Mitt Romney leads in delegates but a surge by Rick Santorum in recent days has the Republican presidential frontrunner once again trying to cast an opponent as the flavor of the week -- and stave off a potential loss in a state critical to proving his electability in a general election.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is launching a probe into overdraft fees charged by big banks, announcing Wednesday it will ask banks for information about how the fees affect consumers, how overdraft protection is marketed and what information consumers receiv

Lansley suggested to MPs that he might refuse to release the risk register even if instructed to do so by a tribunal due to meet in a fortnight to judge on his dispute with the information commissioner, who has instructed him to publish.

Lansley twice refused the opportunity to tell MPs he would accept the tribunal's judgment. Answering deputy Lib Dem leader Simon Hughes, the health secretary instead quoted from an article in the Observer by the information commissioner, in which Christopher Graham said he was "not infallible".

"The government has the right to appeal to the tribunal [following the information commissioner's ruling] and the tribunal is the proper place for that public interest test to be tested," he said.

Defending his decision, Lansley said the prospect of publishing such assessments reduced the quality of advice to ministers, meaning documents would become "bland and anodyne" and "cease to be of practical value".

"To be effective, a risk register requires all those involved to be frank and open about potential risk," Lansley told MPs. "It is their job to think the unthinkable and look at worst-case scenarios. It is vital nothing is done to inhibit that process."

Asked whether Lansley's comments suggested local and regional NHS risk registers, which have been published, were not as strong as they could be, a department spokesman said they could be "potentially watered-down".

As the Guardian reported last week, the risk assessments of the four English regional strategic authorities suggest there are wide-ranging concerns, including that patient care and safety could be damaged and costs could rise.

Lansley cleared up some confusion about the hotly debated risk register, saying the document in question was the "transition risk register", relating specifically to the reorganisation set out in the health bill, an assessment which was first drawn up in 2010 but is continually "reviewed and updated". This was different to the department's "strategic" risk register of all its operations.

The department said that, unlike the strategic authorities' and other NHS risk assessments, its risk register concentrated on policy development. However, a spokesman said refusal to publish the register extended also to explaining what questions it might cover, for example, if it dealt with how the bill might pass through parliament, or gave technical details about how its parts might impact on each other.

Labour's opposition day debate was fronted by

After the vote, Andy Burnham, the Labour shadow health secretary, said: "It is clear they are going to try to fight it: they are going to go to the High Court, go all the way, to go beyond the Bill [passing]."

He had insisted beforehand that MPs and peers had a right to know the implications of health reforms before they voted on the bill, which is currently in the report stage in the House of Lords.

"He [Lansley] is running unacceptable risks," said Burhnam. "What he's doing is wrong and needs to be stopped."

Burnham had to fend off repeated charges by Conservative MPs that he had refused similar requests for risk registers when he was health secretary in the previous Labour government. Burnham said he had refused to publish a different document ? the strategic register ? and that he had not been overruled by the Information Commissioner. Labour did release a similar policy-specific risk assessment, into Heathrow's third runway, when it was in government, said Burnham.

Defending Lansley, Tory MP Mike Freer said: "The release of the risk register is seen as an opportunity by the opposition to cherry-pick doomsday scenarios the register may contain. It is simply a charter for shroud-waving."

Former shadow health secretary John Healey said: "These current plans are unprecedented in their nature, scale, pace and timing, and that means there is exceptional attention and exceptional concern about the risks associated with their implementation ? and that's why there is an exceptional case for releasing this transitional risk register."

Former Labour health secretary Frank Dobson said: "I think the government will finally conclude it's foolish of them not to publish this register because everybody assumes they must have something to hide."

The company at the centre of a police investigation into an alleged abuse of government back-to-work contracts compelled jobseekers to work unpaid in its own offices for at least a month at a time, the Guardian can reveal.

In response to a freedom of information request about the company last year, the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) revealed that A4e sent jobseekers it was meant to be helping into employment to work in at least two of its own offices in an apparent conflict of interest.

The placements, part of Labour's Flexible New Deal scheme, were mandatory and are understood to have lasted for four weeks. Those on benefits were, in effect, forced to work for free for the company or have their benefits stripped.

The DWP's list of placements from just one of A4e's offices in Holloway, north London, shows that it sent the unemployed to work at two of its other London offices in Camden and Woolwich. The document also contains a third reference to work in an A4e office.

The list also reveals that from the 12 months to late June 2011 the company sent people to work unpaid in Asda, Sainsbury's, Oxfam bookstores and a host of other charities and small businesses.

Oxfam and Sainsbury's have since pulled out of unpaid work experience programmes linked to the receipt of benefits. A dozen other major charities and high street chains have also left the programme following protests.

Speaking in the Commons on Wednesday, David Cameron praised work experience for young people. "I think we should encourage companies and encourage young people to expand work experience because it gives people a chance of seeing work and all that involves and gives them a better chance to get a job," he said during prime minister's question time.

The prime minister will go further in defence of the government's work experience schemes on Thursday. "We see this in the debate on education, put a young person into college for a month's learning, unpaid ? and it's hailed as a good thing," he will say.

"Put a young person into a supermarket for a month's learning, unpaid ? and it's slammed as slave labour.

"Put a child into a great school run by a local authority ? cause for celebration.

"Put them into a great school backed by a bank ? and that is a cause for suspicion."

He urged a "thorough" inquiry on Wednesday into A4e after four of the company's former staff were arrested as part of an ongoing police inquiry at its offices in Slough.

A former government official who helped devise Labour's unemployment programmes said he was "very surprised" that A4e had placed the unemployed to work for free in its own company.

There is no suggestion that A4e would have received any direct financial reward for placing people in unpaid work experience but the official explained that mandatory placements were partly devised to stop those private companies running back-to-work schemes from "parking" difficult or problematic jobseekers.

Apart from being able to gain from unpaid labour, the senior former official, who did not want to be named, said sending jobseekers to work in its offices would help A4e cut down on its overheads as it would not have to spend time on organising placements in outside businesses.

The company ? owned by families tsar, the millionaire Emma Harrison ? has refused to comment on the allegations or explain what work they were made to do and whether it included tasks such as data entry, cleaning or was job shadowing.

Harrison has come under pressure to step down from her post since she was appointed by Cameron in December 2010 but on Wednesday a spokesperson for her said she was "staying put".

A4e corroborated the veracity of the document and has previously confirmed that companies listed in the freedom of information release have been used by A4e to place jobseekers.

The revelation raises the question of where private companies running back-to-work schemes such as Mandatory Work Activity (MWA) and the Work Programme are allowed to place unemployed people.

In recent days, ministers and the DWP have insisted that while the "voluntary" work experience scheme operates in high street chains, mandatory placements are always for community benefit.

Writing in the Sunday Telegraph, employment minister Chris Grayling said: "Where we use mandation in our welfare policies, it will be to do useful work on community projects. We will never mandate anyone to work for a big company. They wouldn't take them if we did."

An official tweet from the DWP also backed the claim saying: "The DWP only mandates people for community work #workfare".

However, the private company Seetec, which won two contracts to run the MWA scheme in London and the East of England told the Guardian that "community benefit" also includes private companies.

In a statement Seetec said: "There are occasions where people taking part in MWA would carry out a work placement with a local employer who may be a private company, but this would be a placement that does deliver community benefit."

The DWP has now clarified that private companies can also be included in the definition of "community benefit". Official figures show that 24,000 mostly young jobseekers have been made to do MWA but since this entire scheme is administered by private companies, information on where worked has not been made public. In response to questions about mandatory placements from the Guardian, a spokesperson for Ingeus Deloitte, which administers MWA in the east Midlands and the north-east, said: "We have not sought the permission of MWA placement providers to publish their names so will not be able to issue you with a list at this time. However, I can confirm that our clients are placed with wide range of community-based organisations and charities which benefit the local community, in accordance with the provider guidance issued by DWP."

Both Seetec and Ingeus said that they did not place jobseekers on MWA placements within their own company.

Official provider guidance for the MWA says "community" benefit can be defined as profit for the person using the unpaid jobseeker in their organisation.

Under section 48 of the 2011 official guidance, the third definition of community benefit is described as "working towards the profit of the host organisation, providing that the majority of the role is dedicated towards delivery of benefit to the community".

A Labour MP has contacted the Guardian to say they were concerned that the MWA programme had not been scrutinised by the Commons and had passed into law with the "tick of a minister's pen" last year.

A spokesperson for the DWP said: "As well as offering jobseekers the chance to develop work-related disciplines and behaviours, DWP specifies that all placements under the Mandatory Work Activity scheme must be of benefit to the local community. This could be in a wide range of roles, including renovating and recycling old furniture, working in a local sports club or supporting charitable organisations. The department also specifies that placements must be additional to any existing or expected vacancies."

Michael Moore, the Scottish secretary, accused the first minister of deliberately delaying the poll and released a legislative timetable showing that the referendum could be held in September 2013, a year earlier than Salmond has proposed.

In the most detailed challenge yet to the Scottish government's preferred timetable, Moore said: "No one has yet explained to me why the people of Scotland should have to wait nearly three years to make the most important decision we will ever make. It is not in the interests of the Scottish people to build up uncertainty and make them wait.

The UK government's challenge is intended to intensify the pressure on Salmond's Scottish Nationalist party after his inconclusive talks on the referendum's timing and rules with David Cameron and Moore earlier this month.

During prime minister's questions on Wednesday, Cameron accused Salmond's government of running away from the referendum, saying: "As soon as you're offered a referendum that gives you the chance to put that in front of the Scottish people, you start running away."

Cameron has offered to make the referendum legally watertight by giving Holyrood the powers to hold it, in exchange for concessions such as asking only a single question on remaining in the UK and on timing.

Although Salmond is prepared to concede the UK Electoral Commission should oversee the referendum, he is refusing to budge on his 2014 timetable and is defending plans to put in two questions, including one on increasing Holyrood's powers within the UK, and to allow 16- and 17-year-olds to vote.

Bruce Crawford, the cabinet secretary for strategy in the Scottish government, said it had received an "unanswerable mandate" to stage the referendum at a time of its choosing, "while the Lib Dems lost every ? seat in mainland Scotland".

He said the timetable issued by Moore, a Liberal Democrat, was "flawed and full of holes" since it failed to give enough time to analyse consultation responses and the 10 weeks' minimum needed to test the ballot.

"In any event, it is simply not for the secretary of state to dictate the legislative timetable of the Scottish parliament. And given the abysmal farce of the AV referendum, the very last people to listen to on the timing and terms of a referendum would be the Lib Dems."

Moore, however, said recent opinion polls contradicted the SNP's assertions that it had won a mandate for its preferred date of autumn 2014 by its landslide Holyrood election victory in May last year.

The official SNP position during the election campaign, as set out in its manifesto and election material, was to stage a referendum at an unspecified date in its five-year term in office.

As it became clear the SNP would comfortably win the election, Salmond refined that verbally during a television debate to say in the later half of the term. His critics insist this date was never formally put to voters.

Moore said a recent Ipsos Mori poll showed that 62% of voters in Scotland wanted to hold the poll before autumn 2014, against 22% who supported the later timetable.

Under the UK government plan, the referendum bill could be brought to Holyrood in autumn 2012, and not 2013 as planned by Salmond; it would receive royal assent in March 2013, rather than November 2013; and the referendum campaign could start in June 2013, not the summer of 2014.

"The timetable the Scottish government has set out has heel-dragging built into it," Moore said. "There are months and months set aside for straightforward tasks [which] could be done properly in a much shorter timeframe."

Salmond has repeatedly insisted that 30 months is needed to allow the independence proposals to be properly developed legally and politically and then fully debated by voters. He also believes that campaigners who would support a second question on greater devolution need more time to develop their case.

He said in January that autumn 2014 "was the date that allows everything to be put in a proper manner on the most important decision in Scotland for 300 years. That date will allow the Scottish people to hear all the arguments."

His opponents believe he is playing for time because Scotland will play host to several high-profile sporting and cultural events in 2014, including the Commonwealth Games.

Scottish ministers also say privately that, by then, the Tory and Lib Dem coalition in London could be deeply unpopular and at war as it prepares for the 2015 general election, strengthening support for independence.

PoliticsHome reports that the MP for Falkirk headbutted and punched Conservative MP Stuart Andrew, and also alleges that he assaulted several Tory MPs and one Labour MP.

According the political website, a witness claimed that Joyce "just started lashing out at people".

Scotland Yard confirmed officers detained a man in his 50s after being called to reports of an incident at the Strangers' Bar within the House of Commons late on Wednesday night.

The man is currently being held in custody at a central London police station, the Metropolitan police said.

A Scotland Yard spokesman said: "We were called at approximately 10.50pm last night to reports of a disturbance at a bar within the House of Commons.

"A man aged in his 50s was arrested by officers on suspicion of assault. He remains in custody in a central London police station. Inquiries are continuing."

Joyce, the MP for Falkirk since December 2000, served in the Army Education Corps before pursuing a career in politics.

In 2010 he resigned as shadow Northern Ireland minister after pleading guilty to failing to provide a breath test.

From 2003 Joyce served as a Parliamentary Private Secretary (PPS) to a number of government ministers.

Joyce quit as the PPS to Bob Ainsworth in 2009 due to his concerns over the war in Afghanistan.

Prior to that he had been a parliamentary aide to John Hutton, including the period when he was defence secretary, Mike O'Brien and Margaret Hodge.

According to his constituency webpage, Joyce has a constituency office in Denny and an office in Portcullis House, Westminster.

During his time in Westminster he has held an interest in defence and military issues due to his army background, the website adds.

The study, by the University and College Union (UCU) found cuts across a range of subjects, from the sciences, to arts and humanities.

England, where tuition fees will rise to a maximum of £9,000 a year this autumn, has been the hardest hit, with almost a third fewer courses on offer, it claims. UCU said that the findings showed that funding cuts were affecting course availability, which could be damaging to students.

The report's authors analysed official course data, and a sample of single-subject degree courses to investigate whether there had been any noticeable change in what was on offer. It found a sharp reduction in the total number of full-time undergraduate degree courses in Britain: a fall of 27% between 2006 and 2012.

In total, there are 51,116 degree courses available this year, compared with 70,052 in 2006. Within the UK, England has seen a 31% fall in courses, while Northern Ireland has seen a drop of 24%, Wales 11% and Scotland 3%.

In England, six out of nine regions have seen a cut of a quarter or more. Among those with the largest reductions are the south-west, with a drop of 47%; the east, which was down 41%; and the north-west, which had a cut of 40%. At the other end of the scale, oOnly 1% of courses have been cut in the East Midlands.

The report found that among the single-subject courses examined in the UK, there has been a fall of 14.6% in science, technology, engineering and maths (Stem subjects), while social science courses have dropped by 12.8%, and arts and humanities are down by 14%.

Sally Hunt, UCU general secretary, said: "While successive governments have been dreaming up new ways to increase the cost of going to university, the range of subjects available to students has fallen massively. The UK's global academic reputation is built on the broad range of subjects available and on the freedom of academics to push at the boundaries and create new areas of study.

"This report shows that, while government rhetoric is all about students as consumers, the curriculum has actually narrowed significantly."

She added: "Although students in England are expected to pay up to £9,000 a year to study, there is much less choice for them.

"hifting the burden of funding from the state to the student means nervous universities will look to axe even more courses that they worry won't make a profit. However, we simply cannot have areas of the country where local students do not have access to the courses they want to study."

According to official figures published by the university admissions services Ucas, the numbers of applications to university had been rising up until this year. As of January, 462,507 UK students had applied for courses beginning in the autumn, compared with 506,388 at this point last year ? a drop of 8.7%.

? Public exchanges between the two men are brutal. But in one regard, at least, there is as much to unite Ed Miliband and the prime minister as to divide them. Miliband can't countenance Scottish independence because, shorn of its Scottish MPs, Labour could probably kiss goodbye to government. Cameron might like that part of it but can't have the union disintegrate on his watch. What to do? Prospect magazine says Dave wants to talk. He likes to talk. And that he has asked the Labour leader to name the date for a "high-level, cross-party discussion to see off Alex Salmond's bid". We're in it together, could be the rallying cry, though Ed might prefer to stand back and enjoy the PM's discomfort. And anyway, the phrase is somewhat tarnished of late.

? An extraordinary moment in the Commons, meanwhile, as MPs discuss the EU and its institutions. Enter Jacob Rees-Mogg, Tory MP for North East Somerset. An agreeable day it was for him. He had lunched on his dictionary. "I am glad to say, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the requirement not to be rude about judges applies only to judges in this country. It does not apply to judges in the EU, so let me be rude about them. Let me indulge in the floccinaucinihilipilification of EU judges." Presumably that is what he did. And what is noticeable from Hansard is that everyone carried on the debate without pause or reference to his showy deployment of what is said to be the second longest word in the English language. Familiarity. "He appears to speak in an early medieval Germanic dialect with words transcribed on to parchment," said Labour's Steve Pound after the debate. "No one knew what he was talking about, but then, that is nothing new. He regards the middle ages as the day before yesterday." Tired resignation, then. Even Hansard writers refused, on a point of principle, to go and check it with him. They just looked it up and popped it into their account of the day's discussion across the green benches. He will have felt very clever, that was the point. As for floccinaucinihilipilification. It means "the estimation of something as valueless", by the way. Try "flock-see-naw-see-nye-hilli-pilli-fic-ay-shun".

? Over at the Daily Mail there is continued rejoicing at the success of MailOnline, now the world's most visited newspaper website. But the likes of Littlejohn and Melanie "Mel" Phillips may wonder if they are attracting the right sort of people. The daily poll run by the site produces disturbing snapshots. Should there be legal action against the Occupy protesters at St Paul's? No, say respondents, 80% to 20%. Should there be a referendum on the EU? No ? 62% to 38%. At least they have no time for the wishy-washy PM. Is David Cameron taking Tory votes for granted, asked the Mail. Yes, came the answer ? 75% to 25%. Phew, that's better.

? And amid renewed discussion about what became of Lord Lucan, we have more on Fleet Street's hunt for the fugitive. Yesterday we highlighted the contribution of reporter Garth Gibbs, who specialised in looking for and never finding the errant peer: a task that involved much foreign travel and copious expenses. But he wasn't the only pursuer at the Mirror. There was also John Penrose, who, during his time at the paper, became a Mirror executive but prior to that followed a tip that Lucan was in South Africa. The suspect was traced to a particular hotel. The industrious Penrose, seeking fingerprint verification, grabbed his dinner glass. Back to London he went, where, unbeknown to him, his mother unpacked his bag and gave the glass a good wash. By the time he took the breakthrough to Scotland Yard for testing, the only fingerprints it bore belonged to his father.

? Finally, as questions mount and the police continue their inquiries into alleged fraud by employees at the company run by Emma Harrison, David Cameron's back-to-work tsar (taxpayer funding: £180m, her salary: £8.6m), we find that she has indeed been party to lawbreaking. "At the age of nine I was running an illegal tuckshop at school," she told the BBC in 2008. "Everyone at school was getting pocket money, it was a way to make some money." Dawn raids. Retrospective arrest. Anything could happen next.

Twitter: @hugh_muir

The Scottish Premier League, meanwhile, has launched an investigation into alleged sectarian chanting by Rangers fans at the club's match with Kilmarnock last weekend.

Covering the racism story for ITV, reporter Richard Pallot twice referred to black footballers as "coloured". The remarks led to dozens of comments on Twitter and prompted the broadcaster to issue an aoplogy.

An ITV News spokesman said: "ITV News apologises for the inappropriate use of the word 'coloured' in a report on racism and football in today's News at 1.30pm. We take this error very seriously and we regret any offence caused."

More embarrassment for the coalition's flagship Work Programme: as we report elsewhere, one of its biggest contractors, A4e, headed by Emma Harrison, whose position as the acceptable face of the private sector in Whitehall must now be under threat, has joined the list of companies accused of exploiting the unemployed. The programme looks vulnerable on other fronts as well. Tesco changed its terms of participation, while other major companies like Sainsbury's, Matalan and Waterstones, which were supposed to be work experience and job providers, have recoiled altogether from the reputational hazard of being associated with the charge of slave labour.

When the programme was launched last June, it was hailed as a smart, cost-effective advance on Labour's Flexible New Deal. There were to be tighter but bigger payments by results and a remit to use the specialist expertise of small local charities. One innovation was to allow jobseekers' allowance claimants to keep their benefit while they gained work experience although, if they dropped out, they would then lose it for a fortnight. It is easy to imagine how wizard the idea must have looked from the work and pensions minister's corner office. Work experience does make people more employable ? and it should be open to benefit claimants, not just those with better-off parents who can subsidise them. But it is also easy to see how offensive it is to perform boring, menial, or simply pointless tasks for major retailers without being paid. And when it means working for employers who make billions of pounds each year (or, as at A4e, where bosses take millions in public money as bonuses), it is simply exploitative.

A lack of political imagination may damage the programme. Less reported but potentially wrecking were the numbers published on Tuesday for the first quarter of Work Programme operations. They showed nearly twice as many JSA claimants signing up as were anticipated, but many fewer employment support allowance claimants. These are the former incapacity benefit cases, and their numbers matter because the contractors are banking on the big bonus earned by finding ESA claimants sustainable work, rather than the lesser one attached to the ordinary unemployed. Some providers may go bankrupt, the original plan predicted sternly. But equally, failing providers may gang up and demand the government sweetens its contract terms. That would make a mockery of the claims of unbeatable value for money. Meanwhile, although there has been some misleading bragging about the impact on youth unemployment, the DWP is keeping silent about the destinations of those who pass through the programmes. That won't become clear until 2013 ? when the marketisation of the state might finally become an election issue.

Congratulations to John Harris on his excellent article about A4e and the perils of outsourcing (Nice work if you can get it, G2, 22 February). As he points out, A4e and others act like an arm of the state but with little transparency or democratic scrutiny. It is good to see a politician of the status of Margaret Hodge admitting policy mistakes and recognising that "private providers often don't provide well". Should a contract end and the work need to be taken back in-house, there are further complications. The expertise has often been lost by the local authority or government department. They then have to reinvent the wheel at great cost to discharge their responsibilities.
Tony Clewes
Walsall, West Midlands

? I work for a locally recognised, small, specialist welfare-to-work provider ? typical of the sort that Iain Duncan Smith insists the prime providers of the now infamous Work Programme should be engaging with. We know from previous articles that, contrary to their assurances during the tendering process, prime providers are not engaging with organisations such as us. A great many of us had and still have concerns about how prime providers have been operating, especially with the "harder to reach" claimants who would need longer-term and more expert support usually provided by specialists.

While it is unfortunate that four members of staff from one of these providers have been arrested on suspicion of skewing the figures to generate more income, I wonder whether this is the tip of the iceberg. Perhaps deeper investigations should be undertaken.
Jane Cattermole
Senior employment manager, Employment Support and Retraining Agency Ltd

? As somebody who was unemployed for 18 months, I'm glad that MPs and the public are beginning to see A4e's shortcomings. I had a short experience with them and it was awful, with no help in finding work and the only work offered unpaid in a charity shop already over-staffed with other jobseekers from A4e.

I had to borrow money to fund a training course. When I got a new job, A4e got paid by the government for helping me into work even though A4e were no help and continued to get payments for me in work. In your article it says the total payments A4e gets from each person such as me is up to £13,000. Why doesn't the government give jobseekers control of this money, and let them decide how to best use it so they can learn a new skill or fund a university course?

I only needed £1,500, so the government would have saved £11,500. The government must let jobcentres do more and stop people like Emma Harrison making millions from unemployed people.
Mark Judge
Sheffield

? On Tuesday I listened to an original recording of Asquith talking about his people's budget. He made it clear that it was only fair that those who had most should pay more tax to help those who had nothing. Buried deep down in David Laws's article (Our ambition for fairer tax, 22 February), one politician has the guts to make the same plea.

As a retired person on a reasonable occupation pension, I have, so far, been virtually unaffected by the austerity measures. I would gladly pay some extra tax if it meant that more young people could get into work, but no political party is prepared to offer me that option. Increasing VAT was a regressive measure affecting all, but income tax does, or should, reflect ability to pay and, in David Cameron's "big society", fairness has to be one of his aims or it stands even less chance of capturing the public imagination.
Maureen Panton
Malvern, Worcestershire

? David Laws, while supporting a policy which will condemn thousands more, particularly young people, to unemployment, claims the only tax change possible is to reduce tax avoidance and scale back certain reliefs. But there is a much simpler "tax change" which could yield up to £10bn: add three extra divisions to council tax rates. Income and affluence levels are closely related to the value of houses owned and any tax is unavoidable. The small number with high-value properties and limited income would simply have to move ? the fate which will apply to the large working-class families in London because of the new rules.
John Pert
Tonbridge, Kent

? Margaret Levy is no doubt convinced by her own claims about the Youth Training Scheme (YTS), and the purported features that, "by design", it was "intended" to have (Letters, 20 February). She omits to state that in 1982, prior to the development of YTS, the Conservative government had abolished the majority of the very agencies that would have been able to develop relevant youth training programmes in negotiation with and agreement by employers, trade unions and educationalists.

