President Obama smiles and gestures as he speaks about the 'fiscal cliff' Monday in the South Court Auditorium at the White House in Washington. (Carolyn Kaster/AP)

Dancing troupe of middle-class taxpayers: Obama's 'fiscal cliff' trump card?

By Linda Feldmann, Staff writer / 12.31.12

The campaign is over, but when President Obama stepped on stage Monday to make a statement on fiscal cliff negotiations, it felt more like a pep rally than a sober policy update on an issue of global import.

The White House had packed the room, the South Court Auditorium in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, with some 200 “middle-class taxpayers” – and rather rambunctious ones, at that. A handful stood behind Mr. Obama, the rest filled the auditorium’s seats.

It was a veritable security blanket of middle-class taxpayers, there as a visual show of force for the president as he seeks to reach a deal with the Republicans to avert the tax hikes and deep spending cuts that automatically go into effect at midnight Monday. One said she was invited after she had “answered some questions” on the White House’s My2K web page – named for the $2,000 that each middle-class household would save by not having its taxes go up.

Clearly, this event had been days in the making, and it was reminiscent of other middle-class focused events and travels Obama has had since he won reelection Nov. 6.  

“Thank you for having us!” one attendee shouted after Obama welcomed the group.

The middle-class taxpayers cheered and stood when the president took the stage, called out to him as he spoke, and gave him another standing ovation when he finished. The event was mildly newsworthy: The president announced that a deal was “within sight, but it’s not done.”

“So as of this point, it looks like I'm going to be spending New Year's here in DC,” he said. “You all are going to be hanging out in DC, too.”

At that point, someone in the crowd invited the president over for New Year’s Eve.
 
“I can come to your house? Is that what you said?” Obama said. “I don't want to spoil the party.”

“You are the party!” the attendee shouted back, to laughter from the crowd.

Obama then sought to turn the event back to its central purpose: to focus on the middle class and how a return to Clinton-era tax rates for all but the wealthiest 2 percent would be painful.
 
“The people who are with me here today, the people who are watching at home, they need our leaders in Congress to succeed,” Obama said.

Later in the afternoon, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell took to the Senate floor and echoed Obama’s statement: “We are very, very close,” he said. But soon after, the news broke that the House would not vote on New Year’s Eve, meaning the United States will go over the edge of the cliff, at least temporarily. The hope, as of this writing, was that House and Senate leaders could gather enough votes to pass a deal early in 2013, and have it go into effect retroactively to Jan. 1.

And what about those middle-class taxpayers? Perhaps Obama is keeping them near at hand, just in case.

Kindred spirits? Perhaps Mick Jagger (l.) of the Rolling Stones and House Speaker John Boehner (r.) have more in common than we thought. (AP Photo, ) (Dave Allocca/Starpix/AP and J. Scott Applewhite/AP)

Gimme shelter! Your Rolling Stones guide to the 'fiscal cliff'

By Mark Trumbull, Staff writer / 12.14.12

When the machinery of US politics isn't working quite the way anyone would like, sometimes it's helpful to step back and for some perspective. And sometimes music helps us do that.

With the Rolling Stones on a US tour, and with the future of US taxes and federal spending in doubt, here's a primer on the perilous political landscape known as the "fiscal cliff": Why the nation is in this mess, and how it might be solved.

It's probably unrealistic to expect that Mick Jagger will come to the rescue of Washington (emotionally or otherwise). But some of the music that he and his colleagues have made can at least offer a hummable sound track, and perhaps some practical insights, for the fiscal mess.

"I was born in a cross-fire hurricane" (from "Jumpin' Jack Flash," 1968)

How did this fiscal cliff originate, anyway? Basically, in a gathering storm of partisan disagreement. For years, Republicans in Congress have resisted the idea of tax hikes as a way to close federal deficits. And Democrats have resisted Republican ideas on reducing the size of government by curbing some types of federal spending.

