Last Saturday’s South Carolina primary sent the Republican presidential nominating contest into strange and possibly uncharted territory. Front-runner and “Establishment” favorite, Mitt Romney, turned in a dismal performance, while twice-left-for-dead Newt Gingrich not only swept the state but quickly seized the lead in both national GOP polls and in Florida, where voters go to the polls on January 31.

Newt’s Florida “bump” was especially impressive, since the Sunshine State was supposedly Romney’s “firewall” that would maintain his momentum even if disaster struck in South Carolina. Moreover, Gingrich took the lead there even though Romney had enjoyed virtually uncontested control of the airwaves, having spent (via his own campaign and his Super-PAC) over $5 million in ads, mostly attacking the former Speaker on his Freddie Mac “historian” gig. Thanks to another $5 million check from Sheldon Adelson’s family, Newt’s fighting back with his Super-PAC recently buying $6 million in Florida air time.

Gingrich’s ace-in-the-hole throughout the campaign, namely his ability to rally conservatives to his side by attacking the news media, didn’t work as well for him in the first of two pre-primary debates in Tampa on January 23. Instead, Newt was largely on the defensive against attacks from Romney. The debate, however, ended more or less as a draw, with Mitt once again struggling over questions about his tax returns. For this reason, the final debate in Jacksonville tomorrow could prove decisive.

In terms of the second-tier candidates, Ron Paul is not seriously contesting Florida, preferring to focus on upcoming caucus states. But one real imponderable here is the trajectory of the struggling campaign of Rick Santorum; his collapse or withdrawal could give a crucial boost to Gingrich, given the strong evidence that Newt is his supporters’ overwhelming second choice. That being said, it remains unclear how much Gingrich’s South Carolina win was attributable to the late withdrawal of and endorsement from Rick Perry, since the Texan’s support-levels there were low and vanishing. Regardless, there are generally strong signs in national polling that Gingrich has now become the Tea Party’s adopted candidate, with Romney depending to a dangerous degree on self-identified moderates.

IDEA #1: Scraping regulatory barnacles off the economy—A Regulatory Improvement Commission

In our policy brief, “Reviving Jobs and Innovation: A Progressive approach to Improving Regulation,” we describe how such a Commission could work. Neither Congress nor the executive branch currently has an efficient, streamlined process for eliminating outdated regulations that stifle innovation and growth. The Regulatory Improvement Commission could fill that void.

IDEA #2: Starting up start-ups–Improving access to credit and access to capital for smaller businesses

Our policy memos, “The Credit Gap: Easing the Squeeze on the Smallest Businesses” and “501 Shareholders: Redefining ‘Public’ Companies to Help Emerging Firms” explain how these changes can promote innovation where it first begins–with start-ups and small businesses.

IDEA #3: Rescue underwater homeowners; restore homeownership wealth

In “Underwater: Home Values in 2012 Battleground States,” we looked at home values in 16 potential battleground states from 2008 to 2011. We find both an enormous loss of middle-class wealth and a potentially potent political issue. We also offer up some practical first steps toward restoring home values.

IDEA #4: An Off-Year Fundraising Time-Out

In our memo, “It’s About (the) Time: Ending the Nonstop Campaign,” we propose changing congressional ethics rules to ban members from directly accepting campaign contributions except during election years. This proposal would free up members to spend more time making policy instead of raising money.

IDEA #5: A Post-Cold War Benchmark for Defense Spending

In our memo “Defense and Deficits: How to Trim the Pentagon’s Budget–Carefully,” we propose a floor of 3 percent of GDP beneath which defense spending should not be allowed to fall. Such a level would ensure that investments in R&D and procurement are sufficiently robust to maintain America’s superior industrial base and high-tech weaponry.

With the South Carolina primary on tap this Saturday, Mitt Romney is breathtakingly close to a victory that would likely all but clinch the presidential nomination. He’s been ahead in every public poll taken in South Carolina since his win in New Hampshire. His conservative opposition remains divided. And the one candidate who did drop out after New Hampshire, Jon Huntsman, promptly endorsed Romney after months of badmouthing him.