Those agencies, the statutory industrial training boards (ITBs), had close links with employers and the occupational fields they covered, undertaking detailed research into changes in skill requirements and developing qualifications directly linked to job requirements. They were run by boards that had employer, trade union and educationalist members. Some 55% of the UK workforce was efficiently covered by the ITBs prior to 1982, with a total staff of only about 20% of that of the bloated Manpower Services Commission, which was effectively an arm of government.

The reason for abolition of most ITBs, and disabling of the remainder, was clear: they would not have supported YTS as it was introduced, because it did not meet the skills needs of industry. If the ITBs had not been abolished, we might by now have the highly skilled, globally competitive workforce we so desperately need. Clearly, the abolition of the ITBs, espousedly to improve training and skills levels, has been an utter failure. Their reintroduction is urgently needed but, sadly, unlikely under the ideologically driven policies of the current government.
Dr Leonard Holmes
Reader in management, University of Roehampton

? Employment minister Chris Grayling is stalling for time by suggesting that the unpaid work schemes he has promoted to businesses are to be reviewed (Unpaid work scheme may be reviewed, says minister, 21 February). He is attempting to justify the unjustifiable: tens of thousands of people being forced into working for companies, including Tesco, the biggest private-sector employer in the country, which made profits of £3.8bn.

He talks of protecting small employers, but the reality is that "workfare" schemes are a multimillion pound industry. On an eight-week placement, Tesco saves £1,500 by not paying the minimum wage of just £6.08 an hour to people on placements. Many have reported that they do the same work as any other Tesco employee without pay. 

Multiply this by the 1,400 workers Tesco says it took on placements in the last four months (Tesco under pressure to withdraw from unpaid work experience schemes, 17 February) and you arrive at £2m pounds in four months ? £6m over a year. These savings on Tesco's wage bill are being subsidised by public money used to pay the subsistence benefits that keep those in forced labour fed.

The employment minister also states: "The idea of people being press-ganged to work for nothing to provide cheap labour for big firms is totally untrue." But as documents released by the Guardian show, the minister is disgracefully pushing not just the young, who face mandatory work activity for four weeks,into unpaid work, but also the disabled. In the case of those on disability benefits, there is no time limit on the period of servitude.

Referring to the plans, The Royal College of Psychiatrists has stated it would prefer the placements to be optional, suggesting that as it stands the vulnerable people they are aimed at have no choice in whether to participate.

Grayling should stop playing for time and move immediately to end the disgraceful schemes that are exploiting the most vulnerable to boost the profits of big business.
Mark Dunk, Rhia Lawrence, Alexandra Sayer, Richard Donnell
Right to Work

It is a shame so many jobs have been outsourced to the likes of Apple's Foxconn factory in China, with its "suicide nets" around the building. But there's me being snobby again. A job is a job, and apparently we can't all win The X Factor. Who knew? Still, unlike IDS's CV, mine is real. Remember he said he attended the University of Perugia when he didn't? And his grandiose management qualifications turned out to have been a few weekend courses at GEC Marconi. Still, va va vooming your CV is all part of it, isn't it? Get a suit. Drone on. You could be work and pensions minister. Or something in Matalan. You just need to adjust your attitude.

Apart from shelf-stacking, I have been a trainee audiology technician, a market stall-holder, a residential social worker, a waitress, all kinds of shop assistant, and a cleaner, to name but a few. Some of these jobs were fine and some were not. What made the difference was to do with how lonely they were. Being a chambermaid, for instance, is horrible because changing beds is no fun on your own, while waitressing can be OK because of the camaraderie. Any job you do in isolation, from cutting the cancerous growths out of chickens to sitting in a booth cold-calling people to try to persuade them to buy security grilles, is deadly. Yes, I think that is one of the worst jobs I did in the United States. It involved phoning people and scaring them by telling them about rapes and burglaries in their area. If they insisted they were safe and had a dog, I had to read from a prepared script and say: "You do know a can of hairspray can blind a dog at 10 paces."

It didn't last long, nor did the stint at the Hilton, where I was, amazingly, not charming enough to businessmen at breakfast. Then I became "actively disruptive" simply because, when we were told another Hilton had burnt down, I smirked. It is very hard to feel loyalty to huge corporations that have no loyalty to you. Plus I had to wear a horrible blouse with the legend "Hi, I'm new but I am trying" pinned to my chest.

So I literally got the badge of job snobbery because I was lucky enough to be young when there was a lot of work around. And I now see what it is like for my kids, I find the condescension being pumped out gob-smacking. Work must be "incentivised"? Sorry, this is a stupid word. Wages are the incentive. Yes, in a lovely world we would all have wonderfully fulfilling jobs, but this has never been how work is for most people.

The old manufacturing jobs entitled people to stand back and say, "I made that", but the myth of the nobility of labour also sits alongside appalling working conditions, industrial accidents and life-shortening diseases. Much work is mind?numbing, but it could be made less alienating by allowing the one thing modern management hates, fraternisation.

So much focus has been on the disappointments of graduates that we fail to see the absolute polarisation of the job market. As a report called Good Jobs For Non-Graduates by the New Economics Foundation shows, jobs where progress in pay and status are possible are in decline (manufacture). Predicted growth is in poorly paid and low skilled jobs (retail). At this level, there is alienation among both the employed and the unemployed. People such as the social philosopher André Gorz once thought technology would free workers for more leisure, but the opposite has happened: the overworked exist alongside the unemployed. Help for those without work is not a lecture or a leaflet. It is a living wage.

Yes, I understand the support for welfare reform, but right now we have an elite telling lazy scroungers to buck up. Yes, clean toilets, pick cabbages, move towns, sit in call-centre barns, smile enough to make Mary Portas types think you care. In short, deliver the service, that those who have never served, demand. Know your place.

I guess IDS knew his place at Sandhurst just as I once knew mine. Until I realised that most menial work leads to more menial work. The idea that this is the stepping stone is as much of a fantasy as The X Factor. The stepping stone is education. That's what makes you free, not work. Now the young are to pay for that and work for nothing? And all while most of our political and media class spout lousy morality tales about lousy jobs while undermining even the basic minimum wage. Please.

As the graffiti I saw the other day said: "Sorry, the lifestyle you ordered is currently out of stock." I tell you who really needs "work experience". Much of this government.

Such as? The Big Lunch.

Never heard of it. You will. Communities secretary Eric Pickles is very keen.

But what is it? A scheme to get neighbours to have a communal lunch together on one day of the year. More than 2 million people did it in 2011, and this year's event ? the Big Jubilee Lunch on 3 June ? will be even BIGGER.

Why does Pickles like it, apart from the chance to make repeated assaults on the buffet? "Events such as the royal wedding and the Big Lunch show that community spirit is thriving."

It might be OK. You haven't met my neighbours.

What else is Big? The "big society", of course.

You don't hear much about that these days. No. Critics were very cruel. TUC general secretary Brendan Barber said it suggested David Cameron's ideal society was Somalia.

Ouch! Other examples? The Big Read, the BBC's year-long search for the nation's best-loved novels.

You can't object to that. No, I love lists in which Harry Potter comes fifth and War and Peace 20th.

Keep going. The Big Knit, which last year generated 650,000 woolly hats; the Big Breakfast, Chris Evans's happily defunct TV show; the Big Sheep, a north Devon visitor attraction devoted to, er, sheep; the Big Draw; the Big Tidy-Up; the Big Give; the Big Lottery Fund; the Big Toddle.

You don't want to say anything cruel about the Big Toddle. Even I would struggle to make fun of a sponsored walk for toddlers in aid of Barnardo's.

Satirists must be fearless. Anyway, your theory is bollocks: what about the Big Bang? Much exaggerated.

The Big Chill? Cancelled because of the Olympics.

The Big Issue, The Big Lebowski? There are exceptions to every rule.

Not to be confused with: The Notorious BIG, the late rap star, who was indeed enormous.

Do say: "It was the events prefixed by the word big that got small."

Don't say: "Another pickled gherkin, vicar?"

? My PMQs verdict
? Afternoon summary

9.00am: There are exactly four weeks to go until George Osborne delivers his budget and the annual pre-budget submissions are starting to pour in. Some of them are predictable. The CBI has published its wish list today and - guess what? - they want lower taxes for business. But the existence of the coalition means that internal government discussions are now more transparent than usual, because the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats are doing some of their negotiating in public, and this week we've discovered that former cabinet ministers have a particular role to play.

On Monday David Laws, the Lib Dem former chief secretary to the Treasury, gave an interview to Newsnight saying that pension relief for higher rate taxpayers should be cut to fund the increase in the tax allowance for basic rate taxpayers. And today Liam Fox, the former defence secretary, is retaliating on behalf of the Tory right. In an article for the Financial Times (subscription), he says Osborne should instead prioritise cutting national insurance.

There is a strong argument for further public spending reductions, not to fund a faster reduction in the deficit, but to reduce taxes on employment. Although the coalition agreement may require the chancellor to raise personal tax allowances (which should be paid for with spending restraint not new taxes) he should use the proceeds of spending reductions to cut employers' national insurance contributions across the board. If that is deemed impossible, he should consider targeting such tax cuts on the employment of 16 to 24-year-olds, making them more attractive to employers.

I'll quote more from the article later.

Otherwise, here's the agenda for the day.

9.30am: Jim Murphy, the shadow defence secretary, delivers a speech launching Labour's defence policy review.

9.30am: The Office for National Statistics publishes an analysis of the characteristics of young unemployed people.

11am: The Electoral Commission publishes its quarterly figures on donations and loans to political parties.

12pm: David Cameron and Ed Miliband clash at PMQs.

Around 12.40pm: MPs start debating a Labour motion calling for the publication of the NHS risk register. I'll be covering the opening of the debate in detail.

1pm: Oliver Letwin, the Cabinet Office minister, gives evidence to the Commons public administration committee on government strategic thinking.

1.30pm: Cameron hosts a summit on racism in football at Downing Street.

2.15pm: Michael Moore, the Scottish secretary, gives evidence to the Scottish affairs committee about the independence referendum.

As usual, I'll be covering all the breaking political news, as well as looking at the papers and bringing you the best politics from the web. I'll post a summary but it will be later than usual, probably at around 2pm, after the opening of the health debate.

If you want to follow me on Twitter, I'm on @AndrewSparrow.

And if you're a hardcore fan, you can follow @gdnpoliticslive. It's an automated feed that tweets the start of every new post that I put on the blog.

9.19am: In the good old boom days, the government would never have got very excited about the creation of 1,000 jobs in the hotel industry. But today Nick Clegg has put out a press release about exactly that. Here's an excerpt.

IHG (InterContinental Hotels Group), one of the world's leading hotel companies with brands such as Holiday Inn, today announced it is creating nearly 3,000 new jobs across its 275 UK hotels over the next three years, including over 1,100 new jobs this year. IHG also announced the launch of its newest hospitality training Academy in London.

The announcement was welcomed by the Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, who attended the launch of the IHG Academy programme at the soon to open Holiday Inn London Stratford City. The new hotel is one of four IHG hotels in the area that will be creating new jobs, for which students of the IHG Academy programme can apply.

A job's a job, I suppose, and anything is better than unemployment, but it's telling that ministers are having to be so positive about employment opportunities which will, I presume, largely involve low pay and low skills. At the end of last year Clegg issued a similar statement welcoming the creation of jobs at Starbucks.

9.28am: Back to Liam Fox. As yahyah points out in the comments, Liam Fox also calls for employment rights to be weakened in his FT article (subscription). He also wants executive pay in some banks to be cut. Here are the key points.

? Fox says firing workers should be made easier.

To restore Britain's competitiveness we must begin by deregulating the labour market. Political objections must be overridden. It is too difficult to hire and fire and too expensive to take on new employees. It is intellectually unsustainable to believe that workplace rights should remain untouchable while output and employment are clearly cyclical.

The Left must be given an unequivocal moral challenge: it is utterly unacceptable to condemn a generation of our young to unemployment by maintaining all the rights and privileges of those currently in work. That would be the unavoidable outcome of failing to hold our own in a highly competitive global marketplace.

? He says that rewards for failure should not be accepted in the City.

The real debate should have centred on how, between 2000 and the start of 2012, the return to owners of Barclays shares was minus 9 per cent compared to 23 per cent for the FTSE 100 as a whole. For the Royal Bank of Scotland, the return was more like minus 86 per cent, its total pay increase from 2008 to 2010 was 55 per cent. No one should resent bonuses being paid to those who achieve success for some of our most important financial institutions or those digging them out of their holes. But for years we have been rewarding failure to the detriment of competitiveness and returns to pension savers.

9.58am: Here's Bob Crow, the RMT general secretary, responding to Liam Fox's call for employment rights to be weakened. (See 9.28am.)

We will take no lectures on working practices from Liam Fox, a man who had to resign from the cabinet because of his own dubious workplace arrangements.

The Dodgy Doctor, and the rest of the old school right wingers in the Tory Party, would still have kids jammed up chimneys if it hadn't been for centuries of campaigning by the trade unions to clamp down on workplace exploitation. We will fight this latest attack on working people from the zombie adherents to unrepentant Thatcherism.

10.03am: Jeremy Hunt (left), the culture secretary, has been giving interviews today ahead of the Downing Street summit on racism in football. PoliticsHome have been monitoring. Here are the key points.

? Hunt said football had made "huge progress" in tackling racism but that more needed to be done.

Huge progress has been made in the last 20 years, because football, which is our national game, decided it wanted to take this problem very, very seriously. I would take it even further and say that the reason that attitudes to racial discrimination have improved so much in recent years is partly because football decided to take such a stand. So one of the things we want to do this morning is say: We made progress but we clearly can't be complacent. Look at some of the things that have happened that have worried a lot of people.

? He said the government wanted to tackle the problem of homophobia in football.

We want to look at a new issue as far as football is concerned, which football hasn't really engaged with in the past, which is homophobia and say, given the progress that football helped us to make as a society when it comes to racism, could it do the same thing with homophobia? Because we still don't have any out Premiership players. And obviously it's pretty unlikely there aren't any gay Premiership players. We don't know, but it would be an incredibly strong signal if we could have a more tolerant attitude inside the game in term of what it would say to the rest of society.

10.20am: You may not spend a lot of time worrying about the threat posed to Britain by electro-magnetic pulses (EMP), but fortunately the Commons defence committee is there to there to worry about them for us. Today it has published a report on the subject. An EMP event would be serious because it could wipe out the national grid. It could be caused by a high altitude nuclear weapon (the chances of which are low, according to the committee) or by a "severe space weather event" (the chances of which are moderate to high).

This is what James Arbuthnot (left), the Conservative chairman, had to say about it on the Today programme this morning. I've taken the quote from PoliticsHome.

The most important thing is that the consequences if it did happen would be so devastating that we really ought to start protecting against it now. Our vulnerabilities are huge. It would have a far more devastating impact to use a nuclear weapon in this way than to explode a bomb in or on a city. The reason is that it would, over a much wider area, take out things like the National Grid on which we all rely or almost everything; the water system, the sewage system and it would rapidly become difficult to live in cities. When I say rapidly, I mean within a matter of a couple of days.

10.52am: Paul Kenny (left), the GMB general secretary, has also been commenting on Liam Fox's FT article. (See 9.00am and 9.28am.) He's put out this statement.

So soon after Fox resigned after admitting 'mistakes' of 'blurring' roles, here he is again making further mistakes, blurring extreme right-wing drivel with changes the economy actually needs. Large companies are awash with cash. Cutting their taxes will simply add to these cash piles and do nothing to boost demand.

Many large companies already use offshore tax havens to cut their tax bills. Instead these loopholes should be shut and companies should start spending to create jobs rather than hoarding cash. Making it easier to sack workers or treat them badly at work will increase insecurity and conflict and will not create a single job.

11.08am: You can read all today's Guardian politics stories here. And all the politics stories filed yesterday, including some in today's paper, are here.

As for the rest of the papers, here are some stories that are particularly interesting.

? The Financial Times (subscription) says George Osborne is considering bringing in higher council tax bands for expensive homes.

Treasury officials cautioned against thinking that Mr Osborne had lots of money to give away. An aide to the chancellor said: "We can't start giving away small prizes when we are still a long way from meeting our fiscal mandate."

Instead, the chancellor is looking at possible measures to raise more money from the very wealthy, including closing stamp duty loopholes on upmarket property, to fund a Budget that will boost enterprise while at the same time relieving pressure on the "squeezed middle".

According to some Conservatives, Mr Osborne is considering introducing new higher council tax bands to cover expensive homes, primarily in the London area.

The idea is similar to that of the Lib Dems' long-favoured mansion tax, but is gathering support among influential rightwing Tories. Michael Gove, education secretary, said on Tuesday he was interested in the idea of a tax on land, while Tim Montgomerie, editor of the ConservativeHome website, supports higher council tax bands.

? James Chapman in the Daily Mail says Tory MPs are threatening to vote against the budget unless George Osborne changes his plans to cut child benefit for high earners.

Conservative rebels are threatening to inflict a humiliating defeat on the Government over plans to axe child benefit for higher rate taxpayers.

They warned Chancellor George Osborne that unless he alters the plans to protect one-earner families, they will take the extraordinary step of attempting to vote down Budget legislation.

It is almost unheard of for MPs to try to amend or bring down their own side's finance Bills, and a defeat would raise questions about the survival of the Government ...

As ministers struggled to defend the idea during a debate in Parliament, Conservative MP Mark Reckless said he doubted the Government would be able to command a majority if it pressed ahead.

'The Treasury would be well advised to use the Budget to drop this policy. The alternative may be that it is defeated on the floor of the House,' he said.

? Robert Winnett and James Kirkup in the Daily Telegraph say there are signs that the 50p tax rate is not raising as much as expected.

The Treasury received £10.35 billion in income tax payments from those paying by self-assessment last month, a drop of £509 million compared with January 2011. Most other taxes produced higher revenues over the same period.

Senior sources said that the first official figures indicated that there had been "manoeuvring" by well-off Britons to avoid the new higher rate. The figures will add to pressure on the Coalition to drop the levy amid fears it is forcing entrepreneurs to relocate abroad.

The self-assessment returns from January, when most income tax is paid by the better-off, have been eagerly awaited by the Treasury and government ministers as they provide the first evidence of the success, or failure, of the 50p rate. It is the first year following the introduction of the 50p rate which had been expected to boost tax revenues from self-assessment by more than £1billion.

(Last month the Telegraph ran a story saying a report from HM Revenue and Customs was expected to show that the 50p rate was generating "a 'surge' in revenues totalling hundreds of millions of pounds from the first year ? undermining the economic case for scrapping the levy".)

? Sam Greenhill and Daniel Martin in the Daily Mail say four people have been arrested in the fraud inquiry surrounding A4e, the company run by Emma Harrison, an adviser to David Cameron.

Four people have been arrested in the fraud investigation surrounding David Cameron's 'back to work' tsar Emma Harrison.

Officers carried out dawn raids on the homes of former staff of her employment agency A4e, which receives tens of millions every year in Government contracts.

The two men and two women were questioned on suspicion of cheating taxpayers.

? Stanley Pignal in the Financial Times (subscription) says George Osborne tried to block the annual approval of the European Union's accounts because of concerns about misspending.

The chancellor's move came despite the UK being the subject of some of the concerns.

In an unprecedented step, the chancellor, along with the finance ministers of the Netherlands and Sweden, voted against the signing off of the 2010 EU budget.

However, the accounts were approved by the majority of European finance ministers during a meeting in Brussels on Tuesday.

The move was designed to protest at perceived misspending in the EU's budget of ?140bn a year. European auditors have never given unqualified assent to it in the past 17 years.

11.19am: For the record, here are the YouGov GB polling figures from last night.

Labour: 41% (up 3 points from Monday night)
Conservatives: 37% (down 2)
Lib Dems: 9% (down 1)

Labour lead: 4 points

Government approval: -28

11.43am: Jim Murphy (left), the shadow defence secretary, has launched Labour's defence review with the publication of a 44-page consultation paper (which I can't find on the web yet). At the launch, Murphy said that the government's defence review was "driven by savings, not strategy". He also said it was particulary important for European countries to coordinate more on defence in the light of the way the US is now focusing more on the Asia-Pacific region.

The US's strategic reorientation makes their priorities more numerous at a time of more limited resource and the impact on how we work together must be considered. It's untenable that the US President announces that this is a moment of transition and European nations act as if this is a period of status quo: European nations have to get serious. We must do more together to preserve our reach, and co-operation such as the UK-France agreement must become the norm not the exception.

Time has come for a conversation on how European NATO nations co-ordinate spending reductions and changes to force structures. We need to explore how a 'Coalition of Cuts' can help us end the practice of fighting conflicts together but preparing for them individually.

11.59am: David Cameron is likely to pay tribute to the Sunday Times journalist Marie Colvin who was killed in Syria. You can read more about her death on our Middle East live blog.

12.01pm: Cameron is speaking now.

He starts with tributes to an airman killed in Afghanistan.

He also mentions Marie Colvin's death. It is "deserately sad", he says.

12.02pm: Labour's Clive Betts asks why the number of frontline police officers has been cut by 4,000. And why is the police helicopter being scrapped in South Yorkshire.

Cameron says there are talks underway about the helicopter. He is confident coverage will be maintained.

12.03pm: Sajid Javid, a Conservative, asks about the coach crash affecting the pupils and teachers returning to a school in Alvechurch.

Cameron says this is a "desperately sad" case. Peter Rippington, the teacher who died, will be sorely missed, he says.

12.04pm: Ed Miliband also pays tribute to the airman who died in Afghanistan. And he says Marie Colvin was "a brave and tireless reporter" and an inspiration to women in the profession.

Cameron held an NHS summit on Monday, Miliaband says. He lists all the organisations excluded. How could Cameron think it was a good idea to hold a summit excluding most people who work in the NHS?

Cameron says he wants to safeguard the NHS. The government is putting more money in - money Labour want to take out. But money alone won't do the job, because the NHS needs reform too.

Miliband says Cameron has "no answer" to the question about his "ridiculous" summit. Cameron says during the listening exercise that the government had to take NHS staff with them if they were imposing change. Now Cameron cannot even be in the same room as NHS staff.

Cameron says Miliband does not want to talk about policy. Labour used to favour choice, competition and GPs being in charge. Now they are opposed.

He challenges Miliband to ask about the risk register, given that Labour is keeping MPs at Westminster until 7pm to vote on this issue.

(Has he got an announcement up his sleeve?)

12.08pm: Miliband asks what changes Cameron is planning to make to the bill.

Cameron says he is going ahead with the reforms because he is in favour of patients having more choice. Labour used to believe in the private sector helping the NHS. But Labour are now committed to a 5% cap on the involvement of the private sector. For a second time, he challenges Miliband to ask about the risk register.

Miliband says he has met senior NHS staff who think the bill will fragment services. As Andrew Lansley heckles, he says Lansley should listen to people in the NHS. Currently HIV treatment is commissioned by one organisation. Under Lansley's plan it will be commissioned by three groups. Doctors say this will damage care.

Cameron says the Terrence Higgins Trust support the plan. Labour are guilty of "complete opportunism". You don't save the NHS by opposing reform, he says. You achieve it by securing reform, he says.

UPDATE AT 3.24PM: The sentence about Cameron saying the Terrence Higgins Trust support the health plan is not correct. I've received this from the trust explaining what was actually said.

David Cameron's response was this: "But If the Right Hon gentleman is opposing other organisations that have expertise in AIDS and AIDS treatment taking part in the NHS, he will be opposing the Terrence Higgins Trust, who do an enormous amount to support HIV. The fact is, what we can see Mr Speaker is complete opportunism from the party opposite. They used to back choice, they used to back the independent sector, they used to back reform. I say to you Mr Speaker, you don't save the NHS by opposing reform, you save the NHS by delivering reform."

This response was meant to suggest that Ed Miliband would be opposed to Terrence Higgins Trust providing more services in the NHS, because he is opposed to how the bill opens up competition.

He didn't say that he is opposed to us from a policy perspective, or suggest that we 'back the bill'.

12.12pm: Milband says Cameron does not understand his own bill. The question is about the fragmentation of commissioning.

(There is a lot of disruption as Labour MP jeer, because Lansley is trying to offer advice to Cameron.)

Miliband says Cameron does not want Lansley's advice.

Will Cameron admit that he has broken his promise of no top-down reorganisation?

Cameron says clause 22 and clause 25 place a duty on organisations to integrate health and social care.

Cameron says Miliband has still not mentioned risk registers. That is because he has a copy of Labour's briefing note for today's debate. It says that there is a reason why goverments don't publish risk register and that Burnham blocked the publication of a risk register in 2009. Cameron says this shows that Labour are opportunist.

Miliband says he would be happy to trade his record on the NHS for Cameron's.

Cameron says that waiting times for inpatients and outpatients are down, and that waiting times are down. There are more doctors and midwives, and fewer managers. And he finishes quoting what a Labour two-time candidate said about Miliband this week. He quotes from Alex Hilton's post at Labour List. (Here's the quote from the blog, although I think Cameron puts the sentences in a different order.)

My problem is that you are not a leader. You are not articulating a vision or a destination, you're not clearly identifying a course and no-one's following you.

Cameron says he could not have put it better himself.

12.19pm: PMQs Snap Verdict: A very good start from Ed Miliband, but a textbook example by Cameron of how to use leaked material to throw an opponent. More later ...

12.20pm: Cameron says he hopes Scotland will choose to remain in the partnership that has done so well over the last 300 years.

