The announcement by Democratic Sen. Herb Kohl that he won’t seek a fifth term has set the Democrats further back in their hopes of keeping the Senate during next year’s elections. Kohl is the fifth Democrat to retire after next year, or sixth if you count independent Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, who caucuses with the Democrats. With Democrats defending 23 seats, and a short list of Democratic incumbents running in conservative and swing states, Republicans are seeing more and more opportunities to pick up some seats. Here are the nine most vulnerable Democratic seats, in alphabetical order.

[See a slide show of the vulnerable Democratic Senate seats]

Missouri

Freshmen Sen. Claire McCaskill‘s re-election chances took a hit after she admitted to failing to pay taxes on a private plane, which undercut her image as a moderate opponent of corruption in the Senate. The Show Me State has long been a moderate bellwether of the nation, but it has tilted to the right in recent years, voting for John McCain in 2008 and electing Republican Roy Blunt in 2010.

Montana

One of the many new Democratic faces who swept into the Senate in moderate and conservative states during the blue wave of 2006, Democratic Sen. Jon Tester will face re-election in a very different environment. He’ll likely face Republican Rep. Denny Rehberg, Montana’s only at-large congressman, who’s held his seat since 2000.

[Check out a roundup of this month's political cartoons.]

Nebraska

Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson, who was first elected to the Senate in 2000, faces a tough re-election battle in Nebraska. Although Nelson has a reputation as one of the Senate’s moderate deal-makers, his vote for the healthcare reform law–remember the “Cornhusker Kickback?”–may hurt him in this red state.

New Mexico

Democratic Sen. Jeff Bingaman‘s decision not to run for a sixth term in this southwestern swing state has given the GOP one of its prime opportunities to win another seat. Former five-term representative Heather Wilson has announced a bid for the seat, with the backing of former Sen. Pete Domenici, but she may face a challenge from Republican Rep. Steve Pearce, who unseated her in 2008.

North Dakota

The retirement of Sen. Kent Conrad, the Senate Budget Committee chairman, will likely end an era. Most political analysts believe that Democrats have virtually no chance of keeping the seat that Democrats have held for decades. Just a year ago, both seats in this deep red state were held by Democrats, but short of a disaster for the GOP, Republicans will hold both seats in 2013.

[Check out a roundup of political cartoons on the 2012 GOP candidates.]

Ohio

Unlike fellow endangered freshmen such as McCaskill or Tester, Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown isn’t a moderate, but a firebrand liberal in a midwestern swing state that has recently lurched to the right. On paper, he looks like a prime target, but his brand of populist liberalism has played well in this Rust Belt state, and some political observers believe Brown has the edge going into 2012. Still, Republicans look at it as a prime opportunity to pick up a seat.

Virginia

Sen. Jim Webb‘s decision to retire from the Senate after one term paved the way for former Sen. George Allen to try to reclaim the seat, which he lost to Webb by a hair in 2006. Allen will likely face another Virginia heavyweight, former Gov. Tim Kaine, in one of the most competitive races in the country.

One more horse entered the race to face Barack Obama this morning when Texas Rep. Ron Paul announced his intention to run for the Republican 2012 presidential nomination on ABC’s Good Morning America. Paul unsuccessfully ran for the GOP nod in 2008, and he ran for president as an independent in 1988. So why run again? “Because time has come around to the point where the people are agreeing with much of what I’ve been saying for 30 years,” Paul said. “So I think the time is right.” [Check out a roundup of political cartoons on the 2012 GOP candidates.]

Previously: Should rapper Common have been invited to the White House?

It’s jobs, stupid. As we celebrate the execution of America’s No. 1 enemy, we are jerked back to the horrible reality of America’s greatest domestic challenge. Unemployment claims in the last week of April surged to their highest level since last summer. The recovery is in peril—and so is the fabric of American society.

Even before the 2008 financial collapse, job creation was waning. From the brief 2001 recession it lagged more than in any expansion since World War II. When the Great Recession came along, it wiped out the equivalent of every job created in the whole previous decade. For the 80 percent of Americans born after World War II, this is their Depression, and it began long before the housing bubble burst and Wall Street melted down. [See a slide show of the 10 best cities to find a job.]

Forecasters had predicted the economy would create 22 million jobs in the first decade of the 21st century. Some hope. Even at the decade’s economic peak, only 7 million jobs were created, the lowest of any decade recorded by the federal government stretching back to the 1940s.