Things came to a head in 2011, as politicians sought to grapple with their differences amid a climate of fast-rising national debt. They failed to reach a compromise, other than to agree that automatic spending cuts would kick in at the beginning of 2013. That, coupled with the scheduled expiration of the Bush tax cuts at the same time, sets the stage for the current reckoning – the pressure to enact a better fiscal plan.

"Who could hang a name on you?" (from "Ruby Tuesday," 1967)

The predicament didn't have to be called fiscal cliff. In fact, that phrase had been bandied about on occasion, prior to this year, in a wholly different context. Some conservatives had used it to conjure up the image that rising federal debt would plunge the nation into economic ruin.

But over the past 12 months, the term has been adopted for a different meaning: the notion that if the scheduled tax hikes and spending cuts happen, the economy could be plunged into recession by the sudden hit to consumer spending. Ordinary households would have less money in their paychecks, and the federal government would be playing a smaller role as a consumer of goods and services.

Some conservatives hung a different name on the problem: "taxmageddon." Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke was one of the ones who helped popularize the cliff phraseology, which has the virtue of encompassing the spending as well as the tax side of the challenge. 

"They can't say we never tried" (from "Angie," 1973)

With the day of reckoning near, the good news is that the political parties are talking – trying to cut a fiscal bargain that would avert a sudden shock to the economy while at the same time reducing federal deficits. The lead actors in this drama are President Obama on the Democratic side and House Speaker John Boehner for the Republicans. They aren't smiling much on camera. But they keep holding meetings. Neither side wants to go down as the one that didn't try hard enough to reach a deal.

"Now I need you more than ever" (from "Let's Spend the Night Together," 1967)

The president and Speaker Boehner can't do this all by themselves. They need to rally votes withing their party ranks. With power divided between a Democratic president, a Republican-controlled House, and a Senate that's closely divided (with a Democratic majority), this is tricky. A deal that's acceptable to enough senators may not be one that all House Republicans are eager to rally behind. In the end, some lawmakers in both parties may vote "no." What counts is whether a majority in each house of Congress can vote "yes."

"I don't have much time" (from "Wild Horses," 1971)

Ideally for the economy, this all would have been settled long ago. It's not a good for the job market when employers have a major (and man-made) reason to be unsure what the economy will look like next year. With the Christmas holiday fast approaching, the window for reaching a deal before year end is fast closing. An 11th-hour compromise could be reached. If it isn't, negotiations would continue in the new year – with politicians feeling added pressure because as spending cuts and tax hikes start to appear as realities in the lives of voters.

"You can't always get what you want" (song title and lyric, 1969)

Earth to Washington: Mick's dose of realism here is helpful to keep in mind. Given the division of power in Washington, any solution will call for some sacrifice on both sides.

And from taxpayers, too. Many budget experts predict that lawmakers will ultimately need to expand tax revenue and restrain entitlement spending, even though neither of those things wins popularity contests with voters. That's because the path of current policies, if continued, is projected to bring an ever-higher debt burden, which could dim the economy's vibrancy and threaten a loss of investor confidence. The steps are unlikely to occur all at once in a "grand bargain of 2013," but the cliff talks may chart part of the path.

"This town's full of money grabbers" (from "Shattered," 1978)

OK, that song was about New York, not Washington. But the lyric can serve as a reminder that money plays a significant role in federal politics. A fair amount of it flows to politicians from Wall Street. But the broader point is that as lawmakers consider various fiscal reforms, just about every federal program or tax break has a constituency that is fighting for its importance. Here's hoping that what Abraham Lincoln called the "better angels of our nature" will guide the decisionmaking in the national interest.