12.21pm: Cameron says he is glad Liverpool has decided to have an elected mayor. Other cities need them too. "Great city figures" build up these places, he says.

12.22pm: Labour's Tom Blenkinsop asks if Michael Gove was speaking for the government when he said the Leveson was having a "chilling effect" on journalism.

Cameron says the government decided to set up the Leveson inquiry. But he agrees that he does not want freedom of the press curtailed.

12.24pm: Camerons says he supports the Times' campaign to make the roads safer for cyclists.

12.25pm: Labour's Fiona Mactaggart asks what the government is doing to ensure that the taxpayer is not the victim of fraud committed by employees at A4e.

Cameron says there is an ongoing police investigation involving allegations dating back to Labour's time in office. That investigation needs to be thorough, he says.

12.26pm: Cameron says it is a good thing for companies to offer work experience to young people. Around a half of young people on the government's work experience programmes get jobs. That is far better than the record of the Future Jobs Fund, and it has been achieved at about a twentieth of the cost, he says.

12.27pm: Peter Bone asks a Mrs Bone question. She told him that she knew that Cameron wanted to deport Abu Qatada. But she knew it was being blocked by the Lib Dems. At that point his 11-year-old son Thomas asked if Clegg was a goodie or a baddie. What's the answer?

Cameron says that Mrs Bone must be psychic, because Cameron does want Qatada deported. And Clegg agrees with him, Cameron says.

12.29pm: Labour's Jack Dromey asks Cameron to accept that he misled MPs when he said that rents were falling as a result of the cuts to housing benefit. (Inside Housing has more on this.)

Cameron sidesteps the question, and says that Dromey's comments should be taken with a lorryful of salt because of housebuilding fell to such low levels under Labour.

12.32pm: Cameron says there is no intention to cut the number of Royal Marine reservists in Scotland.

12.32pm: Joe Johnson, a Conservative, asks about the deportation of Christopher Tappin to the US.

Cameron says this case illustrates why extradition arrangements need to be reviewed. Nick Clegg is looking at this issue, he says.

12.35pm: Mike Crockhart, a Liberal Democrat, asks Cameron to put the Green Investment Bank in Edinburgh.

Cameron says Edinburgh would be a good location, but that other cities are being considered too.

12.36pm: Labour's Gregg McClymont asks Cameron to explain why he has broken his promise to impose no top-down reorganisation on the NHS.

Cameron says that he wants to cut bureaucracy in the NHS. And the government is putting more money into the NHS, while Labour says this is irresponsible, Cameron says.

12.38pm: PMQs is getting longer and longer. It is meant to last half an hour, but today John Bercow carried on taking questions until 12.37pm. He said that was because there were lots of interruptions and he wanted to protect the interests of backbenchers.

12.40pm: PMQs Verdict: For the third week in a row Ed Miliband asked about the NHS. That means that by now David Cameron should have come up with an answer to the question about why he broke his promise not to impose a top-down reorganisation on the NHS. But he still hasn't managed that - perhaps because there isn't one. Miliband used this question again today, but he was had a good, pithy question about the NHS summit and a technical question about commissioning, which left Cameron sounding a bit stumped. Overall, it was a points win for Miliband. The point about the NHS risk register (see 12.12pm) wasn't technically relevant to anything Miliband was raising. But it was a powerful point to make nevertheless, and it enabled Cameron to recover just before the whistle.

12.49pm: The debate on the NHS risk register will start in about 10 minutes. Here's the motion MPs will be debating.

That this House calls on the Government to respect the ruling by the Information Commissioner and to publish the risk register associated with the Health and Social Care Bill in order to ensure that it informs public and parliamentary debate

And here's a short background reading list.

? The ruling from the Information Commissioner's Office saying the NHS risk register should be published (pdf).

? Andy Burnham's press notice about today's debate.

? Juliette Jowit's Guardian story about the contents of regional risk registers.

? David Cameron's comments today accusing Labour of hypocrisy on this matter.

1.05pm: John Bercow says there will be a seven minute limit on backbench speeches, because so many MPs want to speak in the debate.

1.06pm: Andy Burnham, the shadow health secretary, is opening the debate.

He says these are extraordinary times. The government is imposing a top-down reorganisation on the NHS. But no one voted for this.

The government has given the NHS "mission impossible" because it is asking it to find cuts worth £20bn, while also re-organising it at the same time.

Andrew Lansley began dismantling the structures of the NHS before he had permission from parliament, he says.

People talk of "confusion and drift". There has been "a huge loss of experienced staff".

Cameron promised to protect the NHS. But he has put it at risk, he says.

The public have a right to know what these risks are, he goes on.

1.09pm: Graham Evans, a Conservative, asks why Andy Burnham refused to publish an NHS risk register when he was health secretary in 2009.

Burnham says he will address this question directly soon in his speech.

1.10pm: Simon Burns, a health minister, intervenes. He tells Burnham to confirm that the bill has for the first time made tackling health inequalities an NHS duty.

1.14pm: Burnham says he wants to use today's debate to explain what is happening in the NHS on the ground.

1.17pm: Burnham now explains why he did not publish an NHS risk register in 2009.

He says David Cameron got his facts wrong.

He says Lansley is not being asked to publish the full departmental risk register. Instead, he is being asked to publish the transitional risk register - the document explaining the risk inherent in the health bill. They are different, Burnham says.

Another difference is that Burnham did not promise no top-down reorganisation of the NHS.

Another difference is that the 2009 request came from a member of the public. This time the request came from a frontbencher. (It was John Healey who submitted the Freedom of Information request when he was shadow health secretary.)

And another difference is that the Information Commissioner's Office has said the risk register should be published, Burnham says.

1.23pm: Alan Reid, a Lib Dem MP, asks if another reason for Burnham taking a different stance is the fact that he is now in opposition.

Reid also asks Burnham to give an assurance that he will always publish risk register if he returns to office.

Burnham says whether or not a document should be published will vary from case to case.

1.26pm: Burnham says Lansley put out a press release last year saying that an open, transparent NHS would be a safer NHS.

The government is ignoring its own policy, Burnham says.

He says the government has also argued that disclosure would jeopardise the success of the policy. This seems unlikely, Burnham says.

The government has also argued that publication would stop civil servants giving frank advice. But the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) rejected this argument, he says.

The ICO also rejected the government's claims that publication would lead to civil servants being named and that publication would set a bad precedent.

1.28pm: Andrew Lansley, the health secretary, intervenes. He quotes from the reasons given when Burnham blocked the publication of a risk register in 2009. He asks if Burnham agrees with those reasons.

Burnham says Lansley is trying to "muddy the waters". That was a different risk register.

The government has no principled reason for objecting to publication, he says.

He says Lib Dem MPs who support the government tonight will be part of a "spineless conspiracy against the NHS, acting out of nothing except loyalty to the suicide pact that is the coalition".

1.31pm: Burnham now turns to the effect the bill is already having on the NHS.

He rattles off a series of figures about waiting times going up.

Lansley intervenes. He says the number of patients waiting for more than a year went down from 18,458 in May 2010 to 9,190 in December last year.

(There are so many waiting time figures that, if you use them selectively, you can prove virtually anything. For a good guide to what the real picture is, try this post from James Ball at the Guardian's Reality Check or this post from the FullFact blog.)

1.38pm: Burnham is now quoting from what some of regional risk registers say about the impact of the health bill.

(My colleague Juliette Jowit wrote about these regional risk registers in a Guardian splash recently.)

1.40pm: Burnham says the London risk register says the loss of NHS staff could lead to "preventable harm to children".

And he quotes from the Northamptonshire register. It says the NHS reorganisation would stop the local NHS meeting its statutory requirements, with the result that there could be harm or fatalities to children or vulnerable adults.

1.46pm: Burnham says he wants to address the argument that halting reorganisation now would make things worse.

GP-led commissioning could be introduced without the bill, he says.

Burnham says he is willing to work with Lansley on this if he drops his bill.

In West Sussex a surgery has written to all its patients offering them private screening for health risks.

There are stories emerging from around the country of GPs stopping purchasing services from local hospitals.

This process could lead to the closure of local hospitals, he says.

1.53pm: Burnham says that if the government were to publish the risk register, the case for the health bill would be "demolished" instantly.

David Cameron is not listening to doctors and nurses he was once so keen to be photographed alongside, Burham says.

Cameron is gambling with a much-loved institution. This is "unforgiveable", he says.

People deserve "the full truth". MPs should vote to give them the full truth.

And he appeals to people watching the debate to join the fight to save the NHS.

Government MPs cannot look their constituents in the eye and say they voted for this, he says.

Labour promised the government "the fight of its life" and that is what it will give them, he says.

1.55pm: Nigel Evans, the deputy speaker, says this is the worst-tempered debate he has chaired since he became deputy speaker. He appeals for calm.

1.57pm: Andrew Lansley, the health secretary, is responding now.

He starts by quoting what Andy Burnham said himself in 2007 about there being reasons for not publishing a risk register.

Burnham had his "bats broken" before the debate even started, he says, referring to the point David Cameron made at PMQs.

And he says Burnham has taken to opposition naturally. He opposes everything.

Lansley repeats his point about waiting times getting better. (See 1.31pm.)

He says that Burnham did not thank NHS staff in his speech.

2.05pm: Andrew George, a Liberal Democrat (and an opponent of the bill) asks, if everything is going so well, why the government needs to re-organise the NHS.

2.10pm: Lansley says the government is publishing data that matters to patients.

2.10pm: John Healey, the former shadow health secretary, intervenes. He asks if the government is engaged in censorship.

Lansley says that, when Healey was a Treasury minister, he refused to publish risk register.

2.12pm: Lansley explains what high-level risk registers are.

He says they are a snapshot of the potential problems facing the service at any one time.

They are supposed to outline all possible risks, "however outlandish and unlikely" they are.

They include "real and potential" risks.

And staff writing them are encouraged to be as blunt as possible, he says.

These risks are supposed to be spelt out so that mitigating action can be taken, he says.

Lansley says these high-level registers are not the same as the regional risk registers quoted by Burnham. The regional ones cover operational matters. And, unlike the high-level ones, they are written with the intention of being made public, he says.

2.17pm: Simon Hughes, the Lib Dem deputy leader, asks Lansley to confirm that the government is following proper procedure in this matter. The Freedom of Information Act says that if the government disagrees with a decision taken by the Information Commissioner's Office, it has a right to appeal to a tribunal. That is what is happening in this case. He asks Lansley to confirm that the government will respond "postively" to tribunal's decision. (The tribunal is due to consider this matter in March.)

Lansley says that Hughe is right to say that the government does not have to agree with the ICO. He says Christopher Graham, the information commissioner, wrote an article in the Observer on Sunday saying that, as commissioner, he was "not infallible".

2.22pm: Andy Burnham asks what the government will do if the tribunal says the government should publish the register. He says the previous government did obey an ICO ruling in a case like this relating to Heathrow.

Lansley says the Heathrow case was differently. But he does not directly answer the question about what the government will do if it loses at the tribunal.

(If the government loses at appeal, it could appeal to the High Court on a point of law. And ultimately the government has the right to ignore a Freedom of Information ruling.)

2.29pm: Lansley says Labour have not acknowledged the debts the NHS has incurred through Labour's PFI programme.

And criticises Labour for wasting money on its IT programme.

2.31pm: Henry Smith, a Conservative, asks Lansley to confirm that Labour's PFI programme is costing the NHS £3,000 a minute.

Lansley says he can't do the calculation in his head. But he knows PFI is costing the NHS £67bn, he says.

2.34pm: Lansley says in England 8% of patients are not seen within 18 weeks. But in Wales, where Labour are in control, the figure is 32%, he says.

The Welsh Audit Office has also said that health spending in Wales will be cut by 6% during the course of this parliament, he says.

2.37pm: Lansley is explaining what the bill does. It cuts bureaucracy, empowers patients leaders, supports foundation trusts, and brings in patient accountability.

2.39pm: Labour's Barbara Keeley asks if the consultants McKinsey have had access to the risk register.

No, says Lansley. He has not met McKinseyssince becoming health secretary, he says. After a story about their involvement in the bill appeared in the Mail on Sunday, he asked how much had been spent on them. The department paid them £5m, but that was for work conducted while Labour were in power. For work done while the coalition have been in power, McKinsey have only received £390,000. Lansey says he knows enough from his time in business to know that you don't get much advice from McKinsey for that sum.

Winding up, he accuses Labour of wasting its opposition day debate.

These matters should properly be resolved by the information tribunal when it considers the case at the beginning of March, he says.

2.48pm: Trench warfare must have been a bit like this: two sides slogging it out brutally and unhappily, but no one making any progress. The debate has been running for almost two hours now and, although Andy Burnham and Andrew Lansley both delivered strong speeches - Burnham was passionate and alarmist (which is only a pejorative term if you think he has not right to be alarmist), Lansley was technical and scornful - but we haven't learnt much and it doesn't feel as if the politics of the health bill are changing at all. At LabourList Mark Ferguson has got a list of 15 Lib Dems who should vote with Labour because they have signed an early day motion saying the risk register should be published. But, from listening to the inteventions, it did not sound as if we are going to get a mass Lib Dem rebellion when the vote comes at 7pm tonight. MPs who are happy to rebel on votes relating to legislation are much more reluctant to do so on votes which are just about boosting opposition morale - even if they agree with the motion.

Lansley actually had a fair answer to this. He said that, under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act, the government had the right to appeal to the tribunal and that it exactly what it is doing now. The most interesting exchanges came when Simon Hughes and Andy Burnham challenged Lansley to say that he would accept the findings of the tribunal. Lansley refused to give this assurance - implying that, if the tribunal says the risk register should be published, the government has not ruled out using the right it has in the FoI Act to ignore the tribunal and veto publication. This has only happened three times - once under Labour in response to an FoI ruling about the Iraq war cabinet minutes, once under Labour in response to a ruling about cabinet committee minutes relating to devolution and once recently, under the coalition, in response to a second ruling about the devolution minutes. Using the veto in this way is usually considered as a nuclear option and, if the government were to do this, it would highly controversial. But we're not at that stage yet.

I won't be covering the rest of the debate in detail, but it's worth mentioning Alan Johnson's speech. The former health secretary gave a reminder of why he is considered one of Labour's best communicators as he described Lansley like this: "No one has coveted the position of health secretary for so long and then failed so quickly." But then he also reminded us why he acquired a reputation for making gaffes when he described the risk register as "a second-order issue" - thereby undermining the central argument Labour are making today.

3.24pm: At 12.08pm I said Cameron told MPs that the Terrence Higgins Trust supported his health plan. That's not right. I've received this from the trust which explains what was actually said.

David Cameron's response was this: "But If the Right Hon gentleman is opposing other organisations that have expertise in AIDS and AIDS treatment taking part in the NHS, he will be opposing the Terrence Higgins Trust, who do an enormous amount to support HIV. The fact is, what we can see Mr Speaker is complete opportunism from the party opposite. They used to back choice, they used to back the independent sector, they used to back reform. I say to you Mr Speaker, you don't save the NHS by opposing reform, you save the NHS by delivering reform."

This response was meant to suggest that Ed Miliband would be opposed to Terrence Higgins Trust providing more services in the NHS, because he is opposed to how the bill opens up competition.

He didn't say that he is opposed to us from a policy perspective, or suggest that we 'back the bill'.

4.30pm: Here's an afternoon summary.

? Andy Burnham, the shadow health secretary, has accused the government of refusing to publish the NHS risk register because it would demolish the case the health bill. Opening what has been a bad-tempered debate on a Labour motion calling for the register to be published, as the Information Commissioner's Office has said it should be published, Burnham said that regional risk registers which have been made public highlighted the scale of the problems associated with the bill.

This is what the NHS is telling the Health Secretary and the Prime Minister about the potential effects of his reorganisation. It is appalling and shocking. They are taking unacceptable risks with children's safety and people's lives ...

If this is what is published in local risk registers, it begs the question what on earth are they trying to hide in the national assessment? The simple truth is this: they can't publish, because if people knew the full facts it would demolish any residual support that this reorganisation might have.

Lansley said that the government was entitled to appeal to the information tribunal against the ICO's decision, as it is doing. He said that Burnham refused to publish a risk register when he was health secretary (Burnham said that was a different category of risk register) and Lansley said there were good reasons for not publishing risk registers.

To be effective, a risk register requires all those involved to be frank and open about potential risk. It is their job to think the unthinkable and look at worst-case scenarios. It is vital nothing is done to inhibit that process. If people are in doubt about the confidentiality of their views they will inevitably think twice before committing themselves to such direct and candid language in the future.

But Lansley refused to confirm that the government would publish the register if ordered to do so by the tribunal - suggesting that ministers could take the rare step of using their veto powers to block the register's publication if the tribunal finds against them. The health bill also dominated the exchanges between David Cameron and Ed Miliband at PMQs, where Miliband said the health bill would be as disastrous as the poll tax.

The problem with this prime minister is he asks people to trust him and he has betrayed that trust. The problem with this prime minister is that on the NHS he thinks he is right and everyone else is wrong.

It has become not a symbol of how his party has changed but of his arrogance. I tell him this: this will become his poll tax. He should listen to the public and he should drop this bill.

? A4e, the welfare-to-work company at the centre of a criminal investigation has previously had to repay public funds on five separate occasions after government investigations into fraud allegations found evidence of "irregularities", the Guardian has revealed.

? Jim Murphy, the shadow defence secretary, has said that Britain is under-prepared for a bioterrorist attack. Speaking at the launch of Labour's defence policy review, he said: "While the security environment of the 20th century was dominated by physics, the 21st may see biology centre-stage. Bioterrorism both exposes significant weaknesses in our security architecture and is a threat which could cause mass suffering."

? Michael Moore, the Scottish secretary, has published a timetable showing that it would be possible to hold the referendum on Scottish independence in September 2013. Scotand's SNP government wants to hold the poll in autumn 2014. "No one has yet explained to me why the people of Scotland should haveto wait nearly three years to make the most important decision we willever make," Moore said. "It is not in the interests of the Scottish people to buildup uncertainty and make them wait."

? Unison has published a report saying that the pay of council workers has fallen by 13% in real terms over the last three years.

? David Davis, the Conservative backbencher, has said that the government is "too close" to big business. He made the claim in an article for Prospect in which he also accused the government of not doing enough to tackle the problems associated with "crony capitalism".

When it comes to crony capitalism, government is often not the solution, but part of the proble ... If it is not addressed, Britain's crony capitalism will inflict huge damage to our interests, economy, industry and society. The gap between achievement and reward will widen. Social mobility will continue to fall. It will also continue to stifle growing businesses, destabilise our banking sector, and poison our politics ...

Wherever you look in Whitehall the government is too close to big busines. In business, we need to drop the idea that biggest is best, and that Britain's economic health is well served by focusing ministerial attention on a few dozen multinational corporations. The Ministry of Defence's disastrous record in public procurement is partly a product of an overly cosy relationship with a few suppliers. The Department of Energy and Climate Change's clumsy environmental policies stem from close contacts with half a dozen enormous companies.

? The Electoral Commission has revealed that the Conservative party attracted almost £1m more in donations than Labour in the final quarter of last year. As the Press Association reports, the Tories declared £3.2m between October and December with the opposition bringing in £2.3m. The Liberal Democrat total stood at just over £1m.

? Liam Fox, the former defence secretary, has said that George Osborne should use next month's budget to cut employers' national insurance and deregulate the labour market.

? Cameron has said that football should be more inclusive. "Football must do more to be inclusive, in order that the beautiful game is truly open to all players, managers, coaches and supporters," he said after hosting a Downing Street summit on racism in football. At the meeting the Football League announced it would sign the government's Sports Charter to tackle homophobia and transphobia. The football authorities also revealed details of a scheme to to help Black, Asian and minority ethnic candidates train as football coaches.

? Lansley has said that patients could be issued with smartphone apps to help them manage their health conditions.

I'm finishing for the day. But a colleague will be updating the blog later with more from the NHS risk register debate.

7.04pm: Claire Phipps here, picking up from Andrew Sparrow - MPs are currently voting on the Labour motion calling on the government to publish the risk register for the health and social care bill. We'll have the result of the vote soon.

7.16pm: Labour motion on NHS risk register is lost, 246 votes to 299, a majority of 53.

7.52pm: Juliette Jowit, our political correspondent, has just filed a report on today's debate. It will be online in full shortly, but here's a taster.

Health secretary Andrew Lansley looks more determined than ever not to publish a major risk assessment into the government's NHS shake-up. Lansley tonight won the support of MPs, who voted by a majority of 53 against a Labour motion that the Department of Health should make the document public.

However, growing disquiet among some Conservative MPs and Liberal Democrats was voiced by Lib Dem MP John Pugh, who told the often bad-tempered debate that the bill was "toxifying the Tories" and was "sadly detrimental to the Liberal Democrats".

Lansley suggested to MPs that he might refuse to release the risk register even if he is instructed to do so by a tribunal due to meet in two weeks to judge on his dispute with the information commissioner, who has instructed him to publish.

That's it for the blog for today ? Andrew will be back tomorrow.
Thanks for all your comments.

And they're off! Ken Livingstone and Boris Johnson held their first hustings on Tuesday, in readiness for the mayoral elections in May. Age UK was in charge. I think Brian Paddick was there, but it's always hard to tell. Like two veteran greyhounds they burst out of their cages; unfortunately Ken immediately found an unexpected kebab on the track and Boris, I guess, felt it would be rude not to fight him for it. They clashed magisterially over who was most in favour of the Freedom Pass. Ken said he was, because he was 66.

This seemed to swing it for the audience, as well as Ken's supporters in the media ? well, of course, I mean us ? who called this a "spanking" for Boris. Johnson's supporters ? of course I mean Andrew Gilligan, on the Telegraph ? muttered that "the activists at most of these events don't have much in common with ordinary voters".

Yeah, because activists turn up to things, they ask questions, they listen to the answers and when roused, they make clapping noises to signal support. So of course they have nothing at all in common with what we're asked to believe is the "ordinary voter" these days, who hates politicians, cares about nothing but keeping their tax bill down, and spends their downtime looking for a new iPad ? a hyper-technical nihilist with a slightly inconsistent (but never mind) passion for social media.

I can't help but see this as a Coriolanus-style event, two adversaries so identified by their longstanding enmity that if either were to drop out, the other would decay from the core, like rotting fruit. So clearly this is a huge clash for them, and it's also pretty huge for us: it's risk-free tribalism, like choosing a football team, except for the expense and the level of commitment.

Possibly out of respect for the limitations of the post, the candidates focused on the smallest possible detail. I was being unfair when I said they only talked of the Freedom Pass, but not that unfair. You have no idea how many strands there are to this conversation ? Livingstone said he would extend the pass to letting Freedom Passers use London's hire-bikes for free as well. Considering they're free for the first half an hour anyway, I defy this to cost £250,000, but never mind.

Boris bit back. Wasn't it him who'd made the Freedom Pass 24-hour, ending forever the phrase that strikes fear into a pensioner's heart: "You're twirly, love"? Ken moved on ? with him as mayor, you'd get a proper, full-time mayor, subsisting entirely on the salary of £140,000 ("if you can't live on that, there's something wrong with your lifestyle" ? I think this was a veiled attempt to call Boris a philanderer, but maybe I'm wrong. Sometimes I misattribute subtexts just for a laugh). Of course the unveiled attack was on Boris's "other" job as a columnist for the Daily Telegraph ? a foolish one, in my view, because everyone knows writing that only takes him 20 minutes, and if the paper wants to pay him as much as it would hypothetically cost to give London's 1.2 million pensioners free bike travel, then that's their look-out.

Livingstone, I believe, is still smarting from the fact that when he first took this post, he put the "moral" into "mayoral" by giving up the restaurant column he had in London's Evening Standard. But that is yesterday's bruschetta, man. It's time to move on.

In a sense, they did, on to more transport costs. Ken's new deal, to cut fares by 7%, will save Londoners a grand over four years, but only if you compare it to Boris's proposed price hikes, rather than the prices as they stand at the moment. This is a significant thing to many people, and an embarrassment to the city, frankly, that prices are as high as they are at the moment.

But wouldn't it be great if they would consider this: it's not just a clash between two big "personalities", it is a clash of the ideologies they represent. They achieved their maverick status in two separate but connected ways ? first, by appearing to be people who say what they think. Second, by refusing to modernise; Livingstone explicitly rejecting the "new" bit of Labour, Boris coming on like the rightful heir to Prince Philip. In so doing, they have retained their status as the emblems of what their parties are about.

When we're presented with a vote for the London mayor, we're in a fight not between two triangulated, indistinguishable career politicians, but between the true left and the true right, as solid and elemental as the marks on a compass. They may not be able to further their vision in very large increments ? there's only so much you can redistribute via a tube fare, or brandish the torch for freedom by cutting the congestion charge on a 4x4. Nevertheless, they could bring much more value to this contest if they would only stop talking about who can save you the most money. They're selling their candidacies like a three-for-two offer in Asda.

People often talk about the inoculation of the capital from the challenges facing the rest of Britain, but there are huge clouds over London that make laughable the notion of its being "protected". The benefit cap threatens to turn it into a Paris-style "doughnut", with poor residents living miles from the centre. The highest number of applicants per job is not in the north-east of England but in Lewisham. Regardless of the extent of mayoral control over these grand coalition projects, it would be fascinating, emboldening, heartening, to hear these candidates fight for our minds and not our wallets.