The decades tell a story that begins with a bang and ends with a whimper:

• The Forties: Jobs up 11.9 million for a 38 percent gain. OK, that was mainly the effect of World War II.
• The Fifties: 10.6 million more jobs, a 24 percent gain.
• The Sixties: 17 million more, a gain of 31 percent.
• The Seventies: 19.5 million more, a gain of 27 percent.
• The Eighties: 18 million more, a 20 percent gain.
• The Nineties: 21.4 million, a 20 percent gain.

Our total payrolls today of 131 million are lower than they were in March 2000. Yet, over this 11-year period of flat employment, the population has risen by nearly 30 million. Twenty-two months after most recessions, the average recovery of nonfarm payrolls is 200 percent of jobs lost from the recession, compared to only 20 percent of jobs losses recouped this time. Payrolls remain 7 million shy today of where they were when the recession began, despite the most stimulative fiscal and monetary policy in our history. [Check out a roundup of political cartoons on the economy.]

Accompanying the lack of job growth in the past decade, middle-class incomes adjusted for inflation fell from a median of $58,500 in 2000 to $56,500 in 2007—another first. As chief economist David Rosenberg of investment firm Gluskin Sheff notes, with more than six people in the aggregate labor pool vying for every job opening, wage growth is decelerating. Labor costs have declined on a four-quarter trailing basis each and every quarter since the beginning of 2009.

The greatest impact has been on manufacturing, where over 5 million jobs vanished in the first decade. Goods-producing employment, which peaked at 24.6 million in the year 2000, dropped by one fourth to around 18.5 million. On top of that, of the 7.5 million-plus jobs lost during the Great Recession, almost half came from the goods-producing industries. It is referred to as a man-cession because men lost many more jobs than women, who benefited from job growth in healthcare and government rather than the private sector.

Another factor is the slow pace of lost job recovery. The 2001 recession wiped out 2.7 million payroll jobs and it took four years for us to recover the lost jobs. We lost 8.4 million jobs in the Great Recession and only a million and a half have returned, and half the new jobs are in temporary help agencies as firms resist hiring full-time workers. Quite simply, America’s great job-creation machine is sputtering badly. Who knows when all the jobs lost will return. The most recent monthly unemployment claims of 474,000 shocked the financial markets and underline the recovery’s fragility.

Why is this recovery so different? In past recessions, when growth picked up, many employers recalled the workers they had laid off. Not this time. Companies facing less than stellar revenue growth have focused on cost-cutting, so rehiring hasn’t happened much. A key to job growth is new business formation, but start-ups are highly dependent on credit card borrowing, home equity, and local bank loans, and these sources have virtually evaporated.

Social Security and Medicare’s annual checkup found that the entitlement system continues to face long-term financial challenges. The Social Security trust fund is expected to be exhausted in 2036, one year sooner than was projected last year. And the date Medicare’s hospital insurance trust fund is projected to be depleted has advanced up to 2024, five years earlier than in last year’s report. Once those dates pass, there will only be sufficient resources coming in to pay out about 77 percent of scheduled Social Security benefits and 90 percent of retirees hospital insurance costs, unless changes are made to the program.

[See 12 Ways to Fix Social Security.]

There will be enough funds to pay out promised Social Security benefits for about 25 years and the amount of money in reserve increased last year, according to the Social Security Board of Trustees report released today. The assets of the Social Security trust funds grew by $69 billion in 2010 to a total of $2.6 trillion. Approximately $781 billion was deposited into the OASDI trust funds in 2010, including $637 billion in net contributions, $24 billion from the taxation of benefits, $117 billion in interest, and $2 billion in reimbursements from the general fund of the Treasury. Some 157 million people paid payroll taxes into the trust funds in 2010 and the trust fund assets earned an interest rate of 4.6 percent.

[See 10 Ways to Boost Your Social Security Checks.]

Expenditures from the Social Security trust fund totaled $713 billion last year. Some 54 million Social Security beneficiaries collected $702 billion worth of payouts. It also cost about $6.5 billion to administer the program in 2010, or about 0.9 percent of total expenditures. Hospital insurance costs have exceeded income annually since 2008 and are projected to continue doing so until the trust fund becomes exhausted in 2024. In 2010, $32.3 billion in trust fund assets were used to pay for expenditures beyond incoming tax revenue.