"I sit and watch as tears go by" (from "As Tears Go By," 1965)

American voters may be forgiven if they feel a little frustrated as they watch all the fiscal saga unfold. But they're players in the process, too. The approval ratings of Congress are at epic lows, but each member of the House or Senate is there because he or she won a vote, often with high approval from constituents. So it may not be fair to gripe that you can't get satisfaction, politically. There's the opportunity to write a letter to your representative, to rethink your preferences each time an election rolls around, and to weigh changes such as the district-drawing reforms that some states have undertaken.
 
 "Paint It Black" (Song title, 1966)

The fiscal dream come true for deficit hawks would be a plan that ultimately brings black ink back onto the federal ledger. Remember when, for a time, the fiscal debate was about what to do with surpluses instead of deficits? What seems realistic for that ledger in the near term, however, is just a plan to let it bleed a little less red ink. And maybe to give us some shelter from the risk of a tax-induced recession in the near term.

Thousands of protesters rally outside the state Capitol as lawmakers push through final versions of right-to-work legislation in Lansing, Mich., Tuesday, Dec. 11. A Republican-controlled legislature looks set to pass a so-called 'right-to-work' law banning compulsory union fees. (Carlos Osorio/AP)

Michigan 'right to work' law: Worse for unions than Wisconsin setback? (+video)

By Peter Grier, Staff writer / 12.11.12

Last year Wisconsin was a battleground for union rights, as Republican Gov. Scott Walker pushed through a law limiting collective bargaining for many public-sector unions and then survived a recall election. This year organized labor’s focus has turned to Michigan, where a Republican-controlled legislature looks set to pass a so-called “right-to-work” law banning compulsory union fees.

Which of these might end up a worse defeat for US unions? We’d say Michigan, without question.

Michigan is the birthplace and stronghold of the United Auto Workers and a state steeped in union history. In Michigan they still remember 1937’s “Battle of the Overpass,” where Ford guards beat UAW officials near Dearborn’s Rouge plant in a pyrrhic victory that led to the union’s rise.

President Obama beat Mitt Romney in Michigan by 10 percentage points despite the fact that Mr. Romney grew up there. If Republicans can enact laws limiting union power in Michigan, where might they turn next?

“In political terms this really does seem like the tipping point ... if right-to-work can pass in Michigan, then why shouldn’t Republicans press for it in Wisconsin or Ohio or Pennsylvania?” writes Slate’s Moneybox columnist Matthew Yglesias.

Some liberals are bitter about this looming defeat. They say that while 24 states currently have right-to-work laws, the right’s push to spread such legislation had stalled – until now.

“If their win in Michigan sticks, the hoary, Dixie-fried Right-To-Work cause will shake off the dust of the political graveyard and become the hot new thing across the industrial Midwest. It’s sad but true,” writes Ed Kilgore in the Washington Monthly’s Political Animal blog.

But in some ways labor’s possible loss in Michigan shouldn’t be surprising.

First, it’s not as Democratic a state as you might think. Or rather, it’s a state where the Democratic vote is concentrated in Detroit, Ann Arbor, and a few other cities, while Republicans are spread out in a large geographic area. The GOP controls both Michigan’s House and Senate, after all.

Michigan has 15 congressional districts. Nine of them lean Republican, according to the partisan voting index of Charlie Cook’s Political Report. Six are Democratic, some by huge margins.

Second, labor recently made a large tactical error. It pushed for a proposed amendment to the Michigan constitution that would enshrine collective bargaining rights. The point was to head off the changes pushed through by the Republicans across Lake Michigan in Wisconsin. That measure was on the ballot in November and lost badly. It ended up as an advertisement for labor’s weakness instead of its strength.

Third, the UAW isn’t what it once was. In the 1970s it boasted more than 1.5 million members. Now UAW membership is fewer than 400,000 and declining. GM and Chrysler have been through managed bankruptcies, and workers throughout the state are wary of further disruptions.

On Tuesday the Michigan House approved a version of the contentious right-to-work law despite union protests outside the state Capitol in Lansing. Gov. Rick Snyder has said he’ll sign final versions of the bill for both public and private unions as early as Wednesday.

