>> this morning, we received more good news about our economy. gwen: the unemployment rate heads down. and the president's message to congress -- >> do not slow down the recovery that we're on. don't muck it up. keep it moving in the right direction. gwen: it's a split screen debate. in nevada, with its sky high jobless rate, and underware mortgages, mitt romney has the frontrunner's blues. >> nimet concerned about the very -- nimet concerned about the very poor. we have a safety net there. >> what country does he live in? >> my gole is not to forget the poor but to turn the safety net into a trampoline to allow the poor to rise and be like the rest of us and have a job and buy a house. >> it was a misstatement. i misspoke. gwen: yet romney has the money and for now the momentum to fight back. covering the week, jim tankersley of "national journal." karen tumulty of "the

washington post." doyle mcmanus of the "los angeles times." and john harwood of cnbc and "the new york times." >> award winning reporting and analysis. covering history as it happens. live from our nation's capital, this is "washington week with gwen ifill." produced in association with "national journal." corporate funding for "washington week" is provided by -- >> we know why we're here. >> to connect our forces to what they need when they need it. >> to help troops see danger. before it sees them. >> to answer the call of the brave and bring them safely home. >> around the globe, the people of boeing are working together to support and protect all who serve. >> that's why we're here. >> this rock has never stood

still. since 1875, we've been there for our clients through good times and bad. when their needs changed, we were there to meet them. through the years, from insurance to investment management, from real estate to retirement solutions, we've developed new ideas for the financial challenges ahead. this rock has never stood still. and that's one thing that will never change. prudential. >> corporate funding is also provided by norfolk southern, additional funding is provided by the annenberg foundation, the corporation for public broadcasting and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. once again, live from washington, moderator gwen ifill. gwen: good evening. on the campaign trail this week, republican candidates were looking for a way forward.

here in washington, the president was, too. today, the bureau of labor statistics handed hip the best news he's had in months. 243,000 new jobs in january. 16 months of job growth. five straight months of unemployment decline. you can almost hear the sigh of relief coming from the obama white house. >> altogether, we've added 3.7 million new jobs over the last 23 months. now, these numbers will go up and down in the coming months. and there are still far too many americans who need a job or need a job that pays better than the one they have now. but the economy is growing stronger. gwen: so let start there. the president said at the state of the youtube and said today things -- of the union and said today things are getting stronger, is it as rosy as it looks? >> get news, unemployment is down to 8.3% and we're adding a lot of private sector jobs in

areas where the underlying data are very good. manufacturing looks very good. and the job growth is very good. services look very good. and the job growth is good. this is all really good news. now the bad news. 12.8 million americans looking for a job and can't find one and the economy is still very vulnerable to outside shocks and what do you know? there are a bunch of threats looming on the horizon in europe, in our housing market, and maybe most insidiously of all in the u.s. congress. gwen: but is it -- are the trend lines correct? because that seems to be what most economists look at rather than -- and that's what the administration always warns us not to look at the numbers from month to month to month but the trend. >> the trend is really good. we've gained two million jobs about in last 12 months. it's been uneven. we do better and worse, last year we saw this acceleration again at the beginning of last year. but it was thrown off a bit by the earthquake and tsunami in japan, by gas price spikes and by europe. but we've seen steady improvement and i think the

trajectory is that we'll see more steady improvement in the months to come. >> jim, one of the things that we've heard people talk about is you can't have a really robust recovery in this economy until something improves in the housing market. so many people are under water in their mortgages. that has a depressing effect on consumer spending. that sort of thing. so do these numbers suggest that actually we can recover without housing coming back? and what sort of a drag does that pose on where we go from here? >> well, i think the right way to look at that is that the recovery would be a lot faster if housing were a lot better. housing remains one of the areas where the data are really bad. and where it still looks like we're on a downward slope for a while. if that were to clear, and people were to start to feel a rise in their housing wealth again, we could see a lot more consumer spending a. much faster recovery and a lot more job growth. >> out on the campaign trail, it almost sounded as though the republican candidates were looking for the cloud to go with the silver lining. and there was a lot of talk about the congressional budget