Trustees for the funds emphasized the need to make changes to the programs to ensure long-term financial viability. “Today’s reports make clear that while both Social Security and Medicare have sufficient resources to meet their obligations for at least the next decade, it is important that we put in place reforms to strengthen these programs,” says Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner. “Fundamentally, Social Security and Medicare benefits are secure today, but reform will be needed so that they will be there for current and future retirees.” The Senate Committee on Finance held a hearing this week to examine potential Social Security changes and whether they should be included in deficit reduction legislation. The federal government is expected to reach the debt limit set by Congress on Monday, May 16.

[See 4 Social Security Changes Coming in 2011.]

After two years without a cost-of-living adjustment to their benefits, Social Security recipients are currently projected to get a 0.7 percent increase in 2012 and a 1.7 percent boost in 2013. The amount workers who claim Social Security benefits early can earn without having their checks temporarily withheld is expected to remain the same next year before increasing slightly in 2012. The maximum amount of earnings workers pay Social Security payroll taxes on is expected to remain $106,800 in 2011, but then increase to $110,700 in 2012.

Twitter: @aiming2retire

George Mitchell is resigning as the Obama administration’s point man for Mideast peace talks, after failing to sustain direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. The announcement comes just days before the president meets with two Mideast leaders in Washington.

Enlarge Keith Srakocic/AP

Michael Huckabee at the National Rifle Association annual meeting, Saturday, April 30, 2011.

Keith Srakocic/AP

Michael Huckabee at the National Rifle Association annual meeting, Saturday, April 30, 2011.

Looks like we won’t have much longer to wait to answer the question of whether Mike Huckabee, the folksy former Arkansas governor, will compete for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination.

Huckabee will share his intentions on his Fox News Channel show Saturday evening.

There are strong reasons that argue for Huckabee to, at the very least, form an exploratory committee for a presidential run.

The Republican field to date is fairly wide open. A number of the possibilities have weaknesses that make it unlikely any one of the would be the GOP nominee. None of the announced or potential candidates who haven’t taken their names off the list has caught fire with Republican voters.

But Huckabee is one of the potential candidates who polls at or near the top of virtually every survey of Republican voters.

Huckabee, a former Baptist preacher, is also well-liked by social conservatives. In 2008, their support helped Huckabee become the surprise winner of the Iowa caucuses.

The man also is a born entertainer. He’s an engaging and smooth public speaker. As a bonus, he plays the bass guitar

But there’s also one big reason for him not to run. Huckabee, who hails from a working class background, never had much money, even after serving as Arkansas governor.

He has since remedied that, however by relentlessly building his brand. (You can buy a Huck signature mug for $15 from his online store, for instance.) His Fox News Channel contract and a ABC Radio segment he produces called The Huckabee Report as well as book deals and paid speeches have made him wealthy.

Huckabee would have to set aside those money-making activities to run for the White House.

Here’s another reason he might choose not enter the race. Huckabee would find his record as governor facing severe scrutiny, especially for his role in the commutation or parole of some Arkansas convicts.

For instance, Huckabee commuted the sentence of Maurice Clemmons in 2000 despite the objections of prosecutors. Clemmons later was the subject of a manhunt after the November 29, 2009 shooting of four Seattle police officers. Clemmons was shot dead days later by a police officer who encountered him.

Deciding against a run would spare Huckabee from searing questions about this part of his political life.

Ed Rollins, a Republican political consultant who advised Huckabee during his 2008 run, told the Wall Street Journal’s Jonathan Weisman that Huckabee hasn’t reached out to him.

“I’ve heard nothing, which indicates to me he’s not running,” Mr. Rollins said in an interview.

By David Beasley

ATLANTA |
Fri May 13, 2011 7:12pm EDT

ATLANTA (Reuters) – Georgia’s governor on Friday signed a tough new state law cracking down on illegal immigrants that is similar to one enacted in Arizona last year, handing new powers to police in the southern state.

The law authorizes police in Georgia to investigate the immigration status of criminal suspects they think may be in the country illegally.

It also makes transporting and harboring illegal immigrants a crime and requires many private employers to check the immigration status of newly hired workers on a federal database called E-Verify.

Republican Governor Nathan Deal said the measure, passed by Georgia’s Republican-controlled legislature, will take a burden off schools, hospitals and prisons by reducing the number of illegal immigrants in the state.

“This legislation is a responsible step forward in the absence of federal action,” Deal said during a signing ceremony.

