President Barack Obama called human trafficking nothing more than "modern slavery," outlining new steps on today to combat the exploitation of workers and children in the United States and abroad.

Obama said in an address to the Clinton Global Initiative that he was not using the term of "slavery" lightly, noting that it evoked a painful past for America. But he said the U.S. and international community need to step up efforts to help more than 20 million victims of human trafficking around the globe, calling it an "injustice" and an "outrage."

Human trafficking, Obama said, "must be called by its true name: modern slavery."

Click here for the full story.  

The Barack Obama campaign responds to Mitt Romney's wildly out of context attack on the president's 1998 "redistribution" comment with a new video: "Mitt Romney continues to take the President’s words out of context, so we returned the favor."

The Romney campaign remains in crisis mode with the release of a secretly recorded video shot in May of Mitt Romney dissing the 47 percent of Americans who pay no federal income and as people "who are dependent on government, who believe that they are victims." 

So yesterday, the Republican presidential nominee reached back a decade-and-a-half to 1998 to suggest that President Barack Obama's principal goal, as The New York Times says, "is to soak the rich so that money will keep flowing for social program handouts to the lazy and undeserving."

"A tape came out a couple of days ago with the president saying, yes, he believes in redistribution. I don't," said Romney.  "I believe the way to lift people and to help people have higher incomes is not to take from some and give to others, but to create wealth for all of us."

But things have gotten better for the rich under President Obama.  Wall Street profits are soaring through the roof.  Productivity has surged. Yet wages remain stagnant, as this chart from Mother Jones points out:

If the median household income had kept pace with the economy since 1970, it would now be nearly $92,000, not $50,000.

Yesterday, Forbes reported that the net wealth of the richest Americans grew by 13 percent in the past year with Barack Obama in his third year as President of the United States.  

The gap between the very rich and the merely rich increased and helped drive up the average net worth of Forbes' 400 members to an all-time record 4.2 billion dollars. 

The rich are getting richer and the middle class are getting left behind. Yet America`s wealthy, they just want more of the pie.  And they're all too willing to accuse President Obama of trying to take it away. 

If you want a job, to keep your job or get another job, you should vote Democratic and vote Democratic often.

That may sound like a partisan line, but actually it's the logical conclusion based on.... arithmetic (as former President Bill Clinton emphasized at the Democratic convention) in a fascinating new report by The New York Times.

The report shows that under Democratic presidents since 1957, private sector job growth grew at an annual rate of 2.48 percent vs. just 1.02 percent under Republicans.  That means the odds of advancing your career have been more than double under a Democratic president during the last 55 years.

Just compare the most recent Democratic and Republican presidencies: Obama  vs. Dubya.  

Despite inheriting the worst economy since the Great Depression, private sector job growth rose in President Barack Obama's first term at an annual rate of 0.10 percent.  But private sector jobs actually fell during President George W. Bush’s first term, and rose at an annual rate of just 0.06 percent in his second term.

Still not convinced?  Look at the top five BEST presidential terms for private sector job growth since 1957 (note: all but Reagan are Democrats):

1. Lyndon B. Johnson (1965-1968) +3.62
2. Jimmy Carter (1977-1980) +3.28
3. Bill Clinton (1993-1996) +2.85
4. Ronald Reagan (2005-2008) +2.80
5. Kennedy/Johnson (1961-1964) +2.42

Now look at the top five WORST presidential terms for private sector job growth in the same period (note: all but Obama are Republicans, Obama having inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression; also, notice the name Bush is mentioned three times here!):

1. George W. Bush (2001-2004) -0.21
2. Dwight Eisenhower (1957-1960) -0.08
3. George W. Bush (2004-2008) +0.06
4. Barack Obama (2009-2012) +0.10
5. George H.W. Bush (1989-1992) +0.41

By the way, job growth in the public sector job growth is also generally higher under Democratic presidents, although not so much since Carter.  Click here for the full story and the stats.