office's pessimistic report that -- that unemployment is going to go back up again later this year. how do you square these two sets of data? >> well, i think it's actually really interesting and good to think about what the c.b.o. was saying. the c.b.o. projects -- they actually take the law at its word. and the c.b.o. is projecting that the bush tax cuts are scheduled to expire at the end of the year. the payroll tax cuts are set to expire any day now it feels like. if those things happen, and these budget cuts kick in from the deficit reduction measures that were passed last year as part of the debt ceiling bill, that's going to be a huge drag on the economy. so if taxes go up and spending goes down, we could cut all the momentum out of this and yeah, unemployment could go right back up. >> but better for the deficit. >> better for the deficit. presuming that growth doesn't crash so much that it opens up more of a deficit. >> so i presume that's what the president meant and you meant when you mentioned congress as being a big factor here in whether this goes ahead. does congress agree? >> well, let's say -- i think

congress would say that the -- gwen: good question. >> great question, doyle. the congress would say the president has something to do with this. and they're right. what congress and the president need to agree on is how to extend this payroll tax cut. that's job number one. if they can't do that and payroll taxes go up by a couple percentage points on working americans, almost all americans who work pay that tax. then you are going to see an immediate drag. i compared it today to like pulling the e-brake on a car as it hits highway cruising speed. they need to get their -- heads together and figure out how to agree to extend that cut. gwen: we know if you're a leader you get credit for the good stuff and the blame for the bad stuff. that's the deal, right? but in this case, can a president, can any administration really claim credit for job creation, something like this? >> well, if i were this administration, and i don't think -- i think that they sort of agree on this -- i wouldn't be sounding the trumpet about this recovery all that much.

that said, they have done some things here that have proved very good. one is that they kept taxes low. and that's in part by extending the bush tax cuts but it's also by cutting the payroll tax. the other thing is that they have done a very good job of keeping -- keeping the focus on jobs over the last few months and not moving directly to deficit reduction, which is a very important medium and long-term concern. but if we went into a huge austerity spiral right now, with a lot of budget cuts and with some tax increases, then you could see growth just flat line. gwen: speaking of europe, austerity. >> absolutely. gwen: ok. let's talk about how those republicans responded to this today. because they have the same general response to the economic news that it's not good much. >> i know the president didn't cause this downturn. this recession. but he didn't make it better, either. he made it worse. gwen: romney who won big in florida this week still seemed to have some trouble getting his footing on the campaign trail. and many of his wounds seemed

to be self-inflicted. is that right, karen? >> the reason he couldn't get his footing is it was in his mouth. the morning after his victory in florida, and it was a big victory, it was almost a mirror image of south carolina. he won across the board except for the very most conservative voters. he won huge margins among women. so this should have been a moment of celebration and sort of laying the premise for going forward. but instead, in an interview on cnn, mitt romney had another one of these gaffes. and these all seem to sort of play into the stereotype. this one being he was trying to explain that he is intensely focused on the middle class. but he said i'm not concerned about the very poor. the full context being because they have a safety net. some people would argue about that. especially given the greater numbers of the poor. gwen: people on both sides have argued about that, actually.

>> but it is becoming troubling for republicans because this is now becoming part of the narrative about mitt romney, whether it's him offering to bet $10,000 to rick perry in the middle of the debate or him joking about being unemployed or saying that he had been, you know, he had been worrying about getting a pink slip at some point in his life and his problems with not releasing his tax returns. all this stuff is building into a stereotype, a narrative as well. gwen: if you're newt gingrich, even though you've been talking about the food stamp president for some time, you're now suddenly defending the poor. you're jumping on this. and he isn't going anywhere. he says he's in the race all the way to the convention. his plan seems to be to persuade voters that mitt romney is just like barack obama. >> it isn't good enough for the republican party to nominate obama light. [applause]