Enforcement of U.S. immigration laws traditionally is handled by federal, not state, authorities.

The Georgia measure is the third crackdown to be enacted by Republicans at the state level, following Arizona in April last year and Utah in March.

Critics have argued that the Georgia law could discourage tourism and overseas investment in the state and create a shortage of farm workers to pick crops.

President Barack Obama last month criticized the Georgia measure, saying, “It is a mistake for states to try to do this piecemeal. We can’t have 50 different immigration laws around the country. Arizona tried this and a federal court already struck them down.

A few dozen protesters gathered outside the Georgia Capitol before the signing and more were planning to rally against the new law at a nearby church Friday night.

J.P. Hernandez, a 20-year-old undocumented immigrant from Mexico, said the measure will encourage profiling of Hispanics by law enforcement officers.

“You’ll be innocent until you look guilty,” said Hernandez, a restaurant worker who was 2 years old when his parents brought him to the United States.

‘DARK DAY FOR GEORGIA’

In addition to concerns about civil and human rights abuses, critics of the law said it could have serious economic repercussions for the state.

“Today is a dark day for Georgia,” said Jerry Gonzalez, executive director of the Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials, or Galeo.

Opponents warned of a possible economic boycott to Georgia, similar to one estimated to have cost Arizona more than $140 million in lost tourism and convention revenue last year, according to one study by a liberal group.

They also predicted costly and drawn-out litigation similar to what has unfolded in Arizona and Utah.

Last month, a U.S. appeals court upheld an earlier court ruling that blocked key parts of Arizona’s law from going into effect.

Among provisions stayed was one that required police to determine the immigration status of a person they have detained and believe is in the country illegally.

A federal judge temporarily blocked a milder immigration law in Utah on Tuesday, the same day the law went into effect.

Deal said Georgia anticipates a legal challenge to its law, which takes effect July 1, but said it was written to avoid the “pitfalls” of Arizona’s legislation.

The governor told reporters he hopes Georgia will not face boycotts but said those losses would be lower than the costs the state currently incurs from illegal immigration.

(Additional reporting by Tim Gaynor; Edited by Colleen Jenkins, Jerry Norton and Bill Trott)

By David Alexander and Michael Martina

WASHINGTON/BEIJING |
Fri May 13, 2011 5:38pm EDT

WASHINGTON/BEIJING (Reuters) – The Pentagon next week hosts the highest-level Chinese military visit to the United States since Beijing severed ties between the two armed forces in early 2010 in protest over a $6.3 billion U.S. arms deal with Taiwan.

The visit by the General Chen Bingde, chief of the general staff of the People’s Liberation Army, and seven other generals comes amid warming Sino-U.S. ties following President Hu Jintao’s first state visit to the United States in January, U.S. military officials said.

In addition to meeting his U.S. counterpart, Admiral Mike Mullen, Chen will visit Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and members of Congress and will speak at the National Defense University on the bilateral military relations.

Officials hope the visit will begin to turn around a relationship that in recent years often has been overshadowed by tensions caused by U.S. arms sales to Taiwan and U.S. concerns about China’s rapid military expansion.

“The lack of high-level and sustained military-to-military engagement means that the whole of the U.S.-China relationship remains unbalanced,” said Cheung Tai Ming, a senior fellow at the University of California’s Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation.

Mullen, chairman of the U.S. military’s Joint Chiefs of Staff, hopes the visit will lead to establishment of more frequent contact with Chen, such as regular phone calls, to enable them to “develop a bit of a relationship,” a senior military official said.

“The region and the world really expect our two militaries to have an institutionalized relationship,” the official said, in which “there is some trust and transparency between us” and miscommunications or mishaps do not inadvertently spin out of control.

While Mullen and U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates have been pushing to institutionalize contacts between the two militaries, it is not clear if China is ready for such a move.

ARMS SALES TO TAIWAN

Chen told a visiting U.S. delegation last month that arms sales to Taiwan, which China considers a renegade province, were still the biggest obstacle facing the military-to-military relationship.

The issue of Taiwan arms sales is likely to be raised during Chen’s visit but will not be solved and U.S. officials will try to make the point that it should not prevent establishing a “positive and durable relationship,” a U.S. military official said.

China suspended its military links with the United States in January 2010 after President Barack Obama’s administration announced $6.3 billion worth of arms sales to Taiwan, including Patriot anti-missile systems and Apache attack helicopters.