Still looking for a message that resonates, Mitt Romney has taken a greater interest in China in recent days, including a new attack ad that blames President Obama for the growth in Chinese manufacturing capacity. As Jamelle Bouie noted, "[T]here's an obvious problem with this line of attack; it's completely false."

That's right, but there are less-obvious problems, too. The Boston Globe reported over the weekend, for example, that Romney invested in Chinese manufacturing companies, at least one of which was surrounded by barbed wire and guard towers, and packed with 12 women per dormitory room.

China's official Xinhua news agency published a strongly worded English-language commentary on Friday, noting in reference to Romney, "It is rather ironic that a considerable portion of this China-battering politician's wealth was actually obtained by doing business with Chinese companies before he entered politics."

The Obama campaign has even launched a counter-offensive, releasing this ad. For those who can't watch clips online, the voice-over tells viewers, "Mitt Romney? Tough on China? Romney's companies were called pioneers in shipping U.S. manufacturing jobs overseas. He invested in firms that specialized in relocating jobs to low wage countries like China. Even today part of Romney's fortune is invested in China. Romney's never stood up to China. All he's done is send them our jobs."

And it's against this backdrop that the White House will push back again against China at the WTO today, demanding that China stop subsidizing auto parts made for export.

I suspect the Romney campaign will say the move is only motivated by campaign considerations, but it's worth emphasizing that the Obama administration has been aggressive on this front for a long while.

AP Photo/John Hanna

Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, center, questions Joe Montgomery, lower right, a Manhattan, Kan., resident, during a meeting of the State Objections Board, Thursday, Sept. 13, 2012, in Topeka, Kan. The board includes Kobach and, behind him, Attorney General Derek Schmidt and is reviewing Montgomery's objection to the state listing President Barack Obama on its November election ballot.

Another defeat for the hapless birther movement: President Barack Obama will be on the November election ballot in Kansas. 

All three Republican members of the State Objections Board voted today allow Obama to be listed as a candidate for re-election, despite the protest of California lawyer/dentist Orly Taitz, one of the most prominent birthers in the country.   

The board's action came four days after Joe Montgomery of Manhattan, Kansas, filed a complaint, saying he believed Obama was not a natural born U.S. citizen and therefore was ineligible to qualify for re-election.  But Montgomery withdrew his objection on Friday because of what he called intimidation directed at him and people around him.   

When Taitz showed up at today's meeting, State Objections Board member Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach told her the deadline to file an objection had passed.

Kobach and fellow board members Attorney General Derek Schmidt and Lt. Gov. Jeff Colyer voted to close the matter without making a ruling about the president’s citizenship.  However, State Election Director Brad Bryant told TPM that the board added a certification of Obama’s place of birth that Hawaii sent Kansas over the weekend into the record before bringing the matter to a close.

While a crucial victory of principle, today's decision probably won't do Obama much good in the upcoming election.  

Kansas, with six electoral votes, is considered a solid Romney red state.  And it has gone Republican in every presidential election since 1968.  

And even though Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was born in Wichita (her parents were also born in Kansas), he lost the state to John McCain in 2008 by 15-points.  

Fighting for working-class support in Cincinnati, Ohio, President Barack Obama today accused China of unfairly competing with American companies and moved to stop the Chinese from subsidizing their auto industry. 

President Barack Obama has paid tribute to Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others killed in the assault on the U.S. compound in Libya, calling them patriots who served America's ideals -- and laid down their lives for others.   

Obama took part in a transfer of remains ceremony in a hangar at Andrews Air Force Base, joined by Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.   

After meeting with families of the victims, Obama watched as flag-draped cases containing the remains were carried off of a transport plane and loaded into four black hearses.   

Also killed in the Tuesday assault were Americans Sean Smith, Glen A. Doherty and Tyrone S. Woods.   

Obama vowed to bring those responsible to justice -- and "stand fast" against attacks on U.S. embassies.

-AP

After two political conventions and heading into the post-Labor Day sprint, President Barack Obama leads Republican nominee Mitt Romney in the key battlegrounds of Florida, Ohio and Virginia, according to new NBC News/Wall Street Journal/Marist polls of each of these three states. 