Rep. Justin Amash (R) of Michigan is seen during the Republican Leadership Conference at the Grand Hotel on Mackinac Island, Mich., last year. He was stripped of a committee assignment Monday. (Carlos Osorio/AP/File)

Big losers in 'fiscal cliff' talks? Tea party, perhaps.

By David Grant, Staff writer / 12.04.12

By the numbers, it would seem that Election 2012 didn't change much, with the White House and Congress remaining in the same hands. But Monday’s Capitol Hill goings-on hinted at just how much Washington’s terrain is shifting
  
The conservative wing of the GOP, which propelled the party to historic success in 2010, is being marginalized – leading to open calls for rebellion in some quarters.

First, there’s a Republican moderation on taxes – accepting new revenues that are anathema to the tea party credo that gave Republicans control of the House two years ago. But more quietly, House leaders stripped plum committee assignments from three deeply conservative freshman lawmakers – assignments doled out with much fanfare in 2010 to show that party leadership would listen to its vocal and conservative bloc of freshman members.

Together, the two moves are evidence of the stresses within a Republican Party trying to reorient itself after an electoral drubbing in November

On Monday, House Republican leaders signed on to a plan that would raise $800 billion in taxes over a decade as part of a $2.2 trillion proposal to avert the impending "fiscal cliff." The plan did not raise tax rates but vowed to close tax loopholes, providing money that the federal government could use to pay down the deficit.

In the summer of 2011, House Speaker John Boehner (R) of Ohio reportedly offered a similar amount of revenue in debt-reduction negotiations with President Obama. But House majority leader Eric Cantor (R) of Virginia and House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R) of Wisconsin called such use of tax revenues everything short of political apostasy. This year, however, they put their signatures on the offer to the president on Monday.

Representative Cantor noted the change the election wrought even before the House GOP made its offer.
 
“The speaker put new revenues on the table just after the election and said: 'We get it. The president won his reelection; we won our reelection. We have to now come together,' ” he told reporters on Friday. Offering more tax revenue “is our proposal to the president that we were unwilling to give a year and a half ago during the debt-ceiling talks."

The groups that powered the conservative surge in 2010 treated the plan with icy disdain.

“The president's proposal and Speaker Boehner's counteroffer fail to seriously deal with the reality of the problems facing the nation,” said Tim Phillips, the president of Americans for Prosperity, an arch-conservative advocacy group backed by a pair of conservative billionaires. “Conservatives are looking for a leader to fight against tax increases, to push back against wasteful government spending, and address the fiscal challenges in a bold way. Sadly, this plan leaves conservatives wanting."

An e-mail sent to supporters of Heritage Action, the political advocacy arm of the conservative Heritage Foundation, added: “Republicans retained control of the U.S. House of Representatives to serve as a check to President Obama's big-government agenda, not to find creative ways to fund it.”

Beneath the news of the Republican party’s fiscal cliff rejoinder, there’s also a bitter twist in the frequently contentious relationship between some of the GOP’s most conservative freshman lawmakers and the party’s House leadership.

Rep. Justin Amash (R) of Michigan and Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R) of Kansas were dropped from the House Budget Committee. Representative Huelskamp was also punted from the House Agriculture Committee. In addition, freshman Rep. Dave Schweikert (R) of Arizona, who won a brutal member-versus-member primary against establishment favorite Rep. Ben Quayle (R) in a race affected by redistricting, was dropped from the Financial Services Committee.

(Republican Rep. Walter Jones of North Carolina, a libertarian-minded lawmaker who has long been independent of party leadership, was also dropped from his spot on financial services.)

Representative Amash’s office declined to comment because the congressman has yet to receive his future committee assignments. But Representatives Schweikert and Huelskamp pegged their departure from the committees as political payback for not following the GOP leadership on issues like the debt-ceiling increase of 2011.