Twitter: @zoesqwilliams

Last week, it emerged that the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) had sent a letter to 48 states offering to take their prisons off their hand in exchange for a quick infusion of cash. The only small catch was that the states would have to sign a contract guaranteeing 90% occupancy of those prisons for the next 20 years. Now, if that seems a little cheeky ? a bit like a hotel chain saying we'll buy up your struggling resort if you can guarantee the beds will always be full ? you have to understand the CCA's predicament.

Unlike a hotel, a private prison cannot sell its services directly to its customers. The power to hold a person against their will is a power that state alone enjoys (for the time being, anyway), so for private prison companies to continue to grow, they need the state to send as many customers their way as possible. To ensure this customer base never dries up, they have to convince society that maintaining high levels of incarceration is in our best interests ? not despite the fact that there is profit to be made from depriving individuals of their liberty, but because of it.

To be fair to the CCA, and other private prison companies, society for the most part has been more than willing to play along. For decades now, many small towns across America that fell on hard times were only too happy to embrace the prison industry as their economic salvation. The CCA's website features an article from the Texas Monthly magazine, entitled "Yes in my Back Yard: How Eden learned to stop worrying and love its private prison", about one such town called Eden, which is apparently besotted with its CCA-owned detention center. While the CCA has become one of the leading local employers, the article cheerfully notes that "At least half the town's 2,500 residents live behind bars."

The half of the town that is behind bars didn't get to weigh in with their feelings about what it's like to live in a prison town. Presumably, for them, Eden is no paradise. But the town's free citizens, many of whom have jobs in the prison, will not hear a bad word said against it.

The nature of the work did not seem to bother anyone too much, apart from the admission that the town still loses young people who, apparently, don't grow up dreaming of a prison job. All in all, though, the Texas Monthly reports so much enthusiasm about the prison that one can't help considering the possibility that Eden may have hit on the economic model of the future whereby one half of the town is behind bars and the other half is gainfully employed to keep them that way. What's not to like?

The CCA, Geo Group Inc and other private prison companies would certainly be thrilled if more of us would embrace incarceration as the growth industry of the future. The problem is that, as an industry, it seems to have peaked. Half the states last year reported declining prison populations. That should be welcomed as good news, but for the many towns that, like Eden, hitched their economic well-being to the prison bandwagon, it's a disaster. Particularly, when it turns out that because of how the prison-building deals were financed and structured, it is the town ? and not the private prison company ? that takes the hit when there's a downturn in the industry.

In 2000, the town of Littlefield, Texas borrowed $10m to build the Bill Clayton Detention Center, which was operated by the for-profit GEO Group Inc. For nearly eight years, the prison did well (in financial terms, that is), and employed around 100 people. Then, in 2009, in the wake of several scandals involving inmate mistreatment and suicide, the state of Idaho withdrew all of the inmates they had sent there, leaving the prison with a lot of empty beds. Shortly afterwards, GEO announced it was pulling out, too. And so, the town was left to pick up the tab.

This meant that, every month, the small town had to come up with $65,000 to pay off the note on the prison. Finally, last July, inhabitants held an auction and managed to find a buyer willing to pay $6m for the prison ? just over half what they paid for it.

There are many other towns that have suffered Littlefield's fate, and there is a growing sense that the prison bubble may be about to burst, if it hasn't already. But the CCA may well prevail in their attempt to grow their business by buying up state prisons. They only need to convince enough of the right people that an expanding prison population is not a relentless drain on our economic resources, but an essential component of our public safety and economic well-being. So far, it seems, plenty of us have been quite happy to buy that.

News International settled 37 civil actions in January ? including high-profile actions brought by the actor Jude Law and the son of serial killer Harold Shipman ? in a bid to prevent them from going to trial, and paid out to another 21 victims of phone hacking earlier this month.

The publisher is also attempting to reach a settlement with the singer Charlotte Church, whose legal action will proceed to a full trial at the high court on Monday unless it is settled beforehand.

However, News International faces at least 50 fresh civil actions, with figures including footballer Peter Crouch, singer James Blunt and Ukip leader Nigel Farage having already filed claims and others being prepared.

The news of Blair's legal action comes at an embarrassing time for Rupert Murdoch, who arrived in London last week to lift the spirits of his newspaper group.

Alastair Campbell, the former No 10 communications director, told the Leveson inquiry in November that he believed it was "possible" that some stories about the Blairs were obtained by phone hacking.

Campbell admitted he had no evidence for the claim, but said in his witness statement: "I do not know if her [Carole Caplin's] phone was hacked, or if Cherie's was, but knowing what we do now about hacking and the extent of it, I think it is at least possible this is how the stories got out.

"They often involved details of where Cherie was going, the kind of thing routinely discussed on phones when planning visits, private as well as public."

Caplin, former lifestyle guru to Blair, said in November that she had been told by Scotland Yard that her name appears on a list of victims targeted by Mulcaire.

Separately, the former deputy prime minister in Blair's government, John Prescott, said in a tweet on Wednesday that he was due to give evidence to the Leveson inquiry on Monday.

The inquiry into press standards is due to begin hearing evidence on the relationship between the press and police from next week. However, some witnesses will appear to give testimony from the previous module on the press and public.

Tom Watson, the Labour MP who has been one of the most vocal critics of News International over phone hacking, said the legal action was a "very significant" development.

"Just when the hacking scandal was disappearing from view we now know that Rupert Murdoch's hackers targeted family members of a sitting prime minister," he told MediaGuardian.

"The lesson for all politicians, including David Cameron, is that Rupert Murdoch is only a fair-weather friend. I trust that Tony Blair will condemn Murdoch's failure to deal with long-term criminal wrongdoing at News International."

He added: "I hope that the replacement to the News of the World ? the newly titled Sun on Sunday ? will take the opportunity to apologise to all the people who suffered illegal invasions of privacy at the hands of the hackers and they come clean about other forms of illicit surveillance."

? To contact the MediaGuardian news desk email editor@mediaguardian.co.uk or phone 020 3353 3857. For all other inquiries please call the main Guardian switchboard on 020 3353 2000. If you are writing a comment for publication, please mark clearly "for publication".

? To get the latest media news to your desktop or mobile, follow MediaGuardian on Twitter and Facebook.

Lady Warsi denounced "militant secularism" in a speech last week in the Vatican but, speaking to the Guardian, the Rt Rev Vincent Nichols, the archbishop of Westminster, skirted deftly round the term. He said instead that "what might have started out as an acknowledgement of a variety of religious and philosophical positions has produced a seeming determination to tear the legal and therefore cultural life of the country away from its Christian roots."

After a fortnight which has seen the emergence of a "Christianist" backlash ? most recently in evidence with an internet petition against gay marriage spearheaded by Lord Carey, the former archbishop of Canterbury ? Nichols seems to be supporting the movement from a careful distance.

Catholics will be encouraged to sign the petition against gay marriage as individuals, but the church as a whole will not be part of Carey's campaign even though it opposes a change in the law.

But the Catholic church is, he said, considering an appeal against some aspects of the judgment which prohibits Catholic adoption agencies from discriminating against gay potential parents.

"It was, I think, an act of intolerance to eliminate a very small number of these adoption agencies on a matter of principle, or on a single issue. In a plural society, people and groups like the Catholic church should be able to make a contribution."

The reasoned tone seems a deliberate attempt to take the high ground in the national debate. The statements of the English Catholic bishops in favour of civil partnership (as an alternative to gay marriage) contrasts very noticeably with the grumbling anathemata issuing from the Scottish and Irish churches on the subject.

When asked how to interpret the notorious Vatican description of homosexuality as "a tendency towards an objective moral evil", Nichols gave me a carefully prepared talk on the roots of Catholic philosophy. "This is a philosophical construct," he said

It is all part of a careful balancing act between the demands of Catholic theology, and of conservative factions in the Vatican, and the reality of the English Roman Catholic Church, where several of the most prominent lay figures are either gay themselves, divorced, or married to divorced people.

The emergence of the Catholic church into the mainstream of national life has been accompanied by a change in character: the old working class Irish-based Catholicism has almost vanished, to be replaced by a much less traditional English middle class which largely rejects the Church's teachings on birth control and homosexuality, while still treasuring it for its spiritual value.

In most countries, the Conservative wing of the Catholic church is more or less homophobic, but in England the Catholic Herald, which would be their paper, has been edited by an openly gay and partnered man (who died this month) and does not attack the bishops on that front.

He talked about the curious paradox that Catholic social teaching is gaining in influence and authority at the same time as Catholic sexual ethics seem discredited even among the faithful. Yet they are both, he said, derived from the same kind of reasoning and are an attempt to read out objective general truths about what is good for human beings, and then point our conduct towards them.

So, for example, the Catholic teaching about sex is based on the idea that it leads to babies, and this must be its highest good. The trouble is that when Catholic priests explain the purposes of sexuality they sound too often like a Martian at a football match.

Phrases like "abstract moral evil", he said, are not aimed at any individual. "One talks about objective moral evil, you might say today, that's racism. No matter what's intended or understood, that, objectively, is wrong. In a similar way, you can say, in every sphere of life there is objective moral evil. But that does not imply subjective moral guilt. That does not imply guilt on an individual."

As the Guardian reported last week, regional NHS risk assessments suggest wide-ranging concerns, including that patient care and safety could be damaged and that costs could rise, all such risks were assessed even after attempts to reduce the threat.

Speaking in a special opposition day debate organised by Labour, reiterating the call to publish the risk register, Lansley twice refused the opportunity to tell MPs that he would accept the tribunal's judgment after it meets on 5-6 March.

In answer to a question from the deputy Liberal Democrat leader, Simon Hughes, asking if he would "respond positively to the tribunal's decision", the health secretary instead quoted from an article in the Observer by the information commissioner, Christopher Graham, in which he said he was "not infallible".

"The government has the right to appeal to the tribunal ? and the tribunal is the proper place for that public interest test to be tested," he added.

Lansley cleared up some confusion about the risk register, saying the document in question was the "transition risk register", relating specifically to the reorganisation set out in the health bill, an assessment which was first drawn up in 2010 but which has been, and is being continually, "reviewed and updated". This was different to the department's "strategic" risk register of all its operations.

The debate was fronted by Labour's shadow health secretary, Andy Burnham, who insisted that MPs and peers had a right to know the implications of the health reforms before they voted on the bill, which is currently in the report stage in the Lords.

Burnham had to fend off repeated charges by Conservative MPs that he had refused similar requests to publish risk registers when he was health secretary in the previous Labour government. Burnham said he had refused to publish a different document ? the strategic register ? and he had not been overruled by the information commissioner. Labour did release a similar policy-specific risk assessment, into Heathrow's third runway, when it was in government, said Burnham.

Quoting from local and regional risk assessments, which have been published individually by the relevant NHS organisations, Burnham cited quotes ranging from general warnings about meeting targets on waiting lists for treatment, poor patient care, and safety, to more specific concerns such as the threat of harm to women in London.

Burham also repeated his offer that if the government would "drop the bill", he would work with ministers to introduce GP-led commissioning for patients, one of the bill's key planks. Labour's chief opposition to the bill has been to claims that it will introduce more free market competition and privatisation into the NHS, along with poor accountability and more bureaucracy.

"He [Lansley] is running unacceptable risks," added Burnham. "What he's doing is wrong and needs to be stopped."

Lansley defended his decision not to publish the national risk register, saying that the prospect of publishing such assessments reduced the quality of advice given to ministers, meaning the documents would become "bland and anodyne" and "cease to be of practical value".

"To be effective, a risk register requires all those involved to be frank and open about potential risk," Lansley told MPs.

"It is their job to think the unthinkable and look at worst-case scenarios. It is vital nothing is done to inhibit that process.

"If people are in doubt about the confidentiality of their views they will inevitably think twice before committing themselves to such direct and candid language in the future."

Tory MP Mike Freer said: "The release of the risk register is seen as an opportunity by the opposition to cherry-pick doomsday scenarios the register may contain. It is simply a charter for shroud-waving."

Thursday's London conference on Somalia is portrayed as a bold attempt, in the words of the foreign secretary, William Hague, "to change the dynamic from one of inexorable decline to an upwards trajectory of gradually increasing stability". The hope is to diminish the considerable internal and external dangers posed by "the world's most failed state". This is a wholly commendable aim.

But by raising expectations and setting a timetable and targets for political reform, security assistance and regional collaboration that are unlikely to be met, Britain and its partners risk making a bad situation worse. Without determined follow-through, these good intentions could open the way to greater human suffering, increased foreign military intervention and, ultimately, partition ? presaging the definitive disintegration of Somalia as a sovereign state.

The conference communique, drafts of which have been widely leaked, recognises, in effect, that the ramshackle, temporary governance arrangements in place since 2004 have not worked and are no longer sustainable. "Nobody would agree to the roll-over of the transitional federal institutions in August" when their mandate expires, the draft communique says.

The fact the eight-year-old pretence that Somalia has a functioning, legitimate government is finally being dropped is a relief. During its existence, the so-called transitional federal government (TFG) rarely extended its rule much beyond a portion of the capital, Mogadishu, despite financial and administrative assistance from Britain, the US and others and military support from Ethiopia and the African Union (AU). During this period, Somalia became the most corrupt and least accountable country in the world, according to Transparency International.

Yet the conference plan to hand control in August to another, as yet undefined, "caretaker authority" risks a potentially catastrophic power vacuum. This authority would notionally be in charge until a new constitution has been written and endorsed in a referendum, nationwide elections held, and a new president, prime minister and parliament installed. This scenario may make sense to Whitehall mandarins. But in the semi-anarchic, on-the-ground Somali context, it is fantasy politics.

Somali leaders including President Sheikh Sharif Sheikh Ahmed, pro-government militia, and regional representatives met last week in Garowe, capital of Puntland (a self-declared autonomous state since 1998 that remains notionally part of Somalia), and agreed new federal arrangements and a reformed parliament. The plan was endorsed by the UN and AU. But key players, notably the Islamists of al-Shabaab, successors to the more moderate Islamic courts supplanted by the TFG, were absent. Exactly how these new governance arrangements are to be effectively implemented when, like the Taliban in Afghanistan, the main opposition force is excluded from their formulation defies rational explanation.

Matt Baugh, Britain's ambassador to Somalia, quoted in an Ethiopian government newsletter, welcomed the agreement but warned that all parties would have to "deliver on what they have said they are going to do". But delivering on promises is a perennial problem in Somali politics (as elsewhere). The London meeting is adding to the pile of pledges without adding to confidence they can be fulfilled.

One supposed answer to the question of implementation is contained in another conference proposal: that the UN-backed peacekeeping force, Amisom, be expanded to almost 18,000 troops. But once again, ambition may outstrip reality. The AU has struggled for years to attract troop contributors in Somalia. Where these additional forces may suddenly come from is up in the air. Maybe Djibouti; maybe Sierra Leone. The EU may pay for them; then again, it may not. The history of UN peacekeeping worldwide is one of bills unpaid and resources over-stretched. And given its chaotic recent history, Somalia is a particularly unattractive proposition for blue helmets.

In many other respects, the London conference is more a wish-list than an action plan. Somalia's prime minister, Abdiweli Muhammed Ali, said last week he had high hopes. "We expect a complete reconstruction plan for Somalia. We expect a Marshall Plan." His expectations will certainly be dashed. Likewise, feelgood proposals for wider grassroots political consultation and engagement, for co-ordinated international financial and economic support for the Somali regions, for "more generous" humanitarian responses, and for enhanced regional collaboration on terrorism and intelligence-gathering are entirely laudable ? but unattainable in the countdown to the August handover, and quite possibly impossible amid the uncertainty that will then ensue.

Somalia cannot afford another political failure. But if the London process does fail, because it is too ambitious or because, as in the past, sufficient political and practical follow-through is lacking, the country will once again be given over to rule by brute force. This prospect embraces not only al-Shabaab militants and other lawless Somali militias, clans and separatists, but also US and British forces primarily concerned to suppress piracy and al-Qaida-linked terrorism, and regional powers such as Ethiopia and Kenya anxious to secure their borders. Somalia could become an international hunting ground, prey to all who deem their interests served by physical intervention.

Continuing speculation surrounds Kenya's intentions. With its troops heavily involved in southern Somalia, suggestions abound that Nairobi may seek to create a permanent buffer zone in the three Somali regions ? Gedo, Lower Juba and Middle Juba ? abutting Kenya's North Eastern province. Like Puntland and Somaliland (another breakaway territory in northern Somalia), "Jubaland" (or Azania, as some call it) may move in time towards semi-autonomous status.

The longer the Kenyans stay, the stronger this prospect looms. And with this comes the growing likelihood that the self-governing Galmudug region, in central Somalia, may follow suit or that the Ethiopians, worried about ethnic Somali insurgents in the Ogaden, may intervene again. In the continuing absence of effective central government, it is but a short step from this sort of free for all to permanent partition and the de facto end of the state of Somalia.

Hague is right to suggest this could be Somalia's last chance. The state as presently constituted has only existed since 1960. The preceding decades, going back to the 1880s, were marked by persistent British (and Italian) colonial incursions. Ironic then, and possibly fitting, that more modern-day British meddling may precipitate Somalia's ultimate demise.

? Follow Comment is free on Twitter @commentisfree

On Monday it was revealed that four former employees of A4e had been arrested as part of an ongoing police inquiry at the company's offices in Slough.

But it has now emerged that the company, whose chair is an adviser to David Cameron, has been investigated nine times by the Department for Work and Pensions since 2005.

In one case, fraud was proven following a criminal trial; in four inquiries, there was evidence of irregularities but it was not pursued further through the courts after money was returned; in three cases there was found to be no case to answer; and one inquiry, in Slough, is still on-going.

The disclosures are an escalation in the crisis over A4e, which is paid by the government to help the long-term unemployed find jobs, and has renewed calls for a suspension of its contracts.

Margaret Hodge, the chair of parliament's public accounts committee, said the figures released by the government suggest there may be a structural problem within A4e.

"This suggests there may be systemic problems within the organisation. I believe the government should suspend all contractual obligations until the investigations are complete," she said.

Hodge called for the DWP to explain why the police were not brought in on all occasions when evidence of irregularities was found, when public money is involved.

"I find it astonishing that the DWP does not call in the police to investigate all of these incidents. This is no longer a one-off," she said.

The company is chaired by Emma Harrison, who was appointed by the prime minister in 2010 to help get troubled families into work.

Its five shareholders were paid £11m in dividends last year, of which Harrison received £8.6m.

The DWP investigations were launched at A4e offices across Britain. A DWP spokeswoman said that since 2005, the department has investigated nine fraud inquiries. "Of those, five were found to have a case to answer and have been dealt with and one is ongoing.

"In those five cases, the money was paid back in full. A4e would take any appropriate disciplinary action, not DWP," the spokeswoman said.

The cases are believed to include an investigation into a former A4e employee in Hull that was launched after discrepancies emerged in "confirmation of employment" forms submitted by the company. Forms meant for employers agreeing to take on workers had been fraudulently filled in. In some cases, employers' signatures were falsified. A former employee was prosecuted and pleaded guilty to eight counts of forgery.

Thames Valley police visited the firm's offices in Slough over claims of fraud on Friday, and the force has confirmed it arrested four people in connection with the investigation.

A police spokesman said that the case was referred to the force by the Department for Work and Pensions.

As part of the investigation, two women, aged 28 and 49, and two men, aged 35 and 41, were arrested on suspicion of fraud on 18 January from addresses across the Thames valley and are on police bail until mid-March.

The controversy will reignite a simmering debate over whether so much of the welfare-to-work industry should have been contracted out to private companies. Hodge has raised the question of why this government and its Labour predecessors took the decision to outsource this sector to private companies, when some evidence suggests that the state's Jobcentre Plus has greater success in helping people into work.

A4e's chief executive, Andrew Dutton, repeated assurances on Monday that the company has zero tolerance towards fraud.

He said: "I will not sit by and let these accusations discredit the hard work that our staff do to support thousands of people into work.

"A4e has zero tolerance towards fraud, and any instance of fraudulent or otherwise illegal activity is completely unacceptable.

"We take our responsibility very seriously, and we are committed to using taxpayer's money effectively and efficiently to deliver the best services to the public."

A company spokeswoman was contacted by the Guardian on Wednesday morning, but has not yet responded to the DWP's new figures.

The Work Programme (WP) carries not just the burden that it is expected to get more than a million long-term unemployed people back to work in the next two years, but also the weight of a set of heavy ideological expectations: it is the model for how the coalition seeks to reform public services by opening up state provision to private interests.

For Lord Freud, the welfare minister, it is not merely a technocratic innovation but a Great British Idea. We exported compulsory competitive tendering to the world in the 1980s, he proclaimed at a Conservative party conference fringe meeting last year; and now we have payment by results (PBR), the architecture which underpins WP, and will revolutionise how public services are provided.

It is still early days. PBR is being trialled tentatively in a range of relatively marginal areas of public services: offender rehabilitation; treatment for drug and alcohol addiction; housing support for vulnerable people; and some developmental services provided for young children through Sure Start centres. The WP is by far the biggest and riskiest experiment.

If it works, some estimate that tens of billions of pounds' worth of public services could be transferred to private and voluntary sector providers.

Ministers have also made the WP a test of its political credibility. Ministers launched it in June 2011 as "a massive boost for the big society". Asked last year what he had done for the "big society", the work and pensions secretary, Iain Duncan Smith, replied: "I've created the Work Programme."

The WP, ministers argued, would rescue charities pushed to the verge of bankruptcy by the widespread cuts to local government grants and contracts. This promise may come back to haunt them.

In theory, PBR is an elegant solution to the problem of how to spend less on public services while driving up productivity. It transfers risk from the taxpayer to private capital. Unlike WP's predecessor, the Flexible New Deal, for which providers essentially were paid regardless of outcome, WP only coughs up once firms can prove they have hit government-imposed targets for finding sustainable work for their clients.

Providers borrow huge sums on the commercial markets to finance their involvement in the scheme, in the hope that they perform well enough to trigger reward payments two years down the line.

In principle, the risk of not making a return on the capital they have invested is supposed to make WP providers not only more efficient, but more focused on the quality of outcomes. Jobseekers get a better service, more people find work, the government saves billions in unemployment benefits. If the provider fails to meet its targets, it doesn't get paid and the taxpayer is protected. Labour party shadow ministers are as attracted to this theory as the coalition.

So what is going wrong in practice? For a start, some believe the performance targets, drawn up before the job market started deteriorating rapidly, are impossibly onerous, potentially pushing the WP close to collapse.

The latest Department for Work and Pensions figures show that WP providers, already working to extraordinarily tight margins, are having to deal with unexpectedly high volumes of jobseeker referrals. There are simply not enough jobs in the market, critics argue, so the WP no longer stacks up financially.

In addition, the unexpected composition of referrals will upset many business plans. There are eight categories of WP jobseeker, each one carrying a different level of reward. Finding sustainable work for, say, a healthy 25-year-old with a track record of employment who had been out of work for a year might generate an upfront fee of £400 and a £4,000 success reward; a chronically sick 50-year-old who has been on incapacity benefit for 12 years might carry an upfront fee of £600 and a success payment of £14,000.

The latest figures show that the numbers of referrals in the more lucrative latter categories have slowed to a trickle (5,000 against an anticipated 20,000), mainly because so many people on incapacity benefit assessed as "fit for work" are appealing against the decision, clogging up the tribunals service.

Any provider ? and this will include many charities ? that based its business case on getting a high proportion of these clients on to their books early, may well be feeling a tight constriction on their cash flow.

This pressure is passed on down to the front line. Anecdotally, some frontline WP staff report they are being ordered to cut corners as cash gets scarce and resources become more thinly spread. They are given bigger case loads of clients to work with; they have cut some jobseeker services deemed too costly; pay has been cut and short-term contracts of employment introduced. Some providers even secretly referred clients to charities to carry out work for free that they, supposedly, have been paid for.

Here's one account, found on an industry talk thread, from a disillusioned worker employed by a WP subcontractor: "I've always used a holistic approach and have found that spending time with clients, helping them recognise their skills and realise their potential has reaped massive rewards for the individual. This was something that I truly loved to do and over the years helped many people back into employment.

"This method doesn't work so well under the provisions and restrictions of the Work Programme, as the primes [main providers] seem to be more concerned how many people we can sanction and how many boxes we can tick in the shortest time frame possible. Whatever happened to helping people?"

The suspicion that WP providers cut corners to reach payment targets is not a new one ? the same allegations were levelled at the Flexible New Deal ? but there must be a worry that the bleak structural problems in the job market, coupled with the desperate financial implications for providers, are distorting priorities, diminishing the quality of service, and opening up the system for potential abuse.

So far ministers have signalled that they have no intention of easing the pressure by cutting performance targets, effectively bailing out the providers. The bigger multinational companies involved in WP might have deep enough pockets to ride out the cash flow crisis.

For the smaller providers ? and many charity subcontractors, many of whom have yet to see more than a handful of referrals ? this could prove fatal.

If the WP crashes it will be bad for charities, jobseekers and ultimately the taxpayer. If it also demonstrates that PBR will generate a potentially toxic mix of top-down targets and irresponsible profit-seeking, there will be implications for the government's wider public service reform agenda.

Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell asks lawmakers to remove the invasive ultrasound procedure from a radical abortion bill. Virginia House Delegate Charniele Herring joins Ed Schultz on the issues with the new bill that passed, and Katrina vanden Heuvel of The Nation Magazine discusses the national implications of McDonnell?s cave. (The Ed Show)

An anti-choice Democrat in Illinois thinks the Agriculture committee is the right place to debate a bill on women's health. Terry O'Neill, President of the National Organization of Women, calls forced ultrasound bills "ritual humiliation laws". (The Ed Show)

A Chicago school board decision to overhaul schools and shut down under-performing ones has a big impact on poor communities. Karen Lewis, president of the Chicago Teacher Union, joins Ed Schultz to discuss Mayor Rahm Emanuel?s role in the decision. (The Ed Show)

Rick Santorum tries to explain comments he made in 2008 about Satan. Ed talks with Democratic strategist Bob Shrum and Lehigh University professor James Peterson about Santorum and the role of religion in the campaign. (The Ed Show)

Donald Trump gets his feelings hurt by David Letterman. He retaliates on Twitter. Ed thinks he knows what set The Donald off. (The Ed Show)

Palin says a brokered convention would be a good thing, and former presidential candidate Rick Perry agrees. Buddy Roemer drops out of the GOP race to court independents. ?Ring of Fire? radio host Mike Papantonio takes on Palin, Perry and more. (The Ed Show)

After days of protest and intense media spotlight in Virginia, Governor Bob McDonnell has proposed a new version of the state?s controversial anti-abortion bill. A PoliticsNation panel discuss whether McDonnell?s cave is a true concession. (PoliticsNation)

Mitt Romney?s new tax plan would lower rates by 20 percent, equaling about $10 trillion in cuts over 10 years and extend the Bush era tax cuts. Former Gov. Ted Strickland shares his thoughts on Romney?s second attempt at a tax plan. (PoliticsNation)

New numbers from the latest NBC News-Marist poll indicate Mitt Romney?s campaign excels in organization whereas Rick Santorum?s campaign has been capitalizing on ideology. NBC?s Chuck Todd reports. (Nightly News)

Former Romney debate coach Brett O?Donnell and The Washington Post?s Nia-Malika Henderson talk about the awkwardness and disconnect of the Romney campaign. (Hardball)

NBC's Chuck Todd shares details from the latest NBC News/Marist poll. (Hardball)

With gas prices expected to rise throughout the summer, Mark Murray and Domenico Montanaro discuss the effect high gas prices could have on President Obama?s re-election chances. (NBC News)

Salon.com?s Joan Walsh and The Washington Post?s Melinda Henneberger discuss how the issue will affect GOP voters. (Hardball)

When a 2008 tape surfaced in which Rick Santorum stated Satan has his sights set on the U.S., the GOP candidate reacted by accusing President Barack Obama of trying to crush the nation?s Judeo-Christian principles. Former RNC Chairman Michael Steele and Mother Jones? David Corn discuss. (Hardball)

Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., discusses Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum and working with him in the House. (Meet the Press)

Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., and Lonnie Bunch talk about President Obama and how the issue of race has impacted his presidency. (Meet the Press)

Lonnie Bunch and Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., discuss the role of affirmative action in today?s society. (Meet the Press)

Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., and Founding Director of the African American History and Culture Museum Lonnie Bunch discuss the new museum that will be constructed on the National Mall and the issues of race in society today. (Meet the Press)

Andrew Jenks of MTV?s ?World of Jenks? discusses his role in MTV?s election coverage, which centers around the perspectives of young voters and the fear amongst twentysomethings about the state of the country. (Dylan Ratigan Show)

The Dylan Ratigan Show Mega Panel discusses the Obama administration?s proposal to cut the corporate tax rate, and how these actions by the President can help him during this election year. The mega panel also looks ahead to the Arizona debate and how the GOP candidates are faring in the polls. (Dylan Ratigan Show)

Martin Bashir and author Frank Schaeffer discuss Santorum?s comments on Satan, Franklin Graham?s doubt about the President?s faith, and the religious right?s apoplexy over the president. (Martin Bashir)

Martin Bashir and Prof. Michael Eric Dyson discuss Rick Santorum?s controversial rhetoric and how it might shape the 2012 race. (Martin Bashir)

The sound of silence? Hardly. B.B. King, transvaginal ultrasounds and the Devil himself highlight Wednesday?s ?Top Lines?. (Martin Bashir)

MSNBC?s Martin Bashir challenges Dr. Craig Mitchell of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary on religious liberty and his testimony last week on an all-male panel about contraception. (Martin Bashir)

Karen Finney, Ken Vogel and Judson Phillips discuss the candidates? debate strategies as polls show Rick Santorum taking a commanding lead over Mitt Romney nationally. (Martin Bashir)

Politico?s Roger Simon joins NewsNation to share his thoughts. (NewsNation)

Speaking in Chandler, Arizona, Mitt Romney unveiled his new tax plan which calls for cutting personal income tax rates 20% across the board. Romney also said his plan will not increase the deficit. (NBC News)

Newt Gingrich said in Scottsdale, Arizona that while he will not attend mass today for Ash Wednesday, he will give up ?all desserts? for Lent. His wife Callista joked that she will give up her ?opinion.? (NBC News)

During a Tuesday concert at the White House honoring Black History Month, President Obama sang a few lines of the blues standard "Sweet Home Chicago." And in other water cooler news, Adele doesn't take kindly to having her awards speech cut short and Colbert welcomes Obama to the dark side of superPACs. (Way Too Early)

An Indiana lawmaker blasts Girl Scouts as a "tactical arm of Planned Parenthood". WTHR's Kevin Rader reports. (NBC News)

Former Sen. Russ Feingold talks about the unknown foreign policy challenges America faces as well as the Congressional gridlock which hinders domestic policies. (Mitchell Reports)

NBC Global Energy Analyst Daniel Yergin explains why the cost of gas is soaring at a time of the year when prices are usually at their lowest. (Mitchell Reports)

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner announced a plan to cut the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 28 percent. Gene Sperling of the National Economic Council discusses. (Mitchell Reports)

Former Sen. Jim Talent shares his thoughts on Mitt Romney?s new tax play and whether it will improve the presidential candidate?s standing with conservatives. (Mitchell Reports)

What NOW?!: Violent protests broke out in Afghanistan after NATO personnel burned copies of the Quran. The NOW panel weighs in on NATO?s response and the escalating demonstrations in both Afghanistan and Syria. (NOW with Alex Wagner)

Gov. Deval Patrick, D-Mass., talks about the 2012 presidential race and his decision to co-chair President Barack Obama?s re-election campaign. (Mitchell Reports)

President Obama rolled out a list of his national campaign chairs to head his re-election campaign across the nation. The NOW panelists assess the names that made the short list - and those that didn?t. (NOW with Alex Wagner)

The NOW panel expects immigration to be a hot-button issue during Wednesday night?s GOP presidential debate in Arizona, but will the issue rise to the forefront of national attention? NOW?s Alex Wagner offers a round-up of each candidate?s stance on immigration. (NOW with Alex Wagner)

Presidential candidates Ron Paul and Mitt Romney make an odd couple along the GOP campaign trail, but NOW?s Alex Wagner finds a link connecting the two politicians? stump speeches. Paul?s National Campaign Chair Jesse Benton joins to discuss. (NOW with Alex Wagner)

GOP candidate Mitt Romney is expected to outline his tax code plan along the campaign trail on Wednesday, just as President Obama rolled out his own tax proposal for the nation. CNBC?s John Harwood compares the two tax plans, telling the NOW panel that Romney is under political pressure to outline a detailed tax reform. (NOW with Alex Wagner)

AP - As of Tuesday, Feb. 21, 2012, at least 1,771 members of the U.S. military had died in Afghanistan as a result of the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan in late 2001, according to an Associated Press count.

Listen to the Audio

GOP contenders campaigned Wednesday in Arizona as they prepared for the season's 20th presidential debate. Gwen Ifill reports from Phoenix. Then Judy Woodruff discusses the coming Michigan primary with Micheline Maynard of the public media project Changing Gears and Bill Ballenger of the Inside Michigan Politics newsletter.

JUDY WOODRUFF: The 20th and perhaps final Republican presidential debate takes place tonight in Mesa, Arizona. The two leading contenders for the GOP nomination were out campaigning ahead of this evening's encounter.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney spoke this morning in Chandler, where he called for a 20 percent cut in income tax rates. Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, meanwhile, addressed a Tea Party rally in Tucson.

And our Gwen Ifill is in Phoenix, where she has been tracking the developments.

Hello, Gwen.

So, we understand a lot of Arizona Republicans have already voted. What does this race look like right now?

GWEN IFILL: Well, it's very interesting.

The secretary of state here has said that about 178,000 people have already voted. They got their ballots some weeks ago, starting Feb. 2. And if, indeed, they voted before this last Santorum string of victories last week, the conventional wisdom has it that Mitt Romney would have benefited from this. He's been strong in all the polls in Arizona.

There has been some closing with Rick Santorum in the last week or so. But the truth is that Rick Santorum has absolutely no organization that anybody can identify here in Arizona. He came and he campaigned here yesterday. Went to a couple of his events, some of which, it seemed the attendees were setting up the chairs and setting up the event themselves, whereas Mitt Romney has a very organized -- a very organized campaign at work here.

And that often makes a difference when people are not deciding at the last minute, which is, of course, the definition of an early voter.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Gwen, what about advertising? What are the messages that are being either thrown back and forth or that the voters are getting a chance to hear?

GWEN IFILL: Well, in a moment, you're going to hear that, in Michigan, they can't turn on the television without seeing advertising. That is not true here in Arizona.

There is exactly one ad that I have seen that appears with any kind of regularity on local television, and it's a Romney super PAC ad, not even the Romney campaign itself. And it's attacking Rick Santorum. Rick Santorum, as far as the naked eye can tell, hasn't been on the air here at all.

There hasn't been that undercurrent of radio advertising and negativity, not at least on the air. I think that Mitt Romney is outspending Rick Santorum by more than 10 times in terms of that kind of -- that kind of advertising. So this is not that kind of campaign. So much is being condensed, not only with what's happening in this last week with these last-minute appearances by these candidates, but also this debate tonight in Mesa.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And what about that debate, Gwen? It's been, what, four weeks almost since the last Republican debate. What are the expectations at this point? What do people think is riding on this?

GWEN IFILL: Oh, and, Judy, admit it, you have been missing these debates, haven't you?

(LAUGHTER)

JUDY WOODRUFF: I have.

GWEN IFILL: You have just been waking up at night kind of shaking, thinking, why aren't they on my television set?

Well, they're going to be there tonight. And they're -- and it's going to be the four men on the stage, not only Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum in the center seats, but also Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich, neither of whom is doing as well in Arizona.

But, as you know, this kind of debate tonight is not going to be just for the folks of Arizona. It is going to be not only -- is going to be broadcast nationally. So these candidates are really trying to aim beyond this state. They're trying to change those last-minute minds in Michigan, but also in all those Super Tuesday states still to come.

So we're going to watch how they respond. It's really interesting to me that in Arizona, where, for instance, border security and immigration is such a big issue, how little you hear the candidates talking about it. Rick Santorum managed to go through two events yesterday barely mentioning it, even though he did today in Tucson.

But Mitt Romney gave a speech today in which he spent the entire time attacking the president's tax reduction plan and promoting his own, but not even -- but only not talking about local issues, without even talking about the people he's running against, Rick Santorum or Mitt Romney -- or Newt Gingrich or Ron Paul.

So they are all shooting above the heads in some respects of the voters here, hoping to get broader attention where it's going to count as those delegates begin to pile up.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And just quickly, Gwen, how much interest are Republican voters paying there, given the -- as you said, the heavy focus on Michigan?

GWEN IFILL: Well, they're very flattered in Arizona to finally have any kind of attention paid here, because, as you know, they moved their primary around on the calendar, trying to get more attention.

And this year, they got that attention, partly because of their governor, who, of course, famously shook her finger in the president's face and railed against the idea of federal intervention here in Arizona, and partly because of this new shift in discussion about conservative social issues.

And there is such a socially conservative undercurrent here -- a lot of Mormons in Arizona and a lot of Christians and homeschoolers who are drawn to this debate in a way that they maybe had not been before. So there's going to be a lot of attention paid.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Our own Gwen Ifill, thanks very much.

And for more on how the Michigan primary is shaping up, we're joined from Ann Arbor by Micheline Maynard -- she's senior editor of Changing Gears, a public media project about the industrial Midwest -- and, from East Lansing, by Bill Ballenger. He's editor of the "Inside Michigan Politics" newsletter.

It's good to have you both back with us again.

Micki Maynard, to you first.

You have watched this state of Michigan for so long. How does the race look to you right now?

MICHELINE MAYNARD, Changing Gears: Well, it looks like Romney is getting closer.

A couple of weeks ago, a week or so ago, two polls came out showing Rick Santorum was ahead. And I think it sent shockwaves through the Romney campaign. Since then, we have had a deluge of Mitt Romney, Mitt Romney's memories of growing up in Michigan, Mitt Romney ads in which he's riding a car in Michigan. And I think he's trying to hammer home the point that he's from here and he wants to win this state.

So it looks like he's getting ever so much closer to hanging on to the lead here.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Bill Ballenger, if Romney is coming back into the lead, how do you explain it? What's -- what can he owe -- what does he owe that to?

BILL BALLENGER, "Inside Michigan Politics": He had some very positive ads starting out last week that Micki just mentioned.

He also has some negative ads against Rick Santorum. He has not pulled substantially into the lead here. It's virtually a tie. I mean, there have been a couple of polls in the last three days that have shown Mitt Romney ahead by two points, with the rest undecided pretty much and within the margin of error. Well, that's a heck of a lot better than it was a week ago, but he's not out of the woods yet.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Bill Ballenger, staying with you, tell us, again, who are the Republican voters of Michigan? Where do they live? What do they care about? Who are they?

BILL BALLENGER: Well, half the population, roughly, in Michigan lives in the metro Detroit area in the three big southeastern counties, Wayne, Oakland, and Macomb, a few fringe counties down there.

And the rest of the population is out-state spread over 83 counties, Western Michigan, around Grand Rapids, Ottawa County, very heavily conservative, Christian, a lot of fundamentalists voters, maybe Tea Party activists there. That is a kind of treasure trove of votes for somebody like Rick Santorum, who I think looks at metro Detroit and knows that Mitt Romney has a slight advantage there, maybe a big advantage, because that's where the auto industry is.

That's where Mitt Romney is from. His father was president of American Motors. That's where Mitt Romney grew up. That's where his name, Romney, is best known. So Rick Santorum has got to win this race out-state and in West Michigan.

JUDY WOODRUFF: So, given that voter landscape, Micki Maynard, what is the economy looking like? How are voters, these Republican voters feeling right now?

MICHELINE MAYNARD: Well, the state motto of Michigan translates as, if you seek a pleasant peninsula, look about you.

And I have been joking lately that the state motto should be, it's better than it was. The economy has settled down. We don't have the high double-digit unemployment numbers that we did at the depths of the recession, say in 2009. In fact, the unemployment number is actually right around where the national number is, maybe a little better.

But one of the reasons for that is so many people have left the state in search of jobs. The auto industry is profitable again, and that looks really, really good in the headlines. There is hiring going on. But those jobs that are coming back are paying a lot less, and the benefits are a lot less generous than the jobs that went away.

So things are calming down. But there's a long, long way for the state to go before it's back to where it was in 2008, and it may never get back to the boom days before that.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Bill Ballenger, both of you now have mentioned the auto industry. It is a huge factor in the state.

The fact -- speaking of that, the fact that both Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum were opposed to the federal bailout of the auto industry, how is that playing out in this contest?

BILL BALLENGER: Fascinating question, Judy.

You're absolutely right. An ad has just come out from a Santorum super PAC -- now, there's something you haven't heard of before now -- basically castigating Mitt Romney for his position against the auto bailout by the Obama administration -- a little strange, since Rick Santorum has exactly the same position.

So I don't know how Rick Santorum, who's not supposedly connected with his super PAC, is going to explain that if it comes up in the debate tonight. But that's fascinating.

The other thing I would say is, a poll just came out last night showing that Barack Obama is way ahead of Mitt Romney in Michigan now, by 18 points. That is over double the lead he's ever had in a poll over Mitt Romney dating back three years. A year ago, Mitt Romney led Barack Obama in the polls here in Michigan.

And most people think that's because of all the negative publicity that has come out of Mitt Romney's and Rick Santorum's opposition to the federal bailout. That is a bailout that was popular among Democrats and independents. I don't think it's going to be much of a factor among Republican voters in the Tuesday, Feb. 28, primary.

But in a general election, if Mitt Romney is the nominee, he's got a problem on his hands because of that.

JUDY WOODRUFF: I hear you.

And just to wrap up, Micki Maynard, to what extent do you think this auto bailout issue is or isn't a factor for these Republican voters next week?

MICHELINE MAYNARD: I think it's a factor for some of the Republicans who are in, say, management at the car companies, because, while I think Republicans philosophically in general opposed the bailout, Republicans in Michigan probably supported the bailout because it was their jobs that were at stake.

And to sort of follow up on one thing that Bill said, Mitt Romney went very public in favor of letting Detroit go bankrupt. Rick Santorum might have said the same thing in Pennsylvania, but nobody in Michigan heard that. So I think that is why the bailout is bouncing on Romney much more than Santorum.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, we thank you, both, Micheline Maynard, Bill Ballenger. Thanks.

A CNN/Time/Opinion Research poll released Tuesday showed that 36 percent of people likely to vote in next week's Arizona GOP primary said they support Mitt Romney as the party's nominee. Rick Santorum received the backing of 32 percent of respondents, but the four-point margin was within the poll's sampling error.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich placed third with 18 percent, followed by Texas Rep. Ron Paul at 6 percent.

Another survey, from NBC News/Marist, has Romney up by 16 points over Santorum, 43 percent to 27 percent, among Arizona GOP voters.

The two leading contenders for the Republican nomination will be seated at the center of the debate table Wednesday night, their first meeting in nearly a month.

The stakes are high, with no other debates scheduled before Super Tuesday on March 6, meaning Wednesday offers the last chance for each of the candidates to make a final impression to a national audience before voters in more than a dozen states cast their ballots.

(Follow @pbsgwen, @maryjobrooks and @mobilemort for up-to-the-minute coverage from Arizona.)

For Santorum, Wednesday's debate marks the first time he will be positioned in the center, as recent national polls have shown him in the lead. Can he withstand the scrutiny that will undoubtedly come with his new front-runner status, most notably on his conservative social views?

For Romney, the meeting provides the opportunity to halt Santorum's momentum. Will he challenge the former Pennsylvania senator on more than just fiscal issues such as earmarks and spending, or will he engage on social issues as well?

Perhaps no candidate has benefited more from the debates than Gingrich. Can he seize what might be the last such encounter to give his campaign a much-needed boost heading into a crucial round of voting in the next two weeks?

And will Paul, who has gone after Santorum in a new television ad, help Romney out by leveling similar charges Wednesday night?

DON'T FORGET ABOUT MICHIGAN

While the focus Wednesday is on Arizona, it appears Michigan, the other state with a primary Tuesday, is where things are really getting interesting.

An NBC News/Marist poll of likely GOP primary voters in the Great Lakes State found Romney with 37 percent support, closely followed by Santorum at 35 percent. Paul received 13 percent in the survey, while Gingrich took 8 percent.

As the polling indicates, Michigan appears to be a two-man race, and will likely stay that way as Gingrich has reportedly dropped plans to campaign in the state in the coming week.

Given Romney's Michigan roots, a loss in the state would deal a severe blow to his candidacy and buoy Santorum's candidacy heading into Super Tuesday, when 10 states vote.

Romney is headed back to Michigan on Thursday and plans to target a key part of Santorum's coalition -- Tea Party supporters -- by attending an event in Milford. The NBC/Marist poll showed Santorum leading Romney among self-identified Tea Party supporters in the state, 48 percent to 29 percent, a margin the former Massachusetts governor hopes to narrow in the next five days.

The Detroit News editorial board weighed in on Romney's behalf Wednesday, writing, "Mitt Romney stands alone among the Republican primary field as the candidate capable of winning the White House, and more importantly, of leading the nation to a prosperous future."

If Romney is able to eke out a win in his native state and also score a victory in Arizona, the momentum (and the narrative) would likely turn back in his favor.

SANTORUM'S SPEECHES

Santorum has given many speeches in the years since Bob Casey defeated him for re-election, no doubt fodder for opposition researchers. That's probably one reason a 2008 address surfaced Tuesday.

"Satan is attacking the great institutions of America, using those great vices of pride, vanity and sensuality as the root to attack all of these strong plants that have so deeply rooted in the American tradition," he told students at Ave Maria University in Florida in 2008. The Drudge Report bannered the comments, prompting several news outlets to dig them up in context.

Santorum said he wasn't going to defend every past statement dug up from the archives, but told reporters in Phoenix: "I believe in good and evil. I think if somehow or another because you're a person of faith you believe in good and evil is a disqualifier for president we're going to have a very small pool of candidates who can run for president."

Conservative radio show host Rush Limbaugh said Santorum's enemies will try to twist things out of context, but suggested the candidate has some explaining to do, Politico reports.

And Huffington Post unearthed a Philadelphia Magazine story from December 1995 that quotes Santorum saying he was "basically pro-choice all my life, until I ran for Congress...But it had never been something I thought about."

The story also includes an "issue statement" believed to be from Santorum's first run for office in 1990 outlining "sensitivity" to both sides of the abortion debate. It was sent to the Huffington Post by an operative who worked on that campaign

Politico's Jonathan Martin delves into Santorum's record as a Rust Belt politician, noting: "Conversations with Pennsylvania politicos of both parties reveals a very different portrait of the dogmatic presidential candidate who sounds epochal warning about President Obama. He was affable, accessible and shrewd when it came to the practice of politics."

David Urban, Specter's former chief of staff, recalled how Santorum pushed federal legislation to crack down on puppy mills.

"You wouldn't say Rick Santorum and PETA [People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals] would be allies," deadpanned Urban. "But there are a lot of PETA members in Pennsylvania, I can tell you that."

[Former Gov. Ed] Rendell described a guy's guy, able to talk football in the same breath as federal judgeships -- and always willing to separate politics from governance.

MONEY, MONEY, MONEY

On Tuesday's NewsHour John Dunbar of the Center for Public Integrity's iWatch detailed the billionaires backing candidates. In the discussion with Margaret Warner, Dunbar noted that Peter Thiel is the major financier of a pro-Paul super PAC.

"He was an early investor in Facebook. He was actually portrayed in the movie 'Social Network' as the angel investor in that movie. He's a 44-year-old guy, worth lots of money. And he's given something close to three-quarters of all of the money that has gone in to Endorse Liberty. And he is a very devout libertarian, very much a hands-off, government-hands-off-business kind of a guy," Dunbar said. See iWatch's reporting on the January Federal Election Commission reports here.

Nicholas Confessore, Michael Luo and Mike McIntire deem this "a new breed of superdonor" in a New York Times piece Wednesday: "About two dozen individuals, couples or corporations have given $1 million or more to Republican super PACs this year, an exclusive club empowered by the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision and other rulings to pool their money into federal political committees and pour it directly into this year's presidential campaign." What's more, they write:

Collectively, their contributions have totaled more than $50 million this cycle, making them easily the most influential and powerful political donors in politics today. They have relatively few Democratic counterparts so far, with most of the leading liberal donors from past years giving relatively small amounts -- or not at all -- to the Democratic super PACs.

And unlike in past years, when wealthy donors of both parties donated chiefly to groups that were active in the general election campaign, the top Republican donors are contributing money far earlier, in contests that will determine the party's presidential nominee.

Roll Call's Eliza Newlin Carney reports Wednesday that watchdog group Democracy 21 is alleging that the pro-Santorum Red White and Blue Fund has engaged in illegal coordination with the candidate. A letter from the group "cites news reports suggesting that Foster Friess, founder of the investment management firm Friess Associates, was engaged in discussions with the super PAC about the nature of its ads at the same time as he was campaigning with Santorum as a member of the candidate's entourage," she writes. Carney quotes the super PAC spokesman Stuart Roy that the super PAC "does not coordinate with any federal candidates or campaigns."

2012 LINE ITEMS

The NewsHour's lead story Tuesday was on how high gas prices are being used as a political weapon. Watch it here.

Politico's Morning Score reported that between now and Super Tuesday, Gingrich will buy "30-minute blocks of airtime in key cities to air a video address" about lowing gas prices and energy independence.

Republican Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer will endorse a candidate after the debate, the New York Times reports.

MSNBC's Michael O'Brien makes note of Romney's comments Tuesday in Michigan that spending cuts slow economic growth.

Florida GOP Sen. Marco Rubio's book, "An American Son: A Memoir," will be released Oct. 2.

The Obama campaign released the names of its national co-chairs. It's a mix of elected officials, business leaders and "volunteer leaders" in key battleground states, such as Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin, Florida and North Carolina, and includes independent Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee, a former Republican. Also on the list are Caroline Kennedy, actress Eva Longoria, former White House staffer and actor Kalpen Modi and Joe Solmonese of the Human Rights Campaign.

Mr. Obama sang on camera. Again. Watch the video.

