In 2009, the Obama administration fought the tide of Republican disapproval and decided to rescue General Motors and Chrysler. Millions in paid back loans and thousands of additional jobs later, GM and Chrysler are on track to sell 14 million cars, the “fastest pace in more than two years.”

The American auto recovery is simultaneously spurring an about-face among GOP naysayers. Once calling on America to “let Detroit go bankrupt,” GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney recently claimed that the rescue was his idea first. Now, another Republican is following suit: Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R).

When first asked about financial aid for the auto industry in 2008, Kasich dismissed the idea, saying, “If they’re not going to be viable, we shouldn’t throw good money after bad.” Asked for his feelings now that the rescue is showing success, Kasich said he is “very pleased” that the Americans have the jobs he originally opposed saving:

Rick Snyder, Kasich’s fellow Republican governor in Michigan, has said that government invention helped save Chrysler and General Motors – and he warned GOP presidential candidates against criticizing the bailout.

Kasich would not go that far.

“What’s done is done,” he said. “We have a strengthening auto industry in Ohio. And I am very pleased about it. I am pleased for the families of workers who have jobs.”

The auto funds have been vital to saving and creating jobs in Ohio. One Chrysler plant in Toledo, Ohio was able to add 1,100 new jobs this fall. More than merely pleased, Kasich attempted to take credit for the added jobs — a fact that did not escape Ohio workers.

When asked about Romney’s similar position on the auto rescue, Kasich offered, “I think there isn’t a single person that I know that didn’t want to have a strong auto industry in America…Its just a matter of how you get there.” When asked whether he agreed with Romney’s way of “getting there” via bankruptcy, he simply said, “I just don’t have any interest in even commenting on that.”

Anti-tax zealot Grover Norquist, the president of Americans For Tax Reform and author of the radical anti-tax pledge that has played a significant role in hamstringing budget and deficit-reduction negotiations, has said that it is unacceptable for those who have signed his pledge to vote in favor of any tax increase. But now that President Obama and congressional Democrats are backing a tax cut aimed at stimulating economic growth, Norquist has changed his tune.

Norquist met with Republican members today to let them know that opposing the extension of the payroll tax cut — which would provide many families an extra $1,000 a year — would not amount to supporting a tax increase, National Journal’s Billy House reported today:

That stands in contrast, however, to Norquist’s position on tax cuts for the wealthy. Norquist has repeatedly warned GOP members about voting in favor of repealing the Bush tax cuts for the rich or tax hikes on millionaires, even verbally sparring with a member of a group of millionaires advocating for higher taxes on themselves last month in Washington, D.C. And yet, when it comes to tax cuts for the middle class meant to drive economic recovery, Norquist clearly takes a different stance.

Republicans who have defended those tax breaks for the wealthy aren’t so sure about holding the Norquist position, though. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) warned his rank and file this morning about opposing the extension, telling them that “taxes are a Republican issue and you aren’t a Republican if you want to raise taxes on struggling families to fund bigger government.” Multiple Republican senators, meanwhile, have come out in favor of the extension, and Sen. Sue Collins (R-ME) even proposed raising taxes on some wealthy Americans to pay for it.

For decades, cotton farmers and buyers, like clothing makers, have used commodities futures markets to hedge against natural price volatility, which helps them to survive bad years. Now, however, Wall Street speculators like banks and pension fund have swamped the markets, controlling larger portions than the people who actually use the cotton, McClatchy reports.

These speculators, who have no intention of ever taking delivery of the product and treat futures contracts like a stock, have driven up prices and price volatility, making things harder for the people who grow the product, the companies that turn the raw material into finished goods, and the consumers who purchase those goods:

Such financial speculation helped drive an overheated cotton market to record levels of $2.17 a pound on March 7. Before peaking, cotton prices had risen by more than 140 percent in less than 18 months. … [T]his speculative money from investors who’ll never actually take delivery of cotton is distorting the futures market, driving up cotton prices, and thus raising prices for apparel retailers and consumers alike.