now, let me tell you what the difference is. if you're a genuine conservative, first of all, you don't say that you don't care about the poor. gwen: it seemed like there were three different messages. the genuine conservative, obama light and i'm still here. >> yeah. and if you wanted to pick the key one out of that, it's not the word "poor." it's not even "obama light." it's "genuine conservative." that's the pitch that newt gingrich is desperately trying to make to that republican electorate. he says he's going to do it through a campaign of positive ideas. but somehow it doesn't sound like it. because we keep hearing things like obama light. the other line he threw at mitt romney this week was well, if barack obama is big food stamp, mitt romney is little food stamp. so this food fight is going to keep going for a while. >> karen, i want to get back to the issue of the very poor and mitt romney. it seems like his campaign was in a lot of damage control

after that. but one of the first things he did after that foot in mouth moment was to stand up on a stage with donald trump. can you explain that to me? >> i can't. it was really a remarkable -- now, mind you, a few weeks ago when he was endorsed by jon huntsman, mitt romney did not accept the endorsement on the same stage with jon huntsman. but yet there was this hastily arranged news conference. and this is one of his gatches a few weeks ago was -- gaffes a few weeks ago was i like to fire people. standing on the stage with somebody whose catch line is "you're fired" might not necessarily be a move that makes a lot of sense politically. in fact, there's polling that suggests that swing voters in particular say donald trump's endorsement is a turnoff. >> i wonder to go back to the very poor and where that goes in the rest of the campaign. because it struck me as one of those moments that was not a gaffe. it was mitt romney saying what he intended to say.

gwen: and has said before. >> and repeated when he was challenged on it. presidential candidates in both parties don't want to talk about the very poor. but if you're barack obama, you have a set of policies as he has which quietly are targeted toward many of the poor. his health care plan added millions of people to medicaid. mitt romney does not have that. he is not seeking to strengthen the safety net. he's looking at least in terms of what he's proposed so far end the medicaid entitlement. so i wonder to what degree do you think he can put this behind him by saying misstatement or do you think he's actually revealed something about himself that the democrats and obama can really take advantage of? if not newt gingrich? >> i do think that at a time where everyone's -- particularly swing voters' main focus is cutting the deficit. i think that people are going to be looking for fiscal austerity and so it's really hard to talk about expanding social programs. but if you look at mitt romney's economic plan, there

really isn't a lot in there. i mean, it's a lot of tax cuts. for instance, people who -- people who make under $200,000 would not have to pay capital gains taxes. well, they don't pay very much in capital gains taxes as it is. so i think this is something that the obama campaign, this will not be the last you hear of that line. >> let me ask a variation of the same question. a lot of those gaffes were out before florida. and mitt romney did just fine in florida. is it the case that some of this rich guy image doesn't really hurt him all that much in republican primaries but is building up negatives for the general? >> i think that is also exactly right. in fact, when newt gingrich attempted to go after mitt romney on bain capital, and rick perry did as well, talking about it as vulture capitalism, it backfired on both of them. because it was seen as an attack from within the republican party on capitalism. gwen: but i'm very curious

about newt gingrich's continued survival in this. he is not going -- i think we can safely say going to win tomorrow in nevada. there's not a poll anywhere that shows he has a shot. so -- he seems to think there's a path that exists. and maybe this genuine conservative thing you mentioned is part of what he sees. but share with us what that is. >> what is the path? well, it's kind of hard to figure out exactly what it is. and i've been talking to the gingrich campaign to get a clear sense of the strategy. it's really kind of out there on a wing and a prayer. it's one part of it is continuing to make this genuine conservative appeal. hoping that mitt romney hits a brick wall somewhere that we can't see yet. >> and you do have some southern states coming up where the ideology plays a bigger role. >> you do have that but it takes a long time to get there, exactly. so the short term here, john, actually is just to survive, to get to super tuesday on march 6, which is where those southern states are there. newt gingrich has a good shot,