Ties remained severed through much of 2010 before tentative contacts resumed in the final months of the year. Meanwhile, the United States and others in the region have watched with concern as China’s military displayed a growing military aggressiveness while rapidly expanding its military.

In a show of muscle, China confirmed it had held its first test flight of the J-20 stealth fighter during a January visit to Beijing by Gates. Rapid development of the fighter to counter the U.S. F-22 Raptor stealth fighter caught some by surprise.

It also is possible China will launch its first aircraft carrier later this year.

Chinese ships shadowing U.S. vessels in the South China Sea and Beijing’s surprise launch of a missile that destroyed an inactive Chinese satellite in 2007 have raised worries about the risk of dangerous missteps, especially as China’s military increasingly rubs up against U.S. forces in Asia.

But Admiral Robert Willard, head of U.S. forces in the Pacific, told a Senate hearing last month that Chinese forces had been less aggressive this year. And a U.S. official said a warming trend in ties had begun following Hu’s state visit in January.

For its part, China sees the heavy U.S. military presence in Asia, especially bases in South Korea and Japan, as threats to its influence and interests.

However, both also see the need to communicate better.

“This military relationship is taking on more importance, not only because as China’s military develops so do the chances of mistrust, but also because cooperation in problem spots like Libya, Afghanistan and Pakistan cannot develop without it,” said Peking University professor Zhu Feng.

Apart from meeting top U.S. civilian and military leaders, Chen and his 24-member delegation will visit four bases — Norfolk Naval Station in Virginia, Fort Stewart in Georgia, Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada and the Army National Training Center in California.

(Additional reporting by Ben Blanchard in Beijing and Phil Stewart in Washington; Editing by Mary Milliken and Will Dunham)

MAZAR-I-SHARIF, Afghanistan |
Sat May 14, 2011 8:28am EDT

MAZAR-I-SHARIF, Afghanistan (Reuters) – The United States wants Pakistan to be a “real” ally in combating militants inside its borders but serious questions remain in relations between the countries after the killing of Osama bin Laden, U.S. Senator John Kerry said on Saturday.

Kerry, who is visiting Afghanistan ahead of a trip to Pakistan to discuss strained bilateral ties, said Islamabad needed to improve efforts in fighting extremism, but the death of bin Laden provided a critical chance to move forward.

“We obviously want a Pakistan that is prepared to respect the interests of Afghanistan, and to be a real ally in our efforts to combat terrorism,” Kerry told reporters in the northern Afghan city of Mazar-i-Sharif.

“We believe there are things that can be done better. And there are serious questions that need to be answered in that relationship. But we’re not trying to find a way to break the relationship apart, we’re trying to find a way to build it.”

U.S. lawmakers have questioned whether Pakistan is serious about fighting militants in the region after bin Laden was found living in Pakistan. Some have even called for a suspension in U.S. aid to Islamabad.

Pakistan has rejected allegations the killing showed incompetence or complicity in hiding the al Qaeda leader.

Kerry, a Democrat close to the Obama administration and who is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said last week it was “extraordinarily hard to believe” bin Laden could have survived in Pakistan for so long without any knowledge.

Current and former U.S. officials, in private, say the United States repeatedly told Pakistan that Washington would send American forces into that country if it had evidence bin Laden was hiding there.

Asked if the United States would conduct a similar raid inside Pakistan to kill Mullah Omar, the reclusive leader of the Afghan Taliban, if they knew his whereabouts, Kerry said Washington would consider all its options.

“The United States government will always reserve all of its options to be able to protect our people. Other plots have been conducted and organized and planned out of Pakistan. It is really critical that we talk with the Pakistanis as friends,” Kerry said.

U.S. officials have long maintained Omar fled to Pakistan after the Taliban government was overthrown in late 2001 by U.S.-backed Afghan forces and is still in hiding there. Islamabad has denied reports he is in Pakistan.

Kerry said Pakistan itself was a victim of extremism and faced its own tough decisions but that the killing of bin Laden provided a new opportunity.

“Sometimes those choices can be very difficult for people to make because of the pressures that they’re under and the violence that occurs,” he said.

“We respect and understand that, but this is the time, this is a critical time to find a better way forward and we hope that we’re going to be able to do that.”

(Reporting by Bashir Ansari; Writing by Jonathon Burch; Editing by Paul Tait and Daniel Magnowski)