The Huffington Post puts out a casting call for citizen bloggers to cover the nominating conventions. "[W]ith the help of our reader/viewers, HuffPost editors will select 24 citizen journalists" to cover the conventions. "The winners -- up to 12 for each convention -- will get official credentials, airfare, hotel accommodation for five nights, and a basic per diem. They also will get a once-in-a-lifetime chance to see history in the making, and report on it as it happens for one of the world's leading news sites," Howard Fineman writes.

TOP TWEETS

Sheriff Joe Arpaio just announced a 3/1 press conference to announce result of his POTUS birther investigation. #ohgoody

Not an example of booking too small a space. #Santorum twitter.com/pbsgwen/status...

OUTSIDE THE LINES

The Obama administration will propose changes to the corporate tax rate Wednesday, including "lowering the top income-tax rate for corporations to 28% from 35% [and] ... eliminating dozens of popular deductions." The Wall Street Journal has the details.

A survey released Tuesday by Public Policy Polling examines states' favorability ratings among voters. A closer look at the data, with consideration to the disparity between favorability and unfavorability ratings, shows that self-identified Democrats favor blue states (California, Massachusetts and New York) while Republicans favor red states (Texas, Alaska and Arizona). The survey also shows a near toss-up between the views Republicans and Democrats hold of battleground states such as Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. The one thing everyone seemed to agree on: They all dislike New Jersey.

Former Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Fla., sent out an email to supporters Tuesday encouraging them to join donate to Rep. Dennis Kucinich's re-election campaign in Ohio. Kucinich is running in a Democratic primary race against his colleague, Rep. Marcy Kaptur, thanks to redistricting. "Two weeks from today, the remarkable 43-year political career of Congressman Dennis Kucinich will either continue, or it will end. I want it to continue. So I'm maxing out to Dennis Kucinich's campaign," wrote Grayson, a champion fundraiser ousted in 2010 but is running again this fall.

Politico's Alex Isenstadt talked with Herman Cain about the former presidential contender's plans to get involved in congressional races.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry said Tuesday he is leaning toward running for re-election in 2014 and possibly another stab at the White House two years after that, Jay Root writes for the Texas Tribune.

Donald Trump told CNBC he would "seriously, seriously" consider jumping into the White House race if Santorum wins the GOP presidential nomination, Political Wire reports. Watch the video.

Although the newly released Minnesota congressional reapportionment map has drawn GOP Rep. Michele Bachmann into Democratic Rep. Betty McCollum's 4th District, a Twin Cities member-vs.-member race is not in the cards, Roll Call's Abby Livingston reports. Bachmann's home no longer falls in the 6th District, but she will have a better chance of winning re-election under the new map.

Half of your Morning Line duo is moderating a panel at South by Southwest in Austin next month. Here are the details, tell all your friends.

NewsHour politics desk assistant Alex Bruns contributed to this report.

ON THE TRAIL

All events are listed in Eastern Time.

The four GOP contenders meet for a debate in Mesa, Ariz., at 8 p.m.

Ron Paul holds a pair of Mesa, Ariz., fundraisers at 11 a.m. and 2 p.m.

Mitt Romney holds a rally in Chandler, Ariz., at 11:50 a.m.

Rick Santorum addresses a Tea Party rally in Tucson, Ariz., at 1:30 p.m.

Newt Gingrich holds a post-debate event in Scottsdale, Ariz., at 10:30 p.m.

All future events can be found on our Political Calendar:

For more political coverage, visit our politics page.

Sign up here to receive the Morning Line in your inbox every morning.

Questions or comments? Email Christina Bellantoni at cbellantoni-at-newshour-dot-org.

Follow the politics team on Twitter: @cbellantoni, @burlij, @elizsummers.

Listen to the Audio

January financial disclosures exposed the power of unaffiliated super PACs funds this election season. Margaret Warner and John Dunbar of the Center for Public Integrity's iWatch News discuss the fundraising reports, the $22 million raised and some of the big spenders helping these groups help their preferred candidates.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Now, the financial strength of the presidential campaigns.

The candidates and the groups backing them filed their January reports with the Federal Election Commission at midnight yesterday. These are the first numbers we have seen since voters started going to the polls in early presidential primaries.

Margaret Warner has our story.

MARGARET WARNER: If there was any doubt about the heft of the unaffiliated super PAC funds in this year's campaign, the January reports laid that to rest. The four Republican candidates raised $21 million combined. The super PACs supporting them raised $22 million.

NARRATOR: Rick Santorum is called the ultimate Washington insider.

MARGARET WARNER: Most of the super PAC money went for campaign ads like these, many attacking rivals to the super PACs' favored candidate. The difference in firepower was most striking for Newt Gingrich. He raised $5.5 million, the Winning Our Future super PAC more than $11 million.

The disparity was less in Mitt Romney's case. He pulled in $6.5 million, the Restore Our Future super PAC supporting him $6.6 million. Rick Santorum, now surging in the polls, collected just over $4.5 million on his own. The Red White and Blue Fund a little less than half that. Likewise, Ron Paul raised just under $4.5 million, the pro-Paul super PAC about half that.

What's more, at month's end, the pro-Romney and pro-Gingrich super PACs were left with more cash on hand to spend than their favored candidates. Gingrich's big bankroller, casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, told "Forbes" magazine: "I might give $10 million or $100 million to Gingrich.  I gave the money because there is no other legal way to do it. I don't want to go through 10 different corporations to hide my name. I'm proud of what I do."

On "FOX News Sunday," Gingrich offered this assessment of Adelson's role.

NEWT GINGRICH (R): Well, he's certainly helping balance off Romney's 16 billionaires. And he's helping balance off Romney's Wall Street money.

But the reason's very straightforward. Sheldon Adelson is desperately worried about an Iranian nuclear weapon, and he is desperately worried about the survival of Israel. And I am the strongest candidate on foreign policy and the strongest candidate on national security.

MARGARET WARNER: Meanwhile, President Obama outraised all of the Republicans. He brought in nearly $12 million last month, the pro-Obama super PAC less than $100,000.

And for a closer look at the fund-raising reports and the big spenders who are opening their wallets to support the Republican candidates, we're joined by John Dunbar, managing editor of the Center for Public Integrity's iWatch News.

And, John, welcome back to the program.

JOHN DUNBAR, Managing Editor, Center for Public Integrity: Thank you.

MARGARET WARNER: So, first of all, remind us, how did we get to this point at which the super PACs, supposedly not affiliated with the candidates, have in one month raised more than the candidates' total?

JOHN DUNBAR: Well, I believe someone is seeing the value of that. I think it's directly related to the fact that you can give as much money to a super PAC as you want, whereas the candidate, you're limited to $2,500 for the primary.

MARGARET WARNER: And so this is what was enabled by the so-called Citizens United Supreme Court case.

JOHN DUNBAR: Right. Citizens United and a lesser known decision after that called SpeechNow created these super PACs.

And what they are is political organizations that can accept unlimited donations from billionaires, corporations, labor unions, and use that money to try to defeat or support -- right now, it's mostly attack -- a candidate in an election.

MARGARET WARNER: So, let's start with Gingrich who -- at least the balance is the most off, twice as much raised by the super PAC as he raised himself.

We just saw Sheldon Adelson. Is he the big fund-raiser, or are there other big billionaires or millionaires? And what have they themselves said about why they're giving this much?

JOHN DUNBAR: Well, Adelson is far and away the biggest -- 80 percent-plus, most of -- you know, $10 million out of the $11 million that was raised came from Sheldon Adelson.

He has got a long history with Newt Gingrich. They go back a long way. And they both have shared views on Israel. He's a very sort of staunch Israel -- supporter of Israel. And I think that's where they're -- where they see eye to eye.

MARGARET WARNER: And then Santorum, now, his super PAC -- or I shouldn't call it his -- the one supporting him in 2011, I think it only raised $700,000 -- suddenly, $2 million. Who are his big givers -- or the super PAC's big givers?

JOHN DUNBAR: Well, what's interesting and disturbing to a lot of people is, there are not a lot of them. In Santorum's case, there were two.

There's a guy named Foster Friess, who is a former mutual fund manager who has made a lot of media lately for some off-color jokes. And then there's somebody who came out of nowhere who is an oil executive from Louisiana, from Lake Charles, La., named William Dore -- or Dore, I believe, is his name. And between the two of them, that's the vast majority of the money that's gone into that super PAC.

MARGARET WARNER: And have either of them said anything publicly about why?

JOHN DUNBAR: Friess has said lots of things publicly, including the Bayer aspirin comment about contraception.

(LAUGHTER)

JOHN DUNBAR: And since then, he's been a little bit lower-profile.

He thinks that Santorum has a better shot against Romney. He has said he has got better blue-collar credentials. I think they see more eye to eye on religious -- they're similar. He's a -- Santorum is a very devout Catholic. And Friess is a born-again Christian.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Now, on to Romney, Romney's super PAC raised something like $30 million last year and just $6 million -- and $6 million last month.

That's a lot of money. How many big givers does he have -- or does his super -- that super PAC have?

JOHN DUNBAR: Well, he's had something like a dozen or so donors of -- seven-figure donors -- actually, seven seven-figure donors, plus another five that have given a combined $1 million. He has a lot more donors, and he's raised a lot more money. He's got an extraordinary. . .

MARGARET WARNER: And what sorts of people are they?

JOHN DUNBAR: They are very much like he is.

(LAUGHTER)

JOHN DUNBAR: They are people who use other people's money to make money, a lot of hedge fund people, a lot of private equity people, a lot of investors, what I would call sort of the investor class. They're -- they're his biggest backers by far.

MARGARET WARNER: And not to leave out Ron Paul. What about him? He raised over $2 million. His super -- that super PAC raised over $2 million.

JOHN DUNBAR: Ron Paul is interesting, too, because the guy who is backing him is interesting, this guy named Thiel. He was an early investor in Facebook. He was actually portrayed in the movie "Social Network" as the angel investor in that movie.

He's a 44-year-old guy, worth lots of money. And he's given something close to three-quarters of all of the money that has gone in to Endorse Liberty. And he is a very devout libertarian, very much a hands-off, government-hands-off-business kind of a guy.

MARGARET WARNER: And very briefly on President Obama, we saw -- I mean, I think it was just -- it was actually under $60,000 that the super PAC supporting him raised. Is that expected to change now that President Obama has said that some of his Cabinet officers can go to their events?

JOHN DUNBAR: Yeah, I think it will change.

It remains to be seen whether they're going to be able to match the kind of firepower that the Republicans have, particularly American Crossroads, which is going to play a much greater role once the Republicans pick a candidate.

MARGARET WARNER: That's the Karl Rove super PAC, which is attacking President Obama.

JOHN DUNBAR: Right, which has raised an extraordinary amount of money. Coming down the stretch, we will see them kick it in. And then we will see what happens on the Obama side.

And the question is how much the unions have to spend, really.

MARGARET WARNER: Well, John Dunbar, thank you for walking us through that.

JOHN DUNBAR: Thank you.

Listen to the Audio

With President Obama taking heat from the GOP over rising gas prices, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney worked Tuesday to shift blame and tout domestic energy exploration efforts. Judy Woodruff discusses the political implications of $3.58 a gallon with The New York Times' Michael Shear and John Kilduff of Again Capital.

JUDY WOODRUFF: The price of oil on world markets climbed again today, closing above $106 a barrel. That and the rising price of gas at the pump provided political fuel for Republican presidential hopefuls.

Just as the U.S. economy shows signs of strengthening, the price of gas is starting to hit American drivers where it hurts -- again.

MAN: It's crazy. It's expensive. It's going up and up.

WOMAN: It's ridiculous.

JUDY WOODRUFF: The average price for regular reached $3.58 a gallon this week, according to the Energy Department. That's up about 40 cents from a year ago, with most of the increase coming since New Year's.

Not surprisingly, it's becoming an issue again in the presidential campaign, with Republicans blaming President Obama's energy policy.

MITT ROMNEY (R): He hasn't taken advantage of our oil resources. And he has failed the -- the only no-brainer decision I can recall a president failing in quite some time, which is to say no to the Keystone pipeline.

NEWT GINGRICH (R): I believe if we go all-out in creating American energy independence, we're going to get gasoline down to between $2 and $2.50 a gallon. It was $1.13 on average the four years I was speaker. It was $1.89 when Barack Obama was sworn in.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Obama administration officials cite an array of causes, including Iran's decision to cut off oil exports to France and Britain and, with improving economies, growing investor speculation on the surging price of petroleum.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney summed up the situation at a briefing today.

JAY CARNEY, White House press secretary: There are no magic solutions to rising oil prices and the pain that Americans feel at the pump. This is a -- there -- the fact is, is that the president is very aware that the -- of the impact that the global price of oil has on families.

The fact is, is that American oil production is at its highest now than it has been in eight years. Moreover -- and this goes to our actions -- over the past three years, we have opened millions of new acres for oil and gas exploration.

JUDY WOODRUFF: For now, prices are expected to keep rising, with the average topping $4 a gallon again this spring.

For more about what's behind the run-up in oil prices and the political implications, I'm joined now by John Kilduff, an oil analyst and founding partner at the New York-based hedge fund Again Capital, and Michael Shear, political correspondent for The New York Times and chief writer for the newspaper's political blog, The Caucus.

Thank you both for being with us.

John Kilduff, to you first.

Why is the price of oil going up right now?

JOHN KILDUFF, Again Capital: Well, as your report pointed out, Judy, right now, the tensions surrounding the Iranian nuclear situation are at the highest I can remember them being, and they're for real, that the rhetoric on both sides is significant.

The support the U.S. is getting to -- from the Europeans to embargo Iranian oil, to not buy that oil and to cut them off financially is as high as I ever could see. And the Iranians are being backed into a corner. And then on the other side of it, if you will, the desire by Israel to want to attack Iran's nuclear facilities also seems to be at the highest level that I can recall.

You had warnings from the U.S. and the U.K. today to them not to do it any time soon. And even Senator McCain was in Jerusalem today. His statements hit the tape in the marketplace today, saying that there are significant tensions between what the Israelis and what the U.S. wants to do. So the market is keying off these signals and are intensely worried about really what amounts to a third of the world's oil being in jeopardy if there's a conflict of any kind.

JUDY WOODRUFF: John Kilduff, you also mentioned to us, frankly, the fact that the economy is looking up.

JOHN KILDUFF: That is the other supporting factor here.

The U.S. employment picture in particular and a lot of the coincident economic indicators, the various Federal Reserve reports that have come out over the past couple of months now have all indicated a growing U.S. economy, which speaks directly to increased gasoline demand. And we also now see the Chinese stepping in to take measures to bolster their economy to make sure that their energy-intensive economy continues on.

So that is also keeping oil demand strong globally. And having supplies now threatened only adds to this $105-a-barrel price that we're at.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And, John Kilduff, one also hears about the role of speculation, investor speculation. How big a factor is that?

JOHN KILDUFF: Well, there's no doubt that there's investors of all stripes right now betting on the fact that there's going to be a conflict with Iran, that the global economy is going to outpace available oil demand and pushing the price up ahead of time.

These investments, though, you have to remember, are made to either hedge an airline's fuel cost or offset the damage that other parts of a stock portfolio or a bond portfolio are going to take from a spike in energy prices due to a tight supply-demand environment.

JUDY WOODRUFF: So, Michael Shear, the Republicans, we have already heard they are picking up quickly on this. When it comes to the candidates, when it comes to the Congress, is there a unified theme? We did hear from Romney and Gingrich, but is there a unified theme to what they're trying to get across?

MICHAEL SHEAR, The New York Times: I think so.

I mean, the Republicans both on Capitol Hill and on the campaign trail think they've got a winner here. They think that, you know, the gas prices both affects people in the short term. And if they can, you know, blame President Obama for what people feel like when they go and pay $60 to fill up their car, that's a winner.

They also think that it folds into the broader narrative they're trying to paint about President Obama's handling of the economy, which is largely tied to how people feel they're doing economically, whether they think things are going in the right direction or the wrong direction.

And higher gas prices give people a sense that it's just not going in the right direction. And that helps the broader Republican argument against the president.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Are they also bringing up the Iran uncertainty, the improving economy, the kinds of things we just heard from John Kilduff?

MICHAEL SHEAR: Sure. They'll bring that up. But, of course, it's in their interests from a political perspective to talk less about kind of the underlying economic factors that are maybe outside of the president's control, and focus more on what they claim the president could do or is not doing to fix this situation.

Now, the truth is that, you know, the administration will push back and say, look, we have opened up a lot of areas to drilling, as your report pointed out. And the truth is that the president may not be able to do anything in the short term to head off these prices, because the -- they're being driven by forces that are global in nature and not centered here.

But the Republicans aren't going to focus on that. They want -- they want people to believe and to understand that it's the president at fault.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, we did just hear some of the White House push-back there from Jay Carney. But what more does the White House have to say to back up its argument that it's not the fault of the administration?

MICHAEL SHEAR: Well, there's sort of a dual track that they're taking, both defensive and offensive.

On the defensive side, you sort of heard it from Jay Carney, that the president has been doing a lot to kind of it in place policies that would over time drive oil and gas prices down. That's more exploration, more permits for drilling. There are also, though, the Democratic Party, you know, on Capitol Hill and the allies of the White House are going to push on this issue of oil subsidies.

The president's been hammering the Republicans on the subsidies, the federal government subsidies that go to the oil companies. Of course, the oil companies are going to be making profits because of the price of oil as high as it is. And so the Democrats think they have a really good argument to tell people, look, at a time when these oil companies are making so much money, this is the last time that we need to be giving them more subsidies.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Michael Shear, fair to say the White House is focused on this debate, closely focused on this debate that is under way?

MICHAEL SHEAR: I can definitely tell you, having talked to the folks at the White House, they are concerned. They know that this happens every year, but every year it seems to spike higher.

And, of course, this is an election year. It's Mr. Obama's reelection year. And it's something they have got their eye on carefully, both to make sure that they push back against the Republicans and to make sure that the president is expressing, as you heard Jay Carney say a few minutes ago, expressing that he gets it, that he understands that this is hurting people.

JUDY WOODRUFF: John Kilduff, coming back to you, historically, how difficult has it been for presidents to do something about oil, the cost of oil, the cost of gasoline in a way that has a material effect on what people see, what they pay?

JOHN KILDUFF: Well, it seems to bedevil administrations of all stripes and parties. And each administration seems to blame the previous one for a lack of an energy policy.

I can recall President Clinton having to release the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in the final months of his administration back around 2000. So it's -- these projects take a long lead time. The thing you need to -- it's commodities, Judy, so I would like to point out that the way to lower the price of commodities is to, A., produce more and, B., use less of it. That's the magic formula there.

These projects require hundreds of millions, if not billions in investment, require a long lead time. And also you have to deal with the vagaries of the boom-and-bust cycle of energy prices. In 1998, when prices got down to $10 a barrel, it was ruinous to our domestic oil production. It took a long time to come back from it. And we're only coming back to it now because there's a new technology that's emerged because of $100 oil.

And that's the shale oil and the fracking, which has its own issues surrounding it.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And, just quickly, finally, Michael Shear, how is all that playing into these back-and-forth arguments between the White House and the Republicans?

MICHAEL SHEAR: Well, I mean, I think the White House is eager to put out the message that, on the efficiency side, they have driven the efficiency for autos up, that they're focused on green energy.

That's a big point of contention between the White House and the Republicans. You know, the president likes to talk about this all-of-the-above energy policy that he has to both increase production and increase the amount of domestic oil that's produced here, but then also to reduce the demand.

And, you know, it's not something that is going to happen in a short order, but it's definitely going to be a real focus of the campaign in the next months.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Michael Shear, John Kilduff, we thank you both.

Eric Fehrnstrom told MSNBC's Chuck Todd on Monday that the three states with strong Romney ties are not, actually, in the "must-win category."

"Mitt Romney has connections to three states: Massachusetts, where he raised a family and started a business; Michigan, of course, where he spent the first 18 years of his life and his dad was the governor; and Utah, where he ran the Olympics back in 2002," Fehrnstrom said. "Four years ago we won all three of three of those states. Is any one of them a must-win for Mitt Romney? No."

One week from Tuesday, Michigan's voters will decide if Romney's candidacy gets a new surge of energy. That's a lot of time.

Consider the Real Clear Politics average of Michigan polls, which finds Rick Santorum leading by 3.2 percentage points and Romney picking up some steam over the last few days.

"Michigan will determine whether Mitt Romney's superior money advantage and bigger organization is worth anything," Slate's John Dickerson writes in a piece about the frequent near-death experiences Romney's presidential bid has faced.

Romney has used that money for mostly positive biographical television ads reminding Michigan voters about his roots.

Bloomberg's John McCormick examines Romney's style on the stump and finds the former Massachusetts governor is nothing like his father, George Romney, who served as governor of Michigan.

(STILL) ALL ABOUT SANTORUM

Santorum remains the strong national front-runner, but he's still scrambling to build a lasting campaign infrastructure.

As Roll Call's Janie Lorber reports Tuesday, Santorum has scant support in Washington, especially along K Street. That's why lobbyist Bill Wichterman, a longtime friend, pitched himself as the liaison to the Santorum campaign during a recent meeting of conservative Hill staffers and "powerful outside players," she writes.

More from the story:

No other candidate has made a pitch like this, according to regular meeting attendees.

Until now, Santorum's campaign has made little effort to cultivate inside-the-Beltway support.

"It would probably have been a waste of time because [Washington] was betting on a Romney win," said one adviser to the Santorum campaign. "Prior to last Tuesday, I think D.C. and K Street had kind of decided that Romney was going to be the candidate."

Santorum has few endorsements from Members of Congress -- the three House Republicans who have publicly backed Santorum all hail from his home state of Pennsylvania -- while Romney has won the support of at least 75 Congressional Republicans....

Lobbyists are not exactly lining up behind him either. Only four lobbyists publicly support Santorum, compared with the more than 50 backing Romney, according to a Roll Call tally.

The campaign has held only a few Washington fundraisers, including one in January at Wichterman's house.

But the Santorum adviser said Washington money may not be that important to securing the Republican nomination.

"We're raising money hand over hand right now," he said, referencing the two weeks since the last round of primaries. "It's just falling from the sky. ... We are doing really well without D.C. fundraisers."

On Monday's NewsHour, Jeffrey Brown asked Susan Page of USA Today and Terry Madonna of Franklin and Marshall College about Santorum's credentials and how social conservatism became his calling card.

Santorum won his Senate seat in 1994 with the help of the Christian Coalition thanks to his pro-life record, Madonna said. But it did not seem so prominent.

"[U]ntil you get to the late 1990s, it doesn't become sort of an overarching, overreaching issue, compelling issue, the way it certainly has become in the last decade. He talked about fiscal matters, government reform, tax policies. That's what got him elected in 1990 to the House and what got him elected in 1994 in the Senate," Madonna said.

Watch the segment.

Page also noted that Santorum's authenticity is helping him win over the core conservatives who make up the GOP primary electorate, a topic Tribune's Paul West tackles in a story Tuesday.

"Those who have voted for Santorum, or plan to, say much of the attraction stems from an everyman image -- the down-to-earth family guy motivated by unwavering and deeply held convictions -- that stands out in a Republican contest in which no significant issue differences separate the top contenders," West writes.

MONEY, MONEY, MONEY

The January Federal Election Commission filings that were due at midnight Monday reveal that super PACs raised and spent more than the campaigns but also show each of the four hopefuls in solid financial health as they face possibly months more on the campaign trail.

The pro-Romney Restore our Future super PAC raised $6.6 million and spent nearly $14 million in January, thanks in part to $500,000 checks from three separate donors: coal company executive Joseph W. Craft of Tulsa, Okla., Bruce Kovner of New York City and David Lisonbee of Sandy, Utah, write Politico's Kenneth P. Vogel and Robin Bravender.

Casino mogul and Newt Gingrich friend Sheldon Adelson told Forbes he's willing to give up to $100 million toward super PACs. He's quoted in this cover story saying:

"I'm against very wealthy ­people attempting to or influencing elections. ... But as long as it's doable I'm going to do it. Because I know that guys like Soros have been doing it for years, if not decades. And they stay below the radar by creating a network of corporations to funnel their money. I have my own philosophy and I'm not ashamed of it. I gave the money because there is no other legal way to do it. I don't want to go through ten different corporations to hide my name. I'm proud of what I do and I'm not looking to escape recognition."

On Tuesday night the NewsHour will take a detailed look at the latest filings from the super PACs in a discussion with John Dunbar of the Center for Public Integrity.

The campaign committees fighting for control of Congress are also raking in the donations. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee raised $6 million compared to the National Republican Congressional Committee's $4.8 million. Both committees broke records for January fundraising.

2012 LINE ITEMS

Politico's Morning Score got the first look at a new ad for Texas Rep. Ron Paul, which will attack Santorum as a "fake" on Fox News in Michigan. Watch the ad.

Roll Call's Jonathan Strong uncovers more examples of Paul getting double-reimbursement for trips back home to Texas. Strong writes that "new documents obtained by Roll Call suggest Paul was aware that he was often being reimbursed twice for individual flights." The story details documentation for 26 flights showing double payments, including "credit card statements that detail the ticket purchases, a payment to Paul from his taxpayer-funded House account for reimbursement of a flight and Federal Election Commission records or copies of checks that verify a second payment from a separate group for the same flight." And, Strong writes, "Beyond the 26 flights, documents show an additional 31 flights where it appears Paul was double-reimbursed but the records lack sufficient detail to prove duplicate payments." Read the story here and his original piece here.

