As the Huffington Post points out “[o]f the total $5 million Walker received in contributions from [under $200] small-dollar donors, 70 percent – or $3.46 million – came from out-of-state donors”

Looked at this way, SCM  direct response “fundraising” efforts for Scott Walker likely didn’t net a lot of money.  Particularly the out-of-state efforts were more likely aimed at increasing Walker’s national profile for vice presidential consideration or other political or pundit posts.  Certainly the out-of-state efforts weren’t trying to get Walker more votes in the recall – and (relatively) they didn’t produce much money.  Focusing on Scott Walker mass fundraising as if he’s just got the recall in mind is missing a good piece of the action.

Here’s Laura Dresser of COWS on NBC Nightly News, talking about Wisconsin’s “off the rails” job losses.

“Without going into too much detail, we can stipulate that the Baby Boom (65 million people) will be downsizing their housing, i.e. selling for the next two decades. We can also stipulate that most of the Baby Boom no longer has the wherewithal to buy second homes; rather, they will be dumping second homes to pay for living expenses as earnings, interest income and housing equity have all cratered since 2007.

Not only are there not enough younger workers to buy all these millions of homes that will be put on the market, few of those younger workers have either the creditworthiness or income to buy a house unless the Federal government gives them essentially free money and a no-down payment entry.

….

Labor’s share of the national income has plummeted to historic lows. How can households be expected to buy a house when their real (inflation-adjusted) income declines year after year?”

Further, as Durden points out, “Part-time jobs and temp jobs do not generate enough stable income to support a mortgage.”

Along those lines it’s worth taking a look at income and housing.  The National Low Income Housing Coalition’s “Out of Reach 2012” report (h/t @Oryx2046) shows how unaffordable rental housing is – showing for example that in no state can a minimum wage worker afford a fair market value two-bedroom unit at 40 hours a week (assuming the standard no more than 30% of income going to housing).  In Wisconsin, a relatively mid-level affordable state, it takes an average of 79 work hours a week to afford the rent – while in three of the most expensive states (NY, NJ and CA) it takes 130 hours or more.

But who is living on minimum wage in the U.S.? Actually, more people than you might think – the U.S. is a leader among nations in “low wage jobs” (less than two-thirds of the median hourly wage) all of which are close to minimum wage – within about $3 at the high end in constant dollars – and many of which are actually minimum wage.  About one in four American workers make “low wages” – wages that clearly cannot support a mortgage at current pricing.  Many of them include younger Americans – the type of people who in a prior economy had wage income that permitted buying homes.

Romneycare was a bad second best – but far better than what it replaced.  Obama modeled his health care law after Romney’s in many respects – and it didn’t get him very far.

This country could and should do so much better.

“It’s not as if the conservatives aren’t already peddling rhetoric about [negative positioning on issue that faults Obama], anyway. There’s not much to lose.”

You read it with the understanding that Obama “doing the right thing” won’t cost him anything, and might improve things.  And yet, it seems, Obama and his administration seem to find a way pretty consistently to “lose” on the issue by

1. Selling out their base and/or allies (and sometimes even the Administration’s stated position on the issue) by “compromising” on or abandoning their position;

2. Getting blamed by the GOP and media for it anyway; and

3. Sometimes even getting beaten more.

It comes in different forms, but it keeps coming.

Here’s an example of recent relevance.  It seems quaint to think of the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) ‘lost’ health insurance public option in view of the Supreme Court possibly eliminating the whole Act, but remember when Obama supporters thought the public option was the compromise position?

Kind of like “Change We Can Believe In” (transformed to “Spare Some Change?”) with a 50s feel to it.

[Editor Note: I should add my sympathy is with the kids - the "adults" lied to them (and continue to lie to them)]