"This morning Congressman Schweikert learned there was a price to be paid for voting based on principle,” said Rachel Semmel, a Schweikert spokesperson, in an e-mail. “That price was the removal from the House Financial Services Committee.”

Huelskamp was even more direct.

“It is little wonder why Congress has a 16 percent approval rating: Americans send principled representatives to change Washington and get punished in return,” he said. “The GOP leadership might think they have silenced conservatives, but removing me and others from key committees only confirms our conservative convictions. This is clearly a vindictive move, and a sure sign that the GOP establishment cannot handle disagreement.”

Of more than 70 freshmen from the class of 2010, only three lost a committee assignment. Still, several conservative political groups rallied to the lawmakers side.

“Is there room in the House Republican Conference for legislators who believe that Washington is spending too much money it does not have? Based on this remarkably hostile act by leadership, the answer may be no,” said Matt Kibbe, the director of tea party group FreedomWorks. “This is establishment thinking, circling the wagons around yes-men and punishing anyone that dares to take a stand for good public policy.”

Chris Chocola, president of the influential and fiscally conservative Club for Growth, struck a similar note.

“Congressmen Schweikert, Huelskamp, and Amash are now free of the last remnants of establishment leverage against them,” he said. “We expect that these three defenders of economic freedom will become even bolder in their efforts to defend the taxpayers against the big spenders in both parties.”

Britain's Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge is seen meeting James William Davies, the five month old son of Tessa Davies (r.) who was named after Prince William, following a visit to the Guildhall in Cambridge, central England in November. (Arthur Edwards/Reuters/File)

Royal baby news: How the Obamas react to Kate Middleton pregnancy

By Linda Feldmann, Staff writer / 12.03.12

Fiscal cliff? Syria? White House spokesman Jay Carney was on the verge of taking his first serious question at Monday’s briefing, when he remembered he had something far more joyous to discuss: the news from London that the Duchess of Cambridge, Kate Middleton, is expecting.

“Oh, wait. I have one more thing I wanted to mention,” Mr. Carney said, after reciting the presidential rundown for the day. “And that is that on behalf of everyone here in the White House, beginning with the president and the first lady, we extend our congratulations to the duke and duchess of Cambridge on the welcome news this morning out of London that they are expecting their first child.”

Carney was asked if the Obamas have any advice for the parents-to-be. He said he hadn’t had that conversation with them. “But,” he added, “I know they both feel that having a child is one of the most wonderful parts of their lives, so I'm sure that will be the same for the duke and duchess of Cambridge.”

In what People magazine described as their first royal duty since their wedding on April 29, 2011, the duke and duchess of Cambridge met briefly with the Obamas in May of last year at Buckingham Palace. The young royals were looking ahead to their tour of the US last summer. Now they have an expanding family to look forward to. According to press reports, the duchess’s pregnancy is at an early stage.

And at the White House, Carney threw in another baby announcement, this one about a commoner.

“I also want to congratulate Brian Deese of the NEC [National Economic Council] and his wife on the birth of their child, Adeline Sutton Deese, over the weekend,” Carney said. 

Sen. John McCain (R) of Arizona finishes speaking at a press conference at the Capitol in Washington earlier this month. (J. Scott Applewhite/AP)

John McCain and abortion: Did he hint at GOP shift?

By Mark Sappenfield, Staff writer / 11.25.12

Perhaps the Republican pendulum is swinging back.

Two years ago, it seemed for a time that Sen. John McCain (R) of Arizona might be swept away in the tea party tide, forcing him to tack far to the right to fend off a primary challenge. On Sunday, however, Senator McCain took a clear and controversial step back toward the political center, suggesting on Fox News that it was not his place to tell a woman whether or not it is her right to have an abortion.

Of course, McCain is more at liberty to make such statements because he is four years away from another election. Still, the comment – even by someone who has been historically centrist – suggests that some Republicans feel a new freedom from strict party orthodoxy following the disappointments of the Nov. 6 election.