The Washington Post's T.W. Farnam writes about a new study showing this season's campaign ads are more negative than ever.

Slate's David Weigel digs through FEC records to tally where the candidates eat on the road. Hint: Pizza seems to be a staple.

Roll Call's Shira Toeplitz talks with black voters in Ohio about whether President Obama will benefit from as much enthusiasm this time around as he did in 2008.

Follow @pbsgwen, @maryjobrooks, @mobilemort for up-to-the-minute coverage from Arizona.

TOP TWEETS

#RonPaul supporters string huge banner across I-10 in Phoenix amid campaigning ahead of next week's primary #GOP2012 twitter.com/mobilemort/sta...

NEW Michigan Poll: Romney has 32%, Rick SANTORUM has 30%, Newt GINGRICH has 9% and Ron PAUL has 7%. AND 22% Undecided.

Huntsman's campaign still owes $5m, including $356k to ad man Fred Davis and $2.6m to the candidate himself #HotlineSort

OUTSIDE THE LINES

On the 50th anniversary of his launch into space, Judy Woodruff asked John Glenn, "What's your secret?" "Attitude and exercise," the 90-year-old said on Monday's NewsHour. "I think keeping busy and have a purpose in every day. And if you can do that and do some exercise every day, I think that helps you out."

The NewsHour's Elizabeth Summers produced a segment about the new Ford's Theatre Center for Education and Leadership. Hari Sreenivasan talked with historian Richard Norton Smith about how Abraham Lincoln still shapes America culture and society and how the museum has a purposeful "unfinished" quality to suggest the slain president's legacy is still being shaped. Don't miss the "Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure" reference -- watch the segment here.

Talking Points Memo's Brian Beutler notes that a Politico story's error has become a "membership drive" for union officials in Wisconsin. The movement even has a t-shirt, Beutler writes.

The second half of a two-part biography of former President Bill Clinton airs Tuesday on PBS.

The NewsHour's Ray Suarez talked with Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn about the state's budget challenges.

Half of your Morning Line dynamic duo is moderating a panel at South by Southwest in Austin next month. Here are the details, tell all your friends.

ON THE TRAIL

All events are listed in Eastern Time.

Mitt Romney holds a town hall meeting at 11 a.m. in Shelby Township, Mich.

Rick Santorum holds a pair of Phoenix events: a luncheon at 1:30 p.m. and a rally at 7:30 p.m.

Newt Gingrich addresses the Oklahoma State Legislature in Oklahoma City at 11 a.m.

Ron Paul has no public events scheduled.

All future events can be found on our Political Calendar:

For more political coverage, visit our politics page.

Sign up here to receive the Morning Line in your inbox every morning.

Questions or comments? Email Christina Bellantoni at cbellantoni-at-newshour-dot-org.

Follow the politics team on Twitter: @cbellantoni, @burlij, @elizsummers.

Listen to the Audio

On this Presidents' Day, Hari Sreenivasan and historian Richard Norton Smith discuss President Lincoln's influence on American politics and popular culture as they tour the Ford's Theatre's new Center for Education and Leadership dedicated to the president.

JEFFREY BROWN: And finally tonight, on this Presidents Day holiday, a fresh take on the legacy of Abraham Lincoln.

Hari toured the new Ford's Theatre Center for Education and Leadership here in Washington, D.C., with historian Richard Norton Smith.

HARI SREENIVASAN: Walking into the new theater center is like taking a step back in time to the cobblestone streets of Washington on April 16, 1855, the day after President Abraham Lincoln's death.

Newspaper headlines announcing the president's death cover the walls of the new exhibit, which opened today in a building across the street from Ford's Theatre, where the president was assassinated.

RICHARD NORTON SMITH, scholar in residence, George Mason University: You walk to the third floor and you come to this more thematic, less chronological treatment of the posthumous Lincoln, or in some ways the living Lincoln.

HARI SREENIVASAN: Presidential historian Richard Norton Smith, who helped design the center, says its mission is to examine how Lincoln has influenced Americans great and small since his death.

In part, that influence is symbolized by the 34-foot-high book tower that connects the center's three floors. It's made of aluminum and represents some of the roughly 15,000 works written about Lincoln.

RICHARD NORTON SMITH: The story didn't end on April 15. In some ways, the story begins, the story of what we want Lincoln to be, which Lincoln are we talking about, the evolution of the posthumous Lincoln. It's like a mirror held up to the evolution of the country itself.

HARI SREENIVASAN: I mean, it's almost like his words are -- and possibly his life is a poem to be constantly reinterpreted. I mean, over your shoulder are two very different presidents using his words.

RICHARD NORTON SMITH: Absolutely.

And nowhere has Lincoln's posthumous influence been greater than on the presidency itself. And the classic example of how everyone needs to, as one historian says, get right with Lincoln, we have Dwight Eisenhower and Franklin Roosevelt, Ike from the right, FDR from the left, each of them admiring Lincoln.

And there's a quote, a famous quote there about the role of government. Talk about something contemporary. Well, both Eisenhower and FDR regarded it as their favorite Lincoln quote. In fact, Barack Obama quoted from the same passage in his State of the Union address.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: I'm a Democrat. But I believe what Republican Abraham Lincoln believed, that government should do for people only what they cannot do better by themselves, and no more.

(APPLAUSE)

RICHARD NORTON SMITH: You can take away from Lincoln almost anything that you want.

Presidents in wartime, embattled presidents, unpopular presidents, they all look to Lincoln. He's their patron saint, because no president was more embattled or more unpopular than Lincoln was during his presidency. We think he was born on Mount Rushmore. Not so.

Theodore Roosevelt hung his picture in the president's office and said, whenever I have a major decision to make, I always ask myself what Lincoln would do. Woodrow Wilson, who was a son of the South, who remembered seeing Jefferson Davis in chains being led past him at the end of the war nevertheless developed something of a hero worship for Lincoln.

Richard Nixon as a 12-year-old was given a portrait of Lincoln that he hung over his bed. Nixon also justified what would later be seen as abuses of power by comparing America in the Vietnam era to the country during the Civil War.

So, over and over again, Lincoln is always there if you want to cite him to justify the expansion of presidential power, particularly in wartime.

HARI SREENIVASAN: Why do you think it is that people keep coming back to Lincoln to study and to write and rewrite?

RICHARD NORTON SMITH: It's a great question. He's not Washington or Jefferson, about whom scholars obviously continue to write, but who seem more remote.

Lincoln seems more accessible to us. In many ways, Lincoln is one of us -- a number of reasons for that. First of all, he had a sense of humor, which does more than anything to humanize people. He had an unhappy marriage, which makes him somehow accessible. He had children. He experienced tragedy.

The events of Lincoln's life and how he dealt with them and the personal growth, that makes Lincoln very nearly timeless.

HARI SREENIVASAN: Lincoln is an icon that we see so much in pop culture today. And give us some examples of how Lincoln is so used.

RICHARD NORTON SMITH: Well, used and, arguably, abused.

I mean, there are probably -- I'm sure there are viewers out this who when they think of Lincoln, they think of the, depending on their ages, Raymond Massey, or Henry Fonda, or Hal Holbrook, or Gregory Peck or others who have played Lincoln in the movies.

ACTOR: Furthermore, it's well-known that, the more a man speaks, the less he's understood.

(LAUGHTER)

RICHARD NORTON SMITH: Lincoln has in fact been used, almost from days of his assassination, to sell products. We have Lincoln Logs. For a younger generation, "Ted and Bill's Excellent Adventure" includes Lincoln.

ACTOR: Party on, dudes!

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)

RICHARD NORTON SMITH: He is just one of those figures, if you're selling a product, is synonymous with integrity, whether it's an automobile or insurance or a remedy for sleep deprivation.

HARI SREENIVASAN: Honest Abe.

RICHARD NORTON SMITH: Absolutely. Honest Abe. You know, everyone wants Lincoln on their side. Almost everyone can devise a rationale to justify that.

And we go on debating who he is, what he really believed, and how it influences our politics and our culture to this day.

HARI SREENIVASAN: And that story is not over.

RICHARD NORTON SMITH: That story is far from over.

We deliberately wanted an unfinished quality about this museum, about the story that we're telling here, because the one thing we know is the last word about Lincoln will never be written, and the next generation and the generation after that will discover and interpret Lincoln for themselves, just as we have.

And, in doing so, they're really looking in the mirror. And they're asking themselves, what kind of people do we want to be, what kind of country do we want to have?

HARI SREENIVASAN: Richard Norton Smith, thanks so much for your time.

RICHARD NORTON SMITH: Thanks for your interest.

Listen to the Audio

A nationwide Gallup poll showed presidential hopeful Rick Santorum leading the GOP field with 36 percent of Republican voters. The new frontrunner, who is leading rival Mitt Romney by eight points, drew crowds and criticism Monday after he said global warming is "not climate science but political science." Jeffrey Brown reports.

JEFFREY BROWN: On this Presidents Day, the Republicans who would be president drove home their points in key upcoming primary states. And the latest seeming front-runner drew crowds and criticism.

Rick Santorum's rise in the polls continued today heading into next week's primary contest and two weeks before Super Tuesday. The new Gallup tracking poll showed Santorum leading with 36 percent of Republican voters. Mitt Romney is eight points back at 28 percent. Next is Newt Gingrich at 13 percent. And Ron Paul comes in fourth at 11 percent.

Polls out yesterday showed Santorum ahead in Oklahoma and in Ohio, an upcoming Super Tuesday state where he grabbed support from the state's attorney general, who previously endorsed Mitt Romney.

In Ohio today, the former Pennsylvania senator continued a line of attack against President Obama which he had begun yesterday, arguing that global warming is -- quote -- "not climate science, but political science."

RICK SANTORUM (R): They have nothing to do with real cost-benefit analysis, real understanding of how we have to value both the environment and its impact on man and the world. They have radical ideas.

JEFFREY BROWN: Over the weekend, Santorum also drew attention for how he described -- quote -- "the president's agenda" at a rally in Columbus, Ohio.

RICK SANTORUM: It's about some phony ideal, some phony ideal, some phony theology, oh, not a theology based on the Bible, a different theology.

JEFFREY BROWN: Yesterday, on ABC's "This Week," Obama campaign strategist Robert Gibbs said the comments went too far.

ROBERT GIBBS, Obama campaign strategist: I can't help but think that those remarks are well over the line. It's wrong. It's destructive. It makes it virtually impossible to solve the problems that we all face together as Americans.

BOB SCHIEFFER, "Face the Nation": He's the man of the hour in Republican politics.

JEFFREY BROWN: But that same day, on CBS's "Face the Nation," Santorum defended his remarks.

RICK SANTORUM: I wasn't suggesting the president is not a Christian. I accept the fact that the president is a Christian. I just said that when you have a world view that elevates the Earth above man and says that we can't take those resources because we're going to harm the Earth by things that are -- that frankly are just not scientifically proven. . .

JEFFREY BROWN: Meanwhile, Santorum's Republican opponents continue to campaign in crucial Super Tuesday states.

In Ohio today, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney insisted he's the only candidate capable of beating President Obama in November.

MITT ROMNEY (R): I have had the experience of leading. I have led four different enterprises. I happen to think that one of the criteria for selecting a president ought to be, has this person led something before? Our current president had not. And I think we've seen the consequence of that in some of the errors he's made.

JEFFREY BROWN: In Tulsa, Okla., former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said he's not planning on drop out of the race any time soon. And continuing to focus on states with caucuses, Texas Rep. Ron Paul turned his attention on North Dakota.

Today, his campaign said it had raised $4.5 million in January. Nonetheless, most attention today was on Santorum, who has seen his stock rise since winning contests in Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri three weeks ago. That scrutiny will only increase as his numbers rise in Romney's home state of Michigan, site of one of next week's two key primary contests.

And late today, the newest Gallup poll was released showing Santorum up by 10 points over Mitt Romney.

And we take a closer look now at Rick Santorum's rise with Susan Page, Washington bureau chief of USA Today, and from Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, Terry Madonna, director of the Center for Politics and Public Affairs at Franklin and Marshall College.

Susan, start with some context here. Who is Rick Santorum speaking to or reaching out to? And what kind of reception is getting on the trail?

SUSAN PAGE, USA Today: He's getting a great reception among Republican primary voters. This is a group of voters that is very conservative, lots of Tea Party supporters. A majority of them in some states like Michigan say they are evangelical or born-again Christians.

So when he talks about public education or about global warming in the way that he's doing, this has really drawn him big crowds and brought him to a standing in the poll and sustained a standing in the poll that is pretty remarkable.

On the other hand, there are big risks for him in audiences that are also hearing what he's saying. And that would be more moderate Republicans and especially the people who you turn to when you're the nominee in a general election, like independent voters and women voters. They may be hearing some of the things he's saying and thinking, is this someone I would really feel comfortable with in the Oval Office?

JEFFREY BROWN: I'm also wondering after so many months where the economy was the main focus of all this, to turn to these kinds of issues -- you just named some of them -- but also in the past couple of days prenatal care, you mentioned public school education, birth control, health care mandate, does he see these as these issues in a sense, as opposed to economic issues?

SUSAN PAGE: The social conservative issues have been his calling card at the beginning, have sort of made him different, say, from Mitt Romney.

But he has been trying to look like a more three-dimensional candidate, to talk about foreign policy, for instance, policy toward Iran, to talk about manufacturing policy. I was with him in Detroit last Thursday when he addressed the Detroit Economic Club, talking about the deficit, talking about economic policy, talking about the manufacturing sector and how to encourage it.

And he's had some appeal in his home state of Pennsylvania, as I'm sure Terry will talk about, with the kind of voters, the kind of blue-collar voters that predominate in places like Michigan and Pennsylvania and in Ohio.

JEFFREY BROWN: Well, Terry Madonna, let me bring you in there. You've followed Santorum for a long time. Is this -- the appeal to conservatives and talking about social issues, has that been part of who he is for as long as he's been in politics?

TERRY MADONNA, Center for Politics and Public Affairs, Franklin and Marshall College: Yeah. Well, Susan is exactly right.

I mean, when he started, for example, in 1980, when he defeated an incumbent Democrat, no one gave then Senator Santorum -- or then Rick Santorum, lawyer Santorum, a chance to win that race in a Democratic district. And he amassed lots of volunteers, many of whom were pro-life.

Then he won his Senate seat in 1994 with the help of the Christian coalition. And he was solidly pro-life. But the fact of the matter is, until you get to the late 1990s, it doesn't become sort of an overarching, overreaching issue, compelling issue, the way it certainly has become in the last decade.

He talked about fiscal matters, government reform, tax policies. That's what got him elected in 1990 to the House and what got him elected in 1994 in the Senate. The other thing that Susan points out that is, I think, very important, he's the only one of the four Republican candidates who had the niche among social conservatives.

He could always sort of rely on them. And in the polls that I have done and others have done, Tea Party activists are overwhelmingly social conservatives. So, he could reach that blend of fiscal conservatism, small government, limited government, get rid of the deficits. at the same time, he could talk about social issues.

JEFFREY BROWN: And, Terry, what about as a legislator in the state and then in the Senate? What became the key sort of issues that he worked on or became associated with? One was welfare reform, right?

TERRY MADONNA: Oh, absolutely. Yeah, he was the floor leader for welfare reform.

By the way, that's the first time we really see this aspect of sort of the religious issues, moral issues come to play, when he fought for and insisted on faith-based grants and tax cut -- you know, use of the money in welfare to go to faith-based organizations.

As a senator he did -- and his critics are accurate -- he did fight and brought home hundreds of millions of dollars for Pennsylvania projects. He supported minimum wage. He was never cozy or close to the unions, but he was certainly helpful to U.S. Steel. He had worked on projects for the pharmaceutical and technology industries in the southeastern part of the state.

He was a typical sort of light-blue, if I can, senator who could not ignore the interests of the state.

JEFFREY BROWN: Okay.

Well, now, Susan, you talked about some of the risks of getting into some of these issues. Now you have, of course, the other Republicans hitting back. You have, I guess what you would call the Republican mainstream sort of expressing some worry, some publicly, some, you know, behind the scenes. What are you hearing there?

SUSAN PAGE: I think there's tremendous concern among Republicans in Washington, among elected officials, including members of the House who are going to run, be running with whoever the presidential nominee is in November, about Rick Santorum and his ability to appeal to a broader electorate than the electorate we see in, say, the Iowa caucuses.

I think there is talk about whether -- if Rick Santorum wins in Michigan next Tuesday, that would be a catastrophic event for Mitt Romney and raise questions about a rather smooth path to the nomination perhaps for Rick Santorum. And would the Republican elites then try to step in, in some way, draft somebody new to get into this race?

Or could you get to a convention where no one had a mathematical clinch on the nomination and you might have negotiations about who was going to get that prize?

JEFFREY BROWN: Well, Terry Madonna, I suppose one thing that Republican leaders would be worried about is exactly what happened to Rick Santorum in 2006. He lost, and he lost real big, right, in his home state. What happened there?

TERRY MADONNA: Yes, by -- yes, by -- well, yes, in 2006 by 18 points to Bob Casey.

Well, it was the -- no doubt about it, the Democratic wave, the Iraq war election. There was also his social conservatism hurt him -- back to Susan's pointing, really hurt him in the southeastern part of Pennsylvania, in the suburbs of Philadelphia, where -- Now, Sen. Casey was pro-life, just as Rick Santorum was, but I think Sen. Santorum's outspokenness and some of the provocative things that he had said about gays, about abortion and Supreme Court decisions, and about women's role in the work force, very provocative.

Sen. Casey used some of that against him in the campaign. And then there was his residency. He had a home in Virginia. Sen. Casey made the argument that he wasn't a resident of Pennsylvania anymore and his kids were going to school, paid for by the taxpayers of Pennsylvania while they lived in Virginia. It was a cyber-school.

All in all, I mean, it wasn't a good year for Santorum. It's like the revolution had simply run away from him. And he lost in the vital areas of the states, in Pennsylvania and Virginia and Florida and Missouri, that -- that Republicans are going to have -- a Republican candidate is going to have to win or he's not going to win the electoral votes of those swing states.

JEFFREY BROWN: And, Susan, just briefly, what about President Obama and his advisers? Do you sense they're taking Rick Santorum a little more seriously now?

SUSAN PAGE: Well, taking him a little more seriously because he looks a little more serious.

But I have got to say that they continue to think that Mitt Romney is the stronger general election candidate. And the longer Rick Santorum stays in this beating up on Mitt Romney, that's fine with them. If he ends up being the nominee, I think they think that would all right as well, although of course there is some history for watching out what you wish for.

I remember the first campaign I covered in 1980 where the Carter people were so pleased that Ronald Reagan had the nomination. That didn't turn out the way they had hoped.

JEFFREY BROWN: All right, Susan Page, Terry Madonna, thank you both very much.

SUSAN PAGE: Thank you, Jeff.

But now that more reporters are on Santorum's trail, and with President Obama's campaign paying attention for the first time, the GOP's new favored candidate has landed on the nation's front pages.

Santorum "faces a new hurdle: defining himself positively before others rush to disqualify him," Dan Balz wrote on the front page of Sunday's Washington Post.

Santorum presents himself as a committed and consistent conservative with blue-collar roots -- just the kind of candidate Republicans need to energize the party's base and reach out to Reagan Democrats in a campaign against President Obama that could be decided in the nation's industrial heartland.

Obama advisers and other Democrats see a Santorum whose record, writings and statements, particularly on social issues, will be used to portray him as far too conservative for many voters. His record, they say, could make Santorum anathema to suburban swing voters, especially women.

Balz's piece included a Republican strategist fretting, "[T]hey're going to put the wood to him. He'll get defined by the Obama people so fast he won't know what hit him." The piece also quotes Santorum strategist John Brabender saying that his boss is "extremely reasonable."

As Stuart Rothenberg (@stupolitics) wrote in his column for Roll Call, "If Santorum were a baseball team, he'd be a small market (undoubtedly Pittsburgh) team with weak pitching, no closer, a shortstop with no range and a first baseman with the nickname of 'Doctor Strangeglove' (the nickname of former Pirates first baseman Dick Stuart)."

He adds:

In fact, Santorum the baseball team could never have gotten as far as Santorum the politician.

He wouldn't be a factor because the rules of baseball still apply. Winning teams have a strong starting rotation, are strong up the middle (pitcher, catcher, centerfield, second base and shortstop), have an unassailable closer and play solid defense. And winning teams haves creative general managers who are given enough resources to put together strong teams.

Traditionally, there are "rules" that apply in politics as well. But this year, things seem different. They don't seem to apply, which is a problem for those of us who look at the past to understand the present and to project future outcomes.

Democrats, already eagle-eyed for catching anything they consider inflammatory, jumped on Santorum's comments Saturday in Ohio. He told potential voters that President Obama is acting on "some phony ideal, some phony theology. Oh, not a theology based on the Bible, a different theology."

The remark prompted scolding from the president's surrogates and the Obama re-election team, which said it smacks of a GOP campaign fraught with "searing pessimism and negativity." Asked about it on CBS' Face the Nation, Santorum insisted, ""He says he is a Christian. But I am talking about his world view or his -- the way he approaches problems in this country. And I think they're different than how most people do in America."

On Monday morning, Team Romney previewed some of the lines you can expect to hear from the candidate or see on the airwaves about Santorum's long career in Congress. From a press release:

A Lot Has Happened Since Senator Santorum Started Running For Congress In 1989:

Major World Event In 1989: George H.W. Bush Is Inaugurated As 41st President Of The United States. (White House Website, www.whitehouse.gov, Accessed 2/19/12)

Academy Award-Winning Best Picture For 1989: "Driving Miss Daisy." (IMDb.com, 2/19/12)

Top Television Shows In 1989: "Roseanne" & "The Cosby Show." ("Names In The News," The Associated Press, 1/1/90)

Billboard's #1 Hit Single In 1989: Chicago's "Look Away." ("Billboard Top 10s Of 1989," St. Petersburg Times, 12/29/89)

Notable Television Premiere In 1989: "Seinfeld." (Julie Washington, "'Seinfeld' Bus To Stop By: No Soup For You, Though," Plain Dealer, 10/19/08)

Video Game System Introduced In 1989: Nintendo's Game Boy. (Omar El Akkad, "Attack Of The Gadgets Leaves Nintendo Limping," The [Canada] Globe And Mail, 1/27/12)

But it's still a four-man race.

Santorum is playing for Newt Gingrich's home state of Georgia, which votes on Super Tuesday, March 6. His aides think it's possible to put the state in striking distance, but Gingrich isn't giving up without a fight.

The former speaker of the House will stay afloat over the next few months, thanks in part to a new cash infusion casino mogul Sheldon Adelson will give to his Winning our Future super PAC.

That money is already being put to use with an attack on Romney. Winning our Future has a new 60-second radio ad attacking Bob Dole and John McCain as what happens when the GOP "establishment" picks a moderate nominee. "They think they control the Republican party," a narrator intones. "There are more of us than there are of them. We want our party back and our country." Listen to the ad here.

Hope you enjoy an extended line items section, for some holiday reading.

2012 LINE ITEMS

WKAR at Michigan State University interviewed Santorum on Friday's "Off the Record" show. Santorum said President Obama and Romney are "cut out of the same cloth," but he said he'd back Romney should the former Massachusetts governor end up the nominee. Watch the segment.

Santorum has a huge lead in Texas -- a major delegate prize which could vote as late as May 29 -- in a new University of Texas/Texas Tribune poll: 45 percent for Santorum, 18 percent for Gingrich, 16 percent for Romney and 14 percent for home state Rep. Ron Paul.

Santorum was the first choice of 39 percent of the 278 likely voters who said they planned to participate in the Oklahoma primary on March 6. Romney had 23 percent and Gingrich was at 18 percent, the Tulsa World reports.

Santorum won a straw poll in northeastern Ohio.

Washington County, Maine, had its moment to caucus -- and Romney maintained his victory.

Walter Shapiro writes in the New Republic about Romney's troubled winter, in the form of a business school case study.

ABC News' Michael Falcone reports that Donald Trump will be doing a series of Michigan radio interviews this week to advocate for Romney.

The Washington Post's Jerry Markon unearths Gingrich critiques of Ronald Reagan in "a largely unexplored cache of documents compiled by a former Gingrich aide and archived at the University of West Georgia, where Gingrich was an assistant professor in the 1970s."

Mark Leibovich profiles Obama consigliere David Plouffe in the New York Times.

The New York Times does another piece on the strange friendship that's blossomed between Romney and Paul on the campaign trail.

Slate contributor Sasha Issenberg uses an email one woman got from the Obama campaign to explain how the Chicago team began "agglomerating unprecedented volumes of political information" and why it matters.

The Washington Posts's Felicia Sonmez deconstructs Santorum's campaign trail staple about the dog that peed in his lap.

CNN's Candy Crowley explores Romney's "lighter side."