Click for poll results: Virginia | Ohio | Florida (pdfs)

In both Florida and Virginia, Obama is ahead of Romney by five points among likely voters (including those leaning toward a particular candidate), 49 percent to 44 percent.

In Ohio, the president’s lead is seven points, 50 percent to 43 percent.

Ed Andrieski / AP

President Barack Obama waves after speaking at a campaign rally in Golden, Colo., Thursday, Sept. 13, 2012.

Among a larger pool of registered voters, Obama’s advantage over Romney slightly increases to 7 points in Virginia, 8 in Florida and 9 in Ohio.

“You’d rather be in Obama’s shoes than Romney’s in these three critical states,” Lee Miringoff, director of the Marist College Institute for Public Opinion, says of the poll results.

First Thoughts: A tricky situation

But he adds that Obama’s leads are not “insurmountable,” especially as the two candidates prepare for their first presidential debate on Oct. 3 in Colorado.

Charles Dharapak / AP

Mitt Romney embraces women wearing traditional Vietnamese "ao dai" dresses as he campaigns at Van Dyck Park in Fairfax, Va., Thursday, Sept. 13, 2012.

These states – all of which Obama carried in 2008 but which George W. Bush won in 2004 – represent three of the most crucial battlegrounds in the 2012 presidential election. And according to NBC’s electoral map, Romney likely needs to capture at least two of these states, if not all three, to secure the 270 electoral votes necessary to win the presidency.

By comparison, Obama can reach 270 by winning just one or two of these battlegrounds  – on top of the other states already considered to be in his column.

(Obama also has an additional path to victory without any of these three states if he wins the toss-up contests of Colorado, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, and Wisconsin.)

What’s particularly striking about these polls, Miringoff observes, is how most voters in these battleground states have already made up their minds, with just 5 to 6 percent saying they’re undecided, and with more than 80 percent signaling that they strongly support their candidate.

“Those who are thinking of voting have pretty much picked sides,” he says.

Economy vs. foreign policy
In Florida and Virginia, Obama and Romney are essentially tied among likely voters on the question of which candidate would do a better job handling the economy, although Obama has a four-point advantage on this question in Ohio.

But when it comes to handling foreign policy, the incumbent Democratic president enjoys a double-digit lead over his Republican challenger.

Also in the polls, Obama’s job-approval ratings – 50 percent in Ohio and 49 percent in Florida and Virginia – exactly match his ballot position against Romney in these states.

And in each of these three battlegrounds, a majority of likely voters say the country is on the wrong track, while more than 40 percent believe that it’s headed in the right direction.

Jason Reed / Reuters

First lady Michelle Obama visits with young children in after-school care at the Rappahannock Area YMCA in Spotsylvania, Va., on Sept. 13, 2012.

Looking at the Senate races
The polls also measure the key U.S. Senate contests in these three states, all of which could determine the balance of power in that chamber.

First Read: Michelle Obama echoes convention testimony in solo campaign stop

In Florida, incumbent Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson leads Republican challenger Connie Mack among likely voters by double digits, 51 percent to 37 percent.

In Ohio, incumbent Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown is ahead of GOP challenger Josh Mandel by seven points, 49 percent to 42 percent.

And in Virginia, Democrat Tim Kaine and Republican George Allen are tied at 46 percent each.

The NBC/WSJ/Marist polls of Florida, Ohio and Virginia were conducted from Sept. 9-11 of nearly 1,000 likely voters in each state (about 30 percent by cell phone), and they have a margin of error of plus-minus 3.1 percentage points.

A likely voter is determined based on interest in the upcoming election, the chance of voting, and prior participation in past elections.

More than 1,300 registered voters were surveyed in each of the three states, and the margin of error for those voters is plus-minus 2.7 percentage points.

by Jared Bernstein

The Federal Reserve announced a few new actions today designed to boost growth and jobs. Which begs the question: How much will these new measures help? More precisely, how much can the Fed boost growth on their own, when fiscal policy is pushing in the other direction?