Indeed, the comment came in response to a question about how Republicans should evolve after GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney lost by wide margins among Latinos, youth, and single women.

"As far as young women are concerned, absolutely. I don't think people like me – I can state my opinion on abortion. But other than that, leave the issue alone," he said. Probed further, he added, "I would allow people to have those opinions and respect those opinions. I'm proud of my pro-life position and record, but if someone disagrees with me, I respect your views."

Such sentiments come straight from the playbook of some Republican operatives, who say the November election showed that the party needs a makeover to expand its base of support beyond white males.

"The GOP cannot continue to engage in fire-and-brimstone rhetoric with respect to social issues," Republican strategist Ford O'Connell told the Monitor's Husna Haq. "The GOP mantra for the past decade has generally been, 'Our way or the highway.'... And while the GOP is primarily a pro-life, traditional-marriage party, it can maintain those positions and win in a national election, but it has to acknowledge that not everyone may agree with those positions."

Mr. O'Connell and others are urging the party to focus on the economy and national security, which they say are the party's strengths. Not surprisingly, McCain put his abortion comments in this context, first saying the party had to be about something positive, and then adding that one reason to leave abortion alone was the importance of the "economic situation and, frankly, national security situation."

The Republican shift has also been apparent in some senators' refusal to abide by the no-new-tax pledge that was once GOP gospel. Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia was the latest to say he would no longer be bound to the pledge, and McCain echoed his sentiments Sunday. McCain said he is open to closing tax loopholes to pay down federal deficits – a violation of the no-new-tax pledge by Americans for Tax Reform.

On ABC's "This Week" Sunday, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R) of South Carolina concurred: "When you're $16 trillion in debt, the only pledge we should be making to each other is to avoid becoming Greece."

Patty Cownie of Des Moines, Iowa, talks with U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., during Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad's annual birthday fundraiser Saturday in Altoona, Iowa. (Charlie Neibergall/AP)

GOP crafts new image as it hustles Mitt Romney out the door

By Brad Knickerbocker, Staff writer / 11.18.12

All the Republican Party needs to recover from its defeat in the presidential election is a new message, a new image, and some fresh faces. That’s it. Piece of cake.

But first, it must usher out the remembrance of party leaders past. That would be Mitt Romney – who, in fact, has been making it easier for the GOP to do just that.

Echoing his infamous “47 percent” off-the-record comment to big donors during the campaign, he upped that to 51 percent in his post-election remarks (again, to donors) about how Barack Obama had won by purchasing his vote majority with “gifts” to liberal interest groups.

Grapes never seemed so sour, and Republicans were quick to rebuke such blame-gamesmanship.

RECOMMENDED: Election 2012: 12 reasons Obama won and Romney lost

“I absolutely reject what he said,” Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (the new chairman of the Republican Governors Association) said on Fox News Sunday. "We as a Republican Party have to campaign for every single vote. If we want people to like us we have to like them first. And you don't start to like people by saying their votes were bought.”

"We also don't need to be saying stupid things," Gov. Jindal said, referring to controversial comments on abortion by failed GOP Senate candidates Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock (neither of whom did Romney roundly reject). "Look, we had candidates in Indiana and Missouri that said offensive things that not only hurt themselves and lost us two Senate seats but also hurt the Republican Party across the board."

Carlos Gutierrez, who advised the Romney campaign on Hispanic issues and voters, says he was “shocked” by Romney’s most recent comments.

“Frankly, I don’t think that’s why Republicans lost the election," he said Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union." “I think we lost the election because the far right of this party has taken the party to a place that it doesn’t belong.”

The Associated Press interviewed a bunch of Republican notables, and their message was essentially the same.

Veteran Republican strategist Ron Kaufman, who advised Romney's campaign: "The bottom line is we were perceived to be intolerant on some issues. And tone-deaf on others."