TOP TWEETS

Huge crowd for Santorum at Cummings, Ga., church twitpic.com/8m7448

3,000 people here in main hall for Santorum, plus an extra 1,000 in overflow room, according to police. Romney GA event last wk drew 400

OUTSIDE THE LINES

Mark Shields on the legislative battle over the payroll tax cut extension: "I liken this to a narrow canyon in a Western movie, where the stagecoach goes through and it's most vulnerable to the attack of the bad guys, that they're going to be held hostage, that this is the last place where the administration has to go through that narrow canyon in this legislative year." Watch Shields and Michael Gerson on Friday's NewsHour.

The Tea Party Express endorsed Ohio Senate hopeful Josh Mandel in the Republican primary.

Maryland is on the verge of legalizing gay marriage.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, meanwhile, vetoed a gay marriage measure on Friday.

​Pinal County (Ariz.) Sheriff Paul Babeu admitted that he is gay and stepped down as Romney's Arizona campaign co-chairman after the Phoenix New Times published allegations from the sheriff's former boyfriend that he was threatened with deportation if he didn't promise to keep their relationship a secret.

EMILY's List, which works to elect Democratic women who support abortion rights, made a 30-second television spot focused on the male-dominated conversation about contraception. It's airing on cable in San Francisco, Chicago and Florida. Watch "Where are the women?" here.

The New York Times' Jodi Kantor on how Supreme Court justices are some of the lone D.C. officials without a security entourage.

Roll Call's Amanda Becker writes that six House Ethics Committee members have voluntarily recused themselves from Rep. Maxine Waters' case. Six alternates were appointed in their place.

Todd Purdum profiles the dean of the House, Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., for Vanity Fair.

The two-part biography of former President Bill Clinton debuts Monday on PBS.

Gwen Ifill (@pbsgwen) shares her views on Black History Month.

Half of your Morning Line dynamic duo is moderating a panel at South by Southwest in Austin next month. Here are the details, tell all your friends.

ON THE TRAIL

All events are listed in Eastern Time.

Rick Santorum holds three rallies: in Steubenville, Ohio, at 10 a.m., Muskegon, Mich., at 3:15 p.m. and Holland, Mich., at 5:30 p.m. He also addresses the Kent County GOP Lincoln Day Dinner in Grand Rapids, Mich., at 7:45 p.m.

Mitt Romney discusses jobs and the economy in Cincinnati at 1:40 p.m.

Ron Paul campaigns in North Dakota with stops in Jamestown at 2 p.m. and Bismarck at 6:30 p.m.

Newt Gingrich holds a pair of Oklahoma town halls: in Tulsa at 3 p.m. and Oklahoma City at 8 p.m.

All future events can be found on our Political Calendar:

For more political coverage, visit our politics page.

Sign up here to receive the Morning Line in your inbox every morning.

Questions or comments? Email Christina Bellantoni at cbellantoni-at-newshour-dot-org.

Follow the politics team on Twitter: @cbellantoni, @burlij, @elizsummers.

Listen to the Audio

Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson discuss the week's top news including Congress' bipartisan payroll tax cut extension deal, GOP hopeful Rick Santorum's lack of public support among his former colleagues in Washington and Mitt Romney's chances of winning his home state of Michigan.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And to the analysis of Shields and Gerson. That is syndicated columnist Mark Shields and Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson. David Brooks is off tonight.

Gentlemen, it's very good to have you with us.

MARK SHIELDS: Thank you, Judy.

MICHAEL GERSON: Good to be with you.

JUDY WOODRUFF: So, a word about the economy, Mark.

Good news seems to be coming in bits and pieces, the Dow industrials almost at 13,000, which would be, I guess, a record in four years, if it hits there some time soon. How does all this affect the presidential campaign going on out there?

MARK SHIELDS: Well, if in fact the pattern continues, Judy, four consecutive months of declining unemployment, and the lowest number of unemployment applications for unemployment insurance in four years, and the good news in the market that you described, and building consumer confidence, then it really hits the basic premise of Mitt Romney's campaign, the Republican campaign, which has been that Barack Obama has been a failed steward of the economy, that the economy has foundered under his leadership, or lack thereof, and that voters were understandably discouraged and pessimistic and sometimes hopeless about the future.

If all of that changes, then Romney's basic message that "I can improve the economy" loses saliency and traction, along with his argument about his electability, which has taken a body blow as well. So the Republicans almost have to redraw their campaign.

When the economy is bad, voters blame the party in power. When the economy is good, voters make their decisions on other issues of their choosing or what candidates offer.

JUDY WOODRUFF: So, Michael, an unmixed blessing for the president and his campaign?

MICHAEL GERSON: Well, I think the direction of the economy, particularly on Election Day, the perception of that matters greatly.

Now, we don't know what that direction is going to be on Election Day.

MARK SHIELDS: That's right.

MICHAEL GERSON: If you remember, the administration had the summer of recovery in 2011. They declared that this was going to happen, and it didn't really work out the way they wanted. So that's a problem.

And we also do know, however, that this recovering economy remains a weak economy. We have now had three years above 8 percent unemployment. That is the first time that's happened since the Great Depression. We still have a housing market that's at depression-level reductions in values.

These things are something that, you know, even if the economy is improving, we still have serious economic problems that I think that the Republicans will be able to point to.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Now, separately, you had, Michael, on the Hill this week this rare show of bipartisanship.

The two parties were able to come together, pass this payroll tax cut extension, unemployment benefits. On the surface, it looks like the Republicans caved, the Democrats won. Is that what happened?

MICHAEL GERSON: Oh, I think the surface is pretty accurate there.

(LAUGHTER)

MICHAEL GERSON: I think John McCain said -- well, you know, Republicans lost this debate in December on middle-class tax cuts. They didn't want to repeat it again.

And John McCain, with typical bluntness, said today that, we're dumb, but we're not stupid. And, you know, I don't think this is a fight that Republicans wanted. But Republicans are happy to vote for tax cuts. Democrats are happy to vote for the extension of unemployment insurance.

The people that shouldn't be happy are people that are concerned about the deficit. This is really not offset. It doesn't deal with fundamental problems about the deficit. You know, we have with had four years of unprecedented deficits in this country, and the Congress still can't, you know, take that seriously.

And so I think that it's both, you know, a good sign that the people can agree on this, but I think it's a little bit in denial about our economic circumstance.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, it's a reversal on the part of the Republicans.

MARK SHIELDS: It was. The Republicans took a big hit in December.

It's awfully tough to argue that we favor tax cuts for Goldman Sachs, but we oppose them for nurses and firefighters and teachers, which they would have been in that position. And the Republican sort of late mantra about they have to be paid for was a little hollow after the 2001, 2003 tax cuts, which remain unpaid for and still a drain and contributing to the deficit.

So, I think that Republicans really wanted to get it behind them. John Boehner understood that. There was greater resistance in the Senate. What it really means, more than anything else, Judy, legislatively this year is that -- I liken this to a narrow canyon in a Western movie, where the stagecoach goes through and it's most vulnerable to the attack of the bag guys, that they're going to be held hostage, that this is the last place where the administration has to go through that narrow canyon in this legislative year.

JUDY WOODRUFF: So you're saying the administration are the good guys and the . . .

(LAUGHTER)

MARK SHIELDS: Well, they're in the stagecoach, whether they're the good guys or not.

(LAUGHTER)

MARK SHIELDS: But it's the place where you want to stop the stagecoach and hold them hostage, as you could on the debt ceiling in the summer of 2011.

There's no more of those. On Dec. 31, 2012, the world ends. The world ends. That's when the Bush tax cuts expire. It's when the debt ceiling has to be raised, everything. But that's after the election. So, in other words, there are no more confrontations scheduled between now and then legislatively, that -- where the administration can be held hostage, as the Republicans did hold them hostage last summer, and the administration looked weak in the process.

JUDY WOODRUFF: So what does that mean for the rest of this year in the Congress?

MICHAEL GERSON: Well, I have asked that question up in Congress whether they're going to do anything the rest of this year.

I think you're correct that, now the last confrontation has ended, I'm not sure -- I think the leadership, the Democratic leadership is going to be fairly partisan the way they perceive issues. They're going to try to find vulnerabilities that highlight Romney's weaknesses.

The Republican Policy Committee, I was up there talking with some of those people. They're doing the same. They're trying to find, on the pipeline or the other things -- so we have entered, I think, a kind of strategic chess game in the Congress about what comes next.

No one thinks that we're going to resolve these issues, but everyone thinks that immediately after the election, in that lame-duck period, it's going to be very large issues taken on at that point.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Over that period of a month-and-a-half.

Michael mentioned Romney's weaknesses, and, Mark, which brings up what's going on right now with the primary. The next primary is coming up in about 10 days, Michigan, Arizona. Romney seems to be struggling right now since the three states Rick Santorum won, a week-and-a-half or so ago.

He's campaigning in a state, Michigan, I guess everybody thought was going to be a cakewalk for him, his former home state?

MARK SHIELDS: Yeah.

JUDY WOODRUFF: But he's struggling there. What's happened?

MARK SHIELDS: Well, I mean, the passage of time. His dad was governor there close to half-a-century ago, so the Romney name is not what it was.

But I think it's deeper than that, Judy, as far as Michigan is concerned, and as far as Mitt Romney is concerned. What's happened to Mitt Romney, in my humble judgment, from watching him, is that Rick Santorum has emerged. There's always been -- and Michael has addressed this -- there's always been a market for the non-Romney.

The other non-Romneys have been flawed models. Rick Perry was a flawed debater, failed debater, an inadequate platform performer. Rick Santorum is a good debater, good platform performer. Newt Gingrich had more baggage than Southwest Airlines carries.

(LAUGHTER)

MARK SHIELDS: And Rick Santorum doesn't have personal baggage.

Herman Cain appeared from nowhere and had no legislative or really governmental experience. Rick Santorum does. So he fits better. But the problem with Mitt Romney, timing is everything in politics. He's gone into Michigan, all right, at the time of General Motors having a 130-year record profit.

It's now three -- it's three shifts, three shifts. It's around-the-clock, General Motors. Workers are getting a $7,000 bonus. It's the number-one auto-maker in the world. Americans are not ideologues. We're pragmatists. The ideologue has an ideology and looks at it and says, what is right works. The pragmatist looks at it and says, what works is right.

And whatever Americans think, this auto bailout worked, okay? Whether they think the government should have been there or not, it worked. And Mitt Romney's re-litigating it all week and saying the banks should have done it. At that point, we were bailing out the banks. The banks weren't making any loans.

So he just looks silly and he looks sort of off-key and really rooting against Michigan's success and against Clint Eastwood, of all people.

(LAUGHTER)

JUDY WOODRUFF: Remembering the Super Bowl.

MARK SHIELDS: Yes.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Michael, you did write about this today. I mean, how does Romney work his way through this?

MICHAEL GERSON: Well, it's a long-term problem.

He has a chronic condition. He has a political anemia. He has a hard time exciting people. He doesn't know how to touch the buttons for conservatives. And when he tries too hard, he looks inauthentic.

Santorum is not an ideal candidate in some ways either.

MARK SHIELDS: Not at all.

MICHAEL GERSON: He has an acute condition, I think, which is kind of a culture war fever.

He seems to enjoy those debates, culture war debates, a little too much. It scares people. People don't like aggressors in the culture war. It's hard, though, for Romney to exploit that. It's hard to come in and criticize his social conservative can views in the Republican primary.

JUDY WOODRUFF: You mean during this period.

MICHAEL GERSON: During this period, right.

He can do it through proxies. He can raise direct -- and questions about his electability in general. But, of course, Barack Obama won't have any problems attacking these views on contraception or women's rights issues or gay rights issues.

And so it creates a dynamic where I think, if I were Barack Obama, I would want to face Santorum. But it's hard for Romney to make those attacks about electability in . . .

MARK SHIELDS: One of the things about Santorum that has kind of gone unnoticed, Judy, is, this is a man who was 14 -- or 16 years in the Congress. He served during that -- his four terms -- four years in the House with 227 House Republicans. He served with 89 different Republican United States senators.

Up until today, not one of them had ever endorsed him for president. Now, that's a comment of sorts. I mean, it really is. I mean . . .

JUDY WOODRUFF: It was Mike DeWine, the former . . .

MARK SHIELDS: Mike DeWine did switch today, the former senator from Ohio.

But that does reflect a sense of, is he really the presidential candidate they want him to be? The other thing he's done is, he spent this week criticizing President Bush's policies. And I think that's an attempt to sort of explain his 18-point landslide defeat at the hands of Bob Casey in Pennsylvania in 2006.

JUDY WOODRUFF: That gets a little convoluted.

MARK SHIELDS: Blaming the Bush policies -- no, that the Bush policies caused him to lose.

How do you explain losing by 18 points in your third race for statewide office . . .

JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, Mitt Romney has pointed that out several times. We have heard . . .

(LAUGHTER)

MICHAEL GERSON: But I'm glad to hear you standing up for President Bush.

MARK SHIELDS: Absolutely.

(LAUGHTER)

MICHAEL GERSON: But I do -- I completely agree with your point, which is any president, Republican, Democrat, liberal, conservative, when you have a collapsing financial sector and the collapse of the economy in the Upper Midwest, is going to act.

George W. Bush acted on those things. Barack Obama acted. There was a great deal of continuity between the administrations. It seems disconnected from reality and ideological to come in and say, for completely ideological reasons, I would have done nothing.

I think that that -- it doesn't play very well in the general election, certainly.

JUDY WOODRUFF: So, what do we -- do we look for some movement in the next few weeks? Do they slog away until these primaries in just a few . . .

MARK SHIELDS: I think that Romney has to win Michigan. If he doesn't win, he has to lose it closely. If he loses Michigan lopsided, I think it's going to be a moment of grave self-doubt for the entire Republican Party establishment, as well as the Romney candidacy.

Maybe he wins -- loses Michigan and wins in Arizona and comes back. I think Ohio will be a real battleground on March 6, on Super Tuesday.

JUDY WOODRUFF: In a few words, do you agree with that? If Romney loses Michigan . . .

MICHAEL GERSON: I do. He can narrowly lose Michigan and win big in Arizona and still survive this near-death experience. Lots of campaigns have them.

If he loses big in Michigan, it reconfigures the race.

JUDY WOODRUFF: All right, we are glad to have you both here to help us reconfigure our analysis.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Michael Gerson, Mark Shields, thank you both.

MARK SHIELDS: Thank you, Judy.

Listen to the Audio

In other news Friday, Congress voted to extend a payroll tax cut for 160 million Americans two weeks before the cuts were due to expire. Also, a 29-year-old Moroccan man was arrested after allegedly planning to detonate a suicide bomb near the U.S. Capitol building.

HARI SREENIVASAN: A months-long standoff on Capitol Hill came to an end today when Congress voted to extend the payroll tax cut for 160 million Americans.

MAN: The conference report is adopted.

HARI SREENIVASAN: The measure cleared the House by a vote of 293-132. And in short order, the Senate vote followed, with 60 voting in favor and 36 against.

The $143 billion package extends three main programs through the end of 2012: the 2 percent, $100 billion reduction in the Social Security payroll tax; federal unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed; and the so-called Medicare doc fix, preventing a 27 percent cut in reimbursements for doctors treating Medicare patients.

Even though the bill passed both chambers comfortably, a number of lawmakers from both parties found problems with it.

Republican Sen. Dan Coats.

SEN. DAN COATS, R-Ind.: So, let's be honest with the American people. We're just simply taking money away from the trust fund from retiree benefits, making Social Security come closer and closer and closer to bankruptcy and insolvency, at the same time not telling the American people that this so-called tax cut is robbing that fund.

HARI SREENIVASAN: And House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer criticized it for cutting retirement benefits of new government hires.

REP. STENY HOYER, D-Md.: Nobody is targeted in this bill other than federal employees. You can tell I'm angry about that, because that's not fair. And that's not how you ought to treat our employees, America's employees.

HARI SREENIVASAN: President Obama thanked Congress for their efforts during a visit to a Boeing factory in Everett, Wash.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Today, we actually took an important short-term step to strengthen our economy. Just before we got here, Congress did the right thing and voted to make sure that taxes would not go up on middle-class families at the end of this month.

HARI SREENIVASAN: The president is expected to sign the bill right after returning from his West Coast trip.

A 29-year-old Moroccan man was arrested today after planning to detonate a suicide vest near the U.S. Capitol Building. A counterterrorism official said Amine El Khalifi was taken into custody with an inoperable gun and inert explosives given to him by undercover FBI agents. He is not believed to be associated with al-Qaida, but had been under surveillance for at least a year.

Economic help for Greece seemed to edge closer today as top European leaders expressed confidence that a second bailout deal can be worked out next week. German Chancellor Angela Merkel said she was optimistic a meeting on Monday of European finance ministers will clear the deal. Greece is in line for a $170 billion rescue package, but, first, the country must agree to a host of debt-cutting programs.

The uncertainty in the Greek situation kept markets in limbo and struggling for direction. On Wall Street, the Dow Jones industrial average flirted with the 13000 mark before ending the day up 45 points to close just under 12,950. The Nasdaq fell eight points to close above 2951. For the week, the Dow gained more than 1 percent. The Nasdaq rose 1.7 percent.

In Olympia, Greece, thieves stole more than 60 priceless ancient artifacts from a museum dedicated to the Olympic Games. Police called the robbery a well-calculated hit by two men wearing ski masks. It is the second major art theft in Greece this year. Museum guards have been among those public sector jobs to face cutbacks in the face of the Greek debt crisis.

Italian and Swiss authorities worked to confiscate $6 trillion in counterfeit U.S. bonds today. The bonds carried a fake issue date of 1934, and were transferred to a Swiss trust in Zurich via Hong Kong. Italian police said they had arrested eight people who were trying to sell the fake bonds to a developing nation. The sale never went through.

Libyans marked the one-year anniversary of the revolution that toppled Moammar Gadhafi. The former leader was captured and died in the hands of rebel fighters last October. In Benghazi, people gathered in Liberty Square for Friday prayers, which later turned into celebrations. Waving the Libyan flag, many cheered for a revolution in Syria, where government forces continue to crack down on opposition protesters.

Harry McPherson, who served as counsel and special counsel to President Lyndon Johnson, has died. McPherson also served as President Johnson's chief speechwriter from 1966 to '69. In '68, he worked on one of the major addresses of Johnson's presidency, when he announced an end to the bombing of North Vietnam.

And, as the president discussed with McPherson, he had a late addition to the speech: the stunning announcement that he wouldn't seek another term in office.

HARRY MCPHERSON, former special counsel to the president: I had been working on it for almost three months. I said, "I think it's okay, Mr. President."

He said, "I have an ending that I have added." I said, "I have heard that."He said, "Do you know what's in it?"

I said, "I think so."

"What do you think about that?"

I said, "I'm very sorry, Mr. President."

He said: "Thank you, partner. I'll see you."

HARI SREENIVASAN: McPherson went on to spend the rest of his career as a lawyer and lobbyist in Washington. He was 82 years old.

Those are some of the day's major stories.

President Obama's poll numbers have been looking up, and Friday morning brought a fresh reminder of his campaign's financial strength.

The Obama re-election team, along with a joint Democratic Party fundraising committee, hauled in more than $29 million in January.

The announcement was made using the president's Twitter account, where the campaign also shared that 98 percent of the donations were for $250 or less.

The $29 million figure is less than the $36 million Mr. Obama raised as a presidential candidate in January 2008, a staggering sum boosted by his historic Iowa caucus victory that demonstrated his fundraising prowess against then-Democratic rival Hillary Clinton.

At a fundraiser in San Francisco Thursday night, President Obama told a raucous crowd of supporters that he's had setbacks and made mistakes, but urged them to keep giving their time and money to help him secure four more years. "Remember what we used to say during the campaign, that real change, big change is hard and it takes time," the president said. "And it takes more than a single term."

He said the GOP candidates want to roll back the progress that his White House has accomplished thus far. Expect to hear this message again and again in the coming months:

That's what we're fighting for. That's the choice in this election. This is not just another political debate. This is the defining issue of our time, a make-or-break moment for middle-class Americans and all those who are trying to get into it. And we can go back to an economy that's based on outsourcing and bad debt or phony financial profits, or we can fight for an economy that is built to last -- an economy built on American manufacturing and American-made energy, and skills and education for American workers, and the values that have made America great -- hard work and fair play and shared responsibility. That is what we're fighting for. That is what's at stake in this election.

The presidential campaigns will report totals monthly this election year. It's not clear yet how much the Republican hopefuls (and their respective super PACs) have brought in, but the totals are unlikely to come close to the president's.

For now, the battle is mostly between Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney.

SETTING EXPECTATIONS

Asked Wednesday by MLive.com about a series of polls showing him losing his native state of Michigan, Romney said flatly, "That won't happen."

"As you understand with the polling process, you have seen just how mercurial the sentiments of voters are until they get to know the candidates better," Romney added.

"I was asked the other day ... 'Has this come down to a two-person race?' And the answer is it has always been a two-person race," Romney said, before highlighting the tumultuous campaign to this point. "First it was me against Donald Trump. Then it was me against Michele Bachmann. Then it was me against Herman Cain. Then it was me against Rick Perry. Then me against Newt Gingrich. And now it seems to be me against Rick Santorum. And in each case I have been able to make my case and garner sufficient delegates to still be in this race and to have good prospects to become the nominee."

CAR TALK

Democrats have made no secret of the fact they plan to make Romney's opposition to the auto bailouts a central campaign plank, should he ultimately become the nominee. The Democratic National Committee produced a web video titled: "Here's the lesson Mr. Romney: Don't bet against America." It features President Obama, testimonials from Michigan auto workers and Romney saying, "Let Detroit go bankrupt." You can watch it here.

Santorum is going to the heart of the matter, as well, as the two leading GOP contenders campaign in Michigan.

Romney proclaimed his love for the auto industry at a Chamber of Commerce event Thursday in Farmingston Hills, Mich., telling supporters, "I'm glad it went through a managed bankruptcy process, which I recommended from the very beginning to shed unnecessary costs and get its footing again. I'm delighted it's profitable."

Santorum told the Detroit Economic Club on Thursday that his is a more "consistent" position that the government "should not be involved in bailouts -- period."

"Gov. Romney supported the bailout of Wall Street and decided not to support the bailout of Detroit," Santorum said.

He added an unusual caveat:

"By the way, it's not the Obama administration. I know Gov. Romney focuses on the Obama administration, and the reason he does is because he supported what the Bush administration did. Well I didn't. I opposed what the Bush administration did and have been a consistent critic of it," Santorum said.

"I actually blame President Bush more than I do President Obama," he added. "President Obama is just following suit. President Bush set the precedent. It was the wrong precedent. And I think that while there may be companies today that are doing well, obviously you have a couple companies here that are, the long-term consequences to this country, having set the precedent of the role of government in the economy is not going to be a good one."

FRIESS' FAUX PAS

Santorum super PAC financier Foster Friess waded into the debate over contraception Thursday, but his apparent attempt at humor fell flat and created a controversy for the former Pennsylvania senator's campaign that looks to stretch into a second day.

In an interview with MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell, Friess was asked about Santorum's views on social issues, including contraception, and whether they could be liabilities in a general election campaign.

"People seem to be so preoccupied with sex. I think it says something about our culture. We maybe need a massive therapy session so we can concentrate on what the real issues are," Friess said. "And this contraceptive thing, my gosh, it's such inexpensive. Back in my day, they used Bayer aspirin for contraceptives. The gals put it between their knees and it wasn't that costly," Friess added, with a stunned Mitchell pausing for a moment before continuing.

Santorum defended the super PAC donor during an appearance Thursday night on Fox News, after host Greta Van Susteren referred to Friess as his "creepy supporter."

"He's not creepy. He's a good man. He's a great philanthropist. He's a very successful businessman," Santorum said.

"He told a bad, off-color joke and he should not have done it. That's his business," Santorum said. "It certainly doesn't, in my opinion, reflect on the campaign or me because he wasn't doing it as part of our campaign."

NEWSHOUR NOTES

Judy Woodruff sat down with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., Thursday afternoon. They talked about the payroll tax cut, the Democrats' legislative agenda and the campaign ahead.

Judy asked Rep. Pelosi if Democrats should use House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, on the campaign trail just as the Republicans demonized her. Pelosi said no.

"I think the Democrats are running about the future. The Republicans have always got to attack sombody else because they're frankly bankrupt in terms of ideas for the future. We are talking about reigniting the American dream. The president will go out there and talk about what is at stake for the future," Pelosi said. "It isn't about attacking an individual because if you don't have the issues you attack the person. He has the issues. He has the values. Reignite the American dream, build ladders of opportunity for all who want to work hard, play by the rules, take responsibility. But we have work to do to do that, and we would hope to do it in a bipartisan way. I think that's what you'll see on the Democratic side."

Judy also asked about health care reform landing in the Supreme Court. Pelosi said: "I think we're in pretty good shape constitutionally. I mean we wrote a bill understanding our responsibilities to the Constitution of the United States. You never know what happens in a court, but in terms of the substance and the constitutionality of it, we believe that we're on solid ground."

Watch the entire interview here and Judy's interview with Rep. Boehner here.

We asked for your questions via Twitter. Here's a sample of some of the submissions.

@DaleDreyer What can Democrats do to better showcase their accomplishments? Much good is done, but no "splash."

@jgreenSTPA can dems win back the house-if so will u run for majority ldr again?

NewsHour politics desk assistant Alex Bruns notes that House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., also said the election should be less focused on personalities and more focused on the issues at