should win georgia on that day. and has a shot in alaska. has a shot in ohio. but the gingrich campaign has its own internal problems. he's not on the ballot in virginia where he ought to be and doesn't have a full slate in tennessee. it's really hard to see -- >> and disappointment with the governor in nevada. >> yeah. >> isn't there also a problem in that there's so little going on over the next month and deprived of oxygen. there are no debates and difficult to raise money as well. >> well, that's right. they claim they're not having any difficulty raising money. gwen: but he seems to have a plan which involves rick santorum handing all of his support such as it is. >> the hope is that at some point rick santorum runs out of gas. which santorum doesn't agree to at all. and that all of those santorum supporters or that most of them will come to gingrich. if you look at the polls, when people are given a second choice, santorum supporters tend to split down the middle, actually. some of them do go to mitt romney. the gingrich campaign hopes that by hammering away at romney actually that will be what they call a dynamic process.

that moore and more will end up with gingrich. and finally, there's this interesting sort of double reverse that gingrich himself talked about in florida. he said he doesn't even have to get to the convention with a majority of delegates as long as he can deny mitt romney a majority. then maybe you get believe it or not an actual wide open convention. >> so is that their answer to the results say in florida where romney actually exceeded the combined vote of gingrich and santorum, you could say well, you have gingrich, santorum and paul. and he's under 50% and therefore we can extend this. >> in that sense weirdly enough there's an argument that maybe gingrich wants santorum to stay and wants ron paul to do well. >> another odd fellow moment, and the post wrote about in is romney and paul. it seems that they're bringing awfully -- being awfully nice to each other when gingrich was jumping all down romney's throat about his comments about the poor. and santorum was, you heard paul saying i think he was just taken out of context. >> my colleague, amy gardner,

had a great story on this subject. there are a couple of things going on. one is these two guys like each other. but the other thing is that mitt romney realizes that he needs the energy and the enthusiasm that nobody like ron paul can generate. he's got -- he's got his own contingent and they are going to be there until the end. so he really does need ron paul sort of onboard with whatever -- whatever happens in the end. >> when is the end going to be? how far does this go? gwen: when is the end going to be? >> when -- does it go all the way to the convention like we almost did with the democrats in 2008? >> well, newt gingrich says it goes to the convention and there's really no reason for him to drop out yet. he's 68 years old. he's not angling for a job in the romney administration. there's no love lost there. >> that's clear. >> but the real question is, does he run out of money? does rick santorum run out of money? >> there will be a convention. he will be there. i believe that teles a competition at the convention -- that there's a competition at the convention when i see it. gwen: and a competition but not

who the nominee will be. perhaps. we'll see. we don't want to predict anything. let's talk about money. the folks running for president have hauled in tons of it so far. often without lifting a single finger. $30 million for mitt romney and that's just what his super pac raised and spent on the bruelingt advertising campaign that crushed newt gingrich -- brutal advertising campaign that crushed newt gripp in iowa and florida but not south carolina. and they've all got them but has it changed the face of the campaign, john? >> i think it has. i think it has changed the velocity at which people get competitive. because you can get a huge check from somebody overnight. and it's changed the ways in which campaigns are run. because the super pac for mitt romney spent more money than mitt romney did. and in television advertising in some of the early states. and with a very clear effect. the $17 million or so in negative ads rained down on newt gingrich's head. clearly caused him to go down

in iowa, in new hampshire. then he got his patrons, wealthy couple in las vegas, sheldon adelson and his wife, miriam, to write a $5 million check. boom. he's competitive. he comes back. gwen: except he's competitive but not on the air in nevada. or someone like rick perry had a lot of money from super pacs and no longer in the race. >> it's a relative term. it's from one guy having all the money and you having none to all of a sudden you have some. but he can't match the romney forces. but the point is that we've always had big money in politics. we've always had people getting around the rules and before there were superpacs there were 527 organizations that we saw in past nomination campaigns. the swift boat veterans for truth and other groups like that. but it has become so much easier to do it rapidly. and so for newt gingrich, for example, one. operative questions for him is can he persuade a single person or a handful of other people to