Sifting through CFTC historical data, McClatchy found that the total number of outstanding futures contracts grew by about 80 percent from 1990 to 2010. That’s big growth in a historically small market. Moreover, the number of contracts doubled between 2004 and 2010. This parallels the timeframe when institutional investors began to play seriously in commodity markets, aided by popular commodity indices developed by investment bank Goldman Sachs and the now-disgraced financial giant American International Group.

The problem with speculation in cotton can be seen across many commodities futures market, whether it’s for coffee, wheat, or oil, where speculation drives up the cost of gasoline for drivers.

Unfortunately, the agency that could help rein in speculators and address this problem, the Commodity Futures Trade Commission (CFTC), has been a frequent target of the GOP’s war on regulation. Despite the severity of the speculation problem across various markets, Republican lawmakers last month gave the commission a 2012 budget allocation one third lower than President Obama’s request. That, despite the fact that the CFTC is already stretched thin and will have to take on vast new responsibilities in implementing the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform law. This funding level so the stingy that the agency may be forced to lay off 60 workers — 8 percent of its staff.

“Without limiting the total speculation in each market, farmers and consumers will continue to needlessly suffer from higher and volatile prices,” said Dennis Kelleher, president and CEO of Better Market, an organization which works for more transparent markets. “We have seen the results of an ill-funded and ill-equipped regulator. It isn’t a pretty picture,” said Bart Chilton, a Democratic commissioner for the CFTC.

While Republicans and Democrats continue to fight over how to reduce America’s debt and deficits — moving from near-government shutdowns to failed super committees and opposition to both spending cuts and tax increases — the government of Belgium may have inadvertently provided Congress with an example of how to fix the problem: do absolutely nothing.

After 536 days without a government, Belgian opposition parties struck a deal today to form a new coalition led by Socialist Elio Di Rupo. On this side of the pond, 563 days without any congressional action on fiscal or budgetary measures would go most of the way toward achieving the deficit reduction Congress is longing for. As Center for American Progress Director of Tax and Budget Policy Michael Linden has pointed out, if Congress were do to nothing between now and January 2013 (just 397 days from now), the federal budget deficit would fall to just 1.6 percent of gross domestic product and continue dropping after that:

Similarly, debt as a share of GDP would fall to just 61 percent by 2021:

Such reductions would take place primarily due to the expiration of the budget-busting Bush tax cuts, which cost roughly $2.5 trillion over 10 years. The spending cuts triggered by the inability of the supercommittee to reach a deal would also take place, and multiple policies that Congress generally kicks down the road, like the alternative minimum tax, would also take effect.

Of course, there are policies Congress could enact to actually help unemployed Americans and the struggling economy, like passing laws that would create jobs and stimulate growth while addressing much-needed improvements in infrastructure and other areas. But if the goal is only to reduce debt and deficits, perhaps it’s better if members take their cue from the Belgians and just go home for a year or two.

In just a few weeks, a cut in the payroll tax is scheduled to expire, hitting 113 million households with a tax increase in a weak economy. Democrats have been pushing to extend the cut, while Republicans, for weeks, have balked at the plan. Only in the last few days has the GOP come around to the position that extending the tax is possible, though Republicans still refuse to budge on the Democrats’ plan to pay for the extension with a surtax on income above $1 million.

Today, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) was asked during a briefing whether he believes that allowing the payroll tax cut to expire would hurt the economy. He simply replied, “I’m not an economist”:

I’m not an economist. I don’t know what kind of an impact it’s going to have on the economy.

Watch it:

Later, Boehner came around to admit that an extension would help boost the economy. To help Boehner out, several actual economists have said that letting the cut expire would, in fact, hurt growth and destroy jobs. According to Macroeconomic Advisers, allowing it to lapse “would reduce GDP growth by 0.5 percent and cost the economy 400,000 jobs.” An analyst at Barclay’s estimated that letting the cut expire would knock 1.5 percent off of first quarter growth next year.

