I misread the transcript from ABC and regret the error. Nevertheless, the larger point about Trump's ridiculousness stands.

WHEN COMPETING CONSERVATIVE PRIORITIES COLLIDE.... The House GOP effort to redefine rape generated the bulk of the attention about the bill, but the rest of the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortions Act" is still a mess.

Of particular interest today, is the fact that the Republican legislation appears to (cue scary music) raise taxes.

Today, the House Ways and Means Committee held a hearing on H.R.3, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortions Act, which would "prevent women from using itemized medical deductions, certain tax-advantaged health care accounts or tax credits included in last year's health care law to pay for abortions or for health insurance plans that cover abortion." Doing so would force both women and small businesses that provide health insurance that covers abortion to pay more in taxes than they would otherwise.

As Bloomberg News's Richard Rubin points out, under "common Republican definitions," this can be "viewed as a tax increase -- which is anathema to the House majority." Even economic conservative Grover Norquist was "concerned" that the policy, "however well-intentioned or virtuous," would "mask a net tax increase."

And voting for a tax increase simply isn't allowed.

Or at least, isn't supposed to be. At the same time, though, Republicans are supposed to make it as difficult as possible for American women to exercise their reproductive rights, regardless of the fiscal implications.

What's a far-right party to do?

"H.R. 3 takes the unprecedented step of manipulating the federal tax code to push an extreme anti-choice agenda, which is why the House's tax-writing committee is granting it a hearing," said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. "This bill imposes tax penalties on small businesses and many individuals who purchase private insurance plans that cover abortion care. This begs the question - what incentive does a private-insurance company have to provide coverage for this safe and legal procedure if their customers are going to suffer a tax hike? Since 87 percent of private-insurance plans currently cover abortion care, the effects of H.R.3 would be devastating."

MAYBE WE'RE SUPPOSED TO PRAY FOR A GOP JOBS PLAN.... House Republicans sure find the strangest things to spend time on.

The House Judiciary Committee will consider a resolution Thursday to reaffirm "In God We Trust" as the national motto.

Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.) sponsored the resolution, which also encourages displaying the phrase in public buildings, schools, and other government institutions. [...]

Forbes sponsored the same resolution last Congress, but it never made it out of the Judiciary Committee.

Yes, but it's a whole new Congress now, isn't it?

Keep in mind, the GOP-led House Judiciary Committee will be spending time on this today, but there's no real point to any of this. "In God We Trust" is already the motto. In effect, the resolution is largely intended to say, "Just in case anyone forgot, the national motto is still the national motto."

What's more, the resolution's conservative backers don't even have their history right. The measure states as fact that "In God We Trust" has been an integral part of United States society since its founding." That's clearly wrong. The phrase makes no appearances in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, or any of the Founding Fathers' writings. Early American leaders chose "E pluribus unum" as the motto on the Great Seal of the United States in 1782, and this was the country's unofficial motto for nearly two centuries. That changed in 1956 when, as some kind of symbolic Cold War gesture, Congress chose "In God We Trust" as the official national motto. But given that the nation's "founding" pre-dates 1956, the claim isn't at all true.

But putting all of that aside, why in the world would GOP officials -- the ones who vowed to focus like a laser on the economy -- bother with this? For months, the new House Republican majority has wasted time on health care bills they know they can't pass, abortion bills they know they can't pass, climate bills they know they can't pass, and budget bills they know they can't pass. They've invested considerable time and energy on defending the Defense of Marriage Act, recklessly accusing Muslim Americans of disloyalty, going after NPR, and pushing culture-war bills related to vouchers, English as the "official" language, and now "In God We Trust."

In the meantime, we're still waiting for that elusive Republican jobs plan to come out of hiding. They've been at this now for 10 weeks; they're bound to take unemployment seriously one of these days, right?

FIRST THE EFFORT, THEN THE PAYOFF.... Republican officials in Wisconsin last week completed an odious task, approving a union-busting proposal from Gov. Scott Walker (R) that strips most state workers of their collective bargaining rights.