We’ll get to that, but first, here are the two things that Ben and his merry mix of monetarists announced today:

• Forward guidance: They’ll keep interest rates around zero until at least mid-2015, six months longer than in previous statements.

• More bond purchases: They’d spend billions more buying bundled mortgage debt—MBS, or mortgage-backed securities—to help add liquidity and lower longer-term interest rates on the financial side of the housing market.

In a research note, economist Jan Hatzius at Goldman Sachs predicted the other day that such a program might boost GDP growth by ¼-½ point over the next year. He added:

[E]ven if the FOMC errs on the side of a more aggressive move, we expect GDP to grow little more than 2% next year, similar to this year’s pace.

In reality, the Fed did offer a strong statement implying that they wouldn’t go aviary (i.e., turn into inflation hawks) the minute growth accelerated.

To support continued progress toward maximum employment and price stability, the Committee expects that a highly accommodative stance of monetary policy will remain appropriate for a considerable time after the economic recovery strengthens.

Still, note Hatzius’s estimate of 2% GDP growth next year. In other words, even if the Fed did pretty much go all in, we’d still be looking at a growth rate that was about where we are. Which keeps the unemployment rate about where it is.

Why isn’t this stuff more effective than that? Because it’s monetary policy targeting interest rates and it needs to be complemented by fiscal policy boosting demand.

I've written about this a lot, and find it useful to think about this little box you see below, with monetary stimulus (like today’s Fed moves) on the x-axis and fiscal stimulus, like the American Jobs Act (AJA), which President Obama propsed but has not been taken up by Congress, on the y-axis.

We need to be in box 1.  Ben B has also called for Congress to put us in box 1. The President, by proposing the AJA a year ago, tried to steer us toward box 1. But alas, we are in box 3.

That’s better than 4, but the fact is that stimulative fiscal and monetary policies are complements, not substitutes. Simply put, we need more consumer and investor demand to give the Fed’s low interest rates the traction they’ve lacked. They’ve set the table nicely, but the diners aren’t taking advantage of the discounted meal.

To tell you the truth, given the fact that interest rates are already really low (including mortgage rates) and big firms are sitting on large cash reserves, if I had to choose between 3 and 2 right now, I’d choose 2—or at least a neutral Fed with aggressive fiscal stimulus in the form of jobs measures. I still think that weak demand is a bigger weight on growth right now than the cost of credit, short or long-term. (Though I don’t want to overdo this point—credit availability is still constrained, especially for home loans applied for by people without stellar credit histories).

At any rate, good for the Fed. Bernanke has consistently stressed the damage done to people’s lives by the lack of job growth, calling high unemployment a “grave concern” and trying to explain to a lot of market types—some of whom are on the Fed’s board—how the benefits of these Fed actions outweigh potential costs in terms of future inflation or financial market distortions.

And I think these moves will help a little bit. That’s the good part and the bad part: We need more than a little bit of help.

Jared Bernstein served from 2009 to 2011 as chief economist to Vice President Joe Biden, and as a member of President Obama's economic team. He is currently a Senior Fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, and an MSNBC contributor.

There was good news for President Obama in the new U.S. Census data released Wednesday: For the first time in three years, the number of Americans without health insurance dropped. 

About 1.4 million more Americans have health insurance than one year ago. After three years of rising uninsured rates, the percentage of Americans without health insurance coverage dipped from 16.3% in 2010 to 15.7% in 2011.

Ezra Klein, guest-hosting on The Ed Show, explained a major reason for the decline was an uptick of newly insured young adults, many of whom benefitted from a provision in Obama's Affordable Care Act, which requires insurers to let parents keep their children on their plans up to age 26, and which has kept 3 million young adults insured. 

Another driving factor was that the number of Americans covered by government programs like Medicaid has expanded.

"There's a lot of things government doesn't do well," said Klein. "But one thing it does know how to do, which you can see here, and you can see frankly in every other developed nation on earth, is give people health insurance."

The Census data wasn't all roses, however. The median household income dropped to $50,054 in 2011, about 1.5% from the previous year. Meanwhile, income inequality grew.

"The rich are getting richer," said Klein.