Ameriprise Financial Services, meanwhile, estimated that extending the cut “is likely to add between 750,000 to 1 million jobs.” “Payroll tax cuts are very powerful,” added Allen Sinai, chief economist of Decision Economics. “They provide a boost to direct income and, in turn, spending, which is important to growth.”

Boehner has a habit of only believing in economists who agree with him, so this evidence may not do much good. And, at the end of the day, Boehner says that he doesn’t have to “listen to economists” in order to craft economic policy.

Conceding ever so slightly to flak he’s taken for calling child labor laws “stupid” and suggesting that schools fire janitors and replace with them poor kids, GOP presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich got more specific today, saying working-class students should be limited to jobs like cleaning bathrooms. Bowing to concerns that janitorial work is dangerous, Gingrich floated, “What if they became assistant janitors and their jobs were to mop the floor and clean the bathroom?” Watch it:

Incredibly, Gingrich compared making kids work as janitors to a successful program that paid kids to read books. Of course, reading books is not hard labor and is directly relevant to education — cleaning bathrooms is not.

Gingrich said his idea would be beneficial because the kids “have no habit of work.” Certainly, cleaning up the soiled bathrooms of their classmates will break these children of their bad habits.

Last month, a 60 Minutes investigation revealed that House Financial Services Committee Chairman Spencer Bachus (R-AL) made $30,000 trading on information that he received in private briefings during the financial crisis of 2008. This has led to a surge in interest in passing legislation that prevents members of Congress from trading on inside information. Today, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) backed that effort:

Yes, I would like to see [a bill banning insider trading] come to the floor. I would hope that it’s not as necessary as the hoop-dee-doo over it makes it seem. But I do think that we all disclose what we do and that’s really important. And everything that we do is a matter of public record, so it’s in the public domain, so it’s not so insider, but to the extent that they — and I’ll be interested to see how the hearing comes up with it — but I’m sure they’ll come up with something that removes all doubt, that this is not something that is acceptable in Congress. And when they do, to me it seems like it would fly through Congress.

Watch it:

60 Minutes’ investigation unfortunately also tried to pin non-existent charges of insider trading on both Pelosi and House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH). So far, 131 members of the House have co-sponsored legislation to ban insider trading by members of Congress.

One of the most pernicious practices in which the nation’ biggest banks engaged during the lead up to the financial crisis was pushing minority borrowers into subprime loans, even when many of them qualified for prime loans. Wells Fargo had perhaps the most horrifying practices in this department, calling the subprime loans that they pushed in poor, black neighborhoods “ghetto loans.”

This rampant predatory lending helped inflate the housing bubble; a Center for American Progress investigation actually found huge racial disparities in lending at the big banks that wound up getting bailed out, with minority borrowers far more likely to receive high-priced loans.

One former banker for Chase — James Theckston — told the New York Times’ Nick Kristof that not only did his bank push minority borrowers into higher-priced loans, but senior executives then tried to cover up the racial disparity in their banks’ lending:

One memory particularly troubles Theckston. He says that some account executives earned a commission seven times higher from subprime loans, rather than prime mortgages. So they looked for less savvy borrowers — those with less education, without previous mortgage experience, or without fluent English — and nudged them toward subprime loans.

These less savvy borrowers were disproportionately blacks and Latinos, he said, and they ended up paying a higher rate so that they were more likely to lose their homes. Senior executives seemed aware of this racial mismatch, he recalled, and frantically tried to cover it up.

“The bigwigs of the corporations knew this, but they figured we’re going to make billions out of it, so who cares? The government is going to bail us out. And the problem loans will be out of here, maybe even overseas,” Theckston explained.

In 2006, Chase made high-price loans to 16.4 percent of white borrowers, while nearly half of black borrowers and more than one-third of Hispanic borrowers received high-price loans. These disparities help explain why, according to a new report from the Center on Responsible Lending, Latinos and blacks are twice as likely to have been impacted by the housing crisis as whites. In fact, “approximately one quarter of all Latino and African-American borrowers have lost their home to foreclosure or are seriously delinquent, compared to just under 12 percent for white borrowers.”