Last night, they received a reward of sorts.

Wisconsin Republican state Senators, fresh from passing draconian anti-labor and privatization legislation, jetted into Washington, D.C., Wednesday night to collect tens of thousands of dollars in contributions from the one constituency group that approves of what Governor Scott Walker and his GOP allies are doing: corporate lobbyists. But if Wisconsin Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald and Joint Finance Committee co-chair Alberta Darling thought they could get away from the mounting campaign to remove Republican state senators and shift control of the chamber to the Democrats -- creating a check and balance on Walker -- they were mistaken.

Lobbyists paid as much as $5,000 each to host the fundraiser for the Wisconsin Republicans, held at offices of one of DC's most powerful lobbying firms.

But the crowd outside the event was significantly larger than the crowd inside. Estimates vary, but by some counts as many as 1,000 protestors took to the streets of Washington to protest the fundraiser, and even worked their way to the lobby of the building where the event was held.

The progressive activism inspired by Wisconsin Republicans is a sight to behold.

The president of the corporate lobbying firm, BGR Group, said the fundraiser wasn't necessarily a payoff to the GOP state officials for a job well done, because the event had been in the works for months.

I have no evidence to the contrary, but at face value, that seems hard to believe. A powerful DC lobbying firm has been working on a fundraiser for members of the Wisconsin state legislature for months? It's possible, of course, but that'd be quite a coincidence. Will GOP lawmakers from every other state also benefit from the lobbyists' largess?

In either case, it appears Wisconsin Republicans are going to need the money. Both state parties are trying to mount recall efforts, but as the Huffington Post reported yesterday, "Both national and Wisconsin-based Republican operatives tell the Huffington Post the party is being dramatically outworked and out-organized by Democrats in the recall campaigns being launched against state Senators."

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

* Bad to worse in Japan: "The chairman of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission gave a significantly bleaker appraisal of the threat posed by Japan's nuclear crisis than the Japanese government, saying on Wednesday that the damage at one crippled reactor was much more serious than Japanese officials had acknowledged and advising to Americans to evacuate a wider area around the plant than the perimeter established by Japan."

* Libya: "The New York Times said Wednesday that four of its journalists reporting on the conflict in Libya were missing." The fear is they were swept up by Libyan government forces.

* Gadhafi's son boasts: "The Libyan army told people in Benghazi to lay down their arms on Wednesday as its troops advanced closer to the rebel stronghold for what could be the decisive battle in the uprising against Moammar Gadhafi. Gadhafi's son Saif al-Islam, speaking to French-based TV channel Euronews, said his troops were near Benghazi and 'everything will be over in 48 hours.'"

* CIA contractor freed in Pakistan: "A CIA security contractor who fatally shot two Pakistani men in January was released Wednesday after relatives of the victims received 'blood money' as compensation and agreed to pardon him, U.S. officials said."

* After successfully attacking collective-bargaining rights, Wisconsin Republicans will be in D.C. tonight for a lucrative fundraiser hosted by corporate lobbyists.

* House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) claims to love transparency and disclosure. Why, then, did he call a witness for testimony without disclosing the witness' generous campaign contributions to Issa?

* Oh good, the right is still trying to pretend the "terror baby" menace is a real problem.

* What kind of person mocks Japanese quake refugees? Look no further than Rush Limbaugh.

* Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R) wants to open up state parks for oil and gas exploration, while slashing funding for programs that help low birth-weight babies.

* It's a long shot under the circumstances, but plenty of congressional Dems are serious about repealing the Defense of Marriage Act.

* If you've heard Wisconsin Republicans talking about a bus driver who makes $160,000 a year, it's worth learning the truth.

* Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.) thinks NPR does bad journalism, but James O'Keefe does good journalism.

* Student debt is a bigger problem than we realized.

* And finally, Republican presidential hopeful Herman Cain wants us to know, "It's not Planned Parenthood. No, it's planned genocide. You can quote me on that." He's quite a charmer.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.