step up and write these big checks if he can, that's the fuel. but if he can't, then you've got this big machine that the normal frontrunner, mitt romney, through both the individual limited contributions that he takes in and the large unlimited ones has got a real machine. and of course the biggest machine of all will be headed by barack obama who has raised much more money than anybody else. >> with these superpacs the candidate technically does not have control of the message which is one reason the super pacs can say these horrible things and the candidate -- is there any -- even mitt romney has said that he doesn't feel comfortable with this kind of system. is there any chance that it's going to be changed? >> i think that's very doubtful. there was such a fight as you know and covered with me. the mccain-feingold. they got it through. the supreme court decision basically blew that out of the water. and opened things up for these unlimited donations.

i suppose if we get to the end of 2012, you could have some push in the reform community to change it. but i think that -- many members of congress will see that as a fight for which there's no reward at the end of the game. so i just wouldn't have a high level of expectation there. >> john, as karen mentioned, a lot of this money has gone into negative advertising. is that a direct result of it being sort of fenced off to the side, ostensibly deniable and -- >> i think so. and it goes to karen's point about coordination. on the one hand, there is open and implicit coordination. campaign does positive, super pac does negatives. but if you're somebody who is concerned about the impact of money in politics you don't want it to rule everything, you can at least take some solace that there might be some incompns there in terms of the way the -- incompetence there in terms of the way the two sides interact with each other and maybe the super pac does something that's counterproductive for their own side. but remember, like in the case

of the romney super pac, these are very experienced political allies and mitt romney, they know what they're doing. they know what mitt romney's strengths and weaknesses are and people who have been connected with his career. so i'm not sure the coordination issue matters all that much. and if you look at one positive thing, in the general election, general election in presidential politics is where money matters least. because you have two nominees, tremendous amount of coverage. universal knowledge about who the candidates are. and yes, it can make a difference in targeted states. but there's also a saturation point that gets reached. it's not like a primary where you can come in and buy a state so heavily and take voters who are quite impressionable and undecided and really move them not as easy to do in a general. >> in 2008 barack obama's fundraising prowess on the internet really seemed to change the game and gave him the ability to compete in a bunch of states like indiana that nobody thought he had a chance to win in and he ended up winning. how is this changing game for an obama re-elect? does he not have that advantage? >> he doesn't have the

advantages he had in 2008 for different reasons. he doesn't have the same electricity as a candidate and a record to be saddled with. but barack obama still does have an ability, unmatched in this race, to mobilize grassroots and raise money. and look at the numbers. he raised $125 million in 2011. gwen: and one of the great questions that republicans keep bringing sup whether they are going to be run -- bringing up is whether they are going to be running against a billion dollar campaign. >> no. gwen: we will be watching all of it. thank you, everyone. by the time we see you here next week we will have caucus results from nevada, colorado, and minnesota. but what are the voters thinking? we asked students at the university of nevada reno. richard corn is student government vice president. >> where the nation goes economically is something that nevada will follow. sure, we do have a unique standing with an inverse economy in some counties. but there does seem to be -- doesn't seem to be conservative shft for less spending and more balanced budget. and really accountability for

what the government is doing. gwen: you can find the rest of our student voices feature on our website at pbs.org/washingtonweek. then keep up with daily developments on the pbs news however and we'll see you next -- newshour and we'll see you next week. as the late don cornelius would say, wishing you love, peace and soul. good night. >> "washington week" was produced by weta which is solely responsible for its content. funding for "washington week" is provided by -- >> one line helps communities turn plans into reality. help shippers forge a path to prosperity. helps workers get back to work. one line is agent for the

economy and for the future. norfolk southern. one line, infinity -- infinity possibilities. >> corporate funding is also provided by prudential financial. boeing. additional funding is provided by the annenberg foundation, the corporation for public broadcasting, and by contributions to pbs stations from viewers like you. thank you. from viewers like you. thank you. >> you're watching pbs. its auto insurance customers for over 70 years. more information on auto insurance at geico.com or 1-800-947-auto any time of the day or night.