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who ran against Romney in the GOP primaries and caucuses: “We were clearly wrong on a whole range of fronts…. There are whole sections of the American public that we didn't even engage with.”

Former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, who chaired the party during the 1990s: "We've got to have a very brutally honest review from stem to stern of what we did and what we didn't do, and what worked and what failed.”

Kevin McLaughlin, a Republican operative who worked on several Senate races: “We need candidates who are capable of articulating their policy positions without alienating massive voting blocs.”

That would be people like Jindal, Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (who helped himself when he left the Romney campaign to partner with Obama in dealing with superstorm Sandy), Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, and South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley.

New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez, Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval, and newly-elected US Senator Ted Cruz of Texas would help with Hispanic voters – the fastest growing segment of the US population and a portion of the voting public Romney lost badly.

At the head of that list – and likely among younger Republican presidential hopefuls generally – is Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, He, too, has pushed back against Romney’s “gifts” remark, although more gently and in a way meant to avoid alienating any in the party.

And guess where Rubio turned up last week? Iowa, where the party’s first presidential caucus is held.

“The appearance of the Republican Party’s most prominent Latino face in Iowa – a state President Barack Obama won by six points on Election Day – was no casual drop-by after the drubbing Mitt Romney took among Hispanics nationally,” reports Politico’s Lois Romano, tailing Sen. Rubio on his Iowa trip. “Republicans are looking to Rubio to help guide the party out of the past in which its base is aging, white men and into the future when it can appeal to young, female and more diverse voters, most crucially Latinos. And the first-term Florida senator is happy to help light the way.”

RECOMMENDED: Election 2012: 12 reasons Obama won and Romney lost

A 2007 photo shows a lone secret service agent standing guard outside the home of Sen. Barack Obama and his family in Chicago's Hyde Park neighborhood. The vacant lot next to the Obamas' home is for sale. (Charles Rex Arbogast/AP/File)

Want to be Obama's neighbor? You can for $899,000 (and a security check).

By Mark Guarino, Staff writer / 11.16.12

Ever wondered what it would be like to share a property line with a sitting US president?

You now have your chance. A vacant lot next to President Obama’s home in the historic Chicago neighborhood of Kenwood is for sale. The 50-by-150-foot lot, located at 5050 South Greenwood Avenue, is listed at $899,000 and hit the market this week.

But to get a showing of the lot, prospective buyers must submit financial information and the names of anyone planning to attend the showing at least 24 hours beforehand to the Secret Service. The Secret Service, in fact, currently maintains the lot, which includes mowing the lawn.

The Obama family has had the Kenwood home since 2005, and his presidency has altered life in the South Side neighborhood. A concrete barrier was erected on the south end of that street during the first year of his presidency, and the constant presence of Chicago police and Secret Service personnel make strolling down the street impossible. Neighbors and their guests are required to carry identification with them, and surrounding streets are blocked off – sometimes with cars towed – whenever the president and his family arrive home.

The lot’s current owners purchased it in March 2008 and planned to build an 8,000-square-foot home, says Anthony Rouches of @Properties in Chicago, the listing agent. The original purchase price was $675,000, but the house never materialized.

Mr. Rouches told Agence France-Presse that the owners contacted the Obamas to see if they were interested in purchasing the lot, but they declined.

“We’re just testing the market to see what kind of interest there is in it. There haven't been too many presidents with a piece of land next to their house for sale,” Rouches said.

This isn’t the first opportunity to live next to the Obama family’s 1910 Georgian Revival mansion. Two years ago, the home on the other side of the president’s was listed and eventually sold for $1.4 million. The Obamas purchased their home for $1.65 million.

The lot now for sale is mired in former controversy. At the same time the Obamas purchased their home, the lot next door was purchased by Antoin “Tony” Rezko, a Chicago real estate developer and political fundraiser who is now in federal prison on fraud and bribery charges, related to the corruption investigation of former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

In 2006, Mr. Obama paid Mr. Rezko $104,500 for one-sixth of the lot to expand his property line. Rezko was indicted that same year. Obama later told the Chicago Sun-Times that it was “a mistake” to deal with Rezko and he regretted it because it implied impropriety. The association was used against him during his 2008 campaign for president, particularly by Hillary Rodham Clinton, his competitor for the Democratic Party nomination.

Romney blames gifts: Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, right, speaks as Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell listens during an appearance at Brock's Bar-B-Que in Chester, Va., Oct. 10, 2012. Governor Jindal on Wednesday disagreed with Mitt Romney's assessment about why he lost the election, saying it's divisive to cite social policies that help young people and minorities. (Patrick Kane, The Progress-Index/AP)

Romney blames 'gifts' on election loss. Bobby Jindal says: 'Wrong!' (+video)

By Linda Feldmann, Staff writer / 11.15.12

Mitt Romney is complaining about “gifts” – but to Democrats, it’s Mr. Romney who’s the gift. And he keeps on giving.  

The Republicans’ failed presidential nominee has inflamed intraparty tension by blaming his loss on President Obama’s “gifts” to young voters and minorities – health coverage, contraceptive coverage in health insurance, forgiveness of interest on college loans – not any failings of his own as a candidate.

Mr. Romney made the comments Wednesday afternoon on a conference call with fundraisers and donors, a few of whom allowed reporters to listen in. Later in the day, Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) of Louisiana, new chairman of the Republican Governors Association (RGA), became “visibly agitated” at a press conference when asked about Romney’s remarks, according to Politico. 

“No, I think that’s absolutely wrong,” said Governor Jindal, a rising Republican star who is Indian-American, speaking at an RGA meeting in Las Vegas. “Two points on that: One, we have got to stop dividing the American voters. We need to go after 100 percent of the votes, not 53 percent. We need to go after every single vote.”

“And, secondly,” Jindal continued, “we need to continue to show how our policies help every voter out there achieve the American dream, which is to be in the middle class, which is to be able to give their children an opportunity to be able to get a great education. … So, I absolutely reject that notion, that description. I think that’s absolutely wrong.”

Romney was echoing his infamous “47 percent” comment during a fundraiser in May – that 47 percent of the public will vote for Obama “no matter what,” because they depend on government and see themselves as victims. It may have been the most damaging gaffe of Romney’s campaign.

Obama crushed Romney among minorities – winning 93 percent of African-Americans and 71 percent of Latinos – and he won 60 percent of voters ages 18 to 29.

In his comments to donors, Romney said the Obama administration had been “very generous” to those groups.

"With regards to the young people, for instance, a forgiveness of college loan interest was a big gift," Romney said, according to The New York Times. "Free contraceptives were very big with young, college-aged women. And then, finally, Obamacare also made a difference for them, because as you know, anybody now 26 years of age and younger was now going to be part of their parents' plan, and that was a big gift to young people.”

Romney maintained that he had focused on talking about “big issues for the whole country,” such as military strategy, foreign policy, and job creation.

Top Republicans such as Jindal, who may be contemplating a presidential run in 2016, are trying to steer the party away from blaming voters for last week’s outcome and toward a more inclusive approach to an electorate that is only growing less white with each election.

Jindal also blamed Romney’s loss on his failure to present a “vision.”

“Governor Romney’s an honorable person that needs to be thanked for his many years of public service, but his campaign was largely about his biography and his experience,” Jindal said. “And it’s a very impressive biography and very impressive set of experiences. But time and time again, biography and experience is not enough to win an election. You have to have a vision. You have to connect your policies to the aspirations of the American people. I don’t think the campaign did that, and as a result this became a contest between personalities.”

No word on what Jindal thought about comments Monday by Rep. Paul Ryan, Romney’s running mate, who told a Madison, Wis., TV station that his ticket lost because of Obama’s strength in “urban areas” – another likely reference to minorities.