But a strong debate performance by Newt Gingrich on Monday, and the $3.4 million his Super-PAC invested in attack ads on Romney that have generated a lot of even more powerful “earned media,” have placed the outcome in South Carolina in some doubt. A final debate on Thursday, along with the decision—or indecision—of conservative opinion-leaders to consolidate support behind a single candidate, could make a difference.

Romney and his own Super-PAC have clearly concluded Gingrich is the main, and perhaps the only, real threat, and have resumed the intense fire on the former Speaker (heavily utilizing former House colleagues) that cut him down to size in the run-up to the Iowa Caucuses.

Meanwhile, the candidate who came out of Iowa with a strong claim to have finally become the “true conservative alternative” to Romney, Rick Santorum, is struggling a bit, though still, along with Ron Paul, showing up in the mid-teens in South Carolina polls. Santorum appeared to have obtained a real breakthrough last Saturday, when a sizable group of conservative religious leaders convened in Texas by Christian Right warhorse Tony Perkins announced it had reached a “consensus” to back the Pennsylvanian. But almost immediately, backers of Newt Gingrich who attended Perkins’ conclave contested this interpretation of events, and suggested the group was evenly divided between Gingrich and Santorum, with the vote to endorse Santorum only occurring after a big percentage of attendees had already left. In Monday’s debate, Santorum didn’t exactly shine, and found himself on the defensive for voting against a national “right-to-work” bill in the Senate (not a popular position among union-hating South Carolina Republicans).

Yesterday’s meeting of the Council on Jobs and Competitiveness saw a long list of expensive and long-term recommendations, but one important idea was missing that could help generate new jobs cheaply and quickly: A Competitiveness Audit. A Competitiveness Audit will help identify which industries are competitive, near-competitive, or not competitive, so we can target future public and private investments in a way that will stimulate the economy and create jobs that are competitive internationally.

Right now we have no concrete data on U.S. competitiveness – in other words, we are flying blind. It’s incredible that for all of the data swirling around the internet, for all the information being pumped out of statistical agencies and for all of the numbers people worldwide have immediate access to, we do not have basic information on how U.S. prices compare to foreign-made prices for comparable items. We can find out Celine Dion owns about 3,000 pairs of shoes but have no clue how much a piece of furniture made in North Carolina compares to a similar piece being imported from China.

President Obama’s new “insourcing” initiative, launched last week, gets right to the heart why we need a Competitiveness Audit. Tackling the issue of restoring competitiveness head-on is a welcome commitment from the Administration, but we need more data to tackle it successfully. Finding ways to insource production (recapture imports) in a way that expands U.S. exports and restores U.S. competitiveness will be extremely challenging, if not impossible, if we don’t know where to look. After all, what good is investment if it goes toward an industry that has little chance of being recaptured, like clothing? The last thing America needs is to spend valuable investment dollars that get us to the same place as that Alaskan bridge: nowhere.

If the Administration is serious about encouraging insourcing and restoring competitiveness, something PPI’s Chief Economic Strategist Michael Mandel noted in a recent blog could create many U.S. jobs, then it’s important to get it right. Effectively targeting investment to encourage innovation and revitalize manufacturing is the right way to move forward. Conducting a Competitiveness Audit is the first step.

The job market for new college graduates is healing, but very slowly. The unemployment rate for new college grads was 7.4% in the 12 months ending November 2011, just the same as a year earlier (by our definition, ‘new college graduates’ are people aged 21-26 with a bachelor’s only). That’s up from 3.9% in 2007, according to our tabulations of the Current Population Survey.

And for today’s college grads, a lack of jobs is not the worst of their problems. They are getting the short end of the stick, and the stick is just getting shorter as college costs creep ever higher. Over the last decade, the average amount of student debt for college graduates increased by a staggering 25%, in constant dollars. Yet the reality is this is not surprising, given how tuition costs have skyrocketed in the last ten years. According to the Department of Education, tuition costs and fees across all four-year colleges and universities increased by 32 percent from 2000-2010, with public institutions showing an average increase of 40 percent, all in constant dollars. Families are struggling to keep pace, which lead to two-thirds of 2010 college grads taking on debt before they even finished school.

What’s more, as student debt for young college graduates becoming a bigger burden, their real wages are falling. Over 2000-2010, average wages for full-time workers aged 25-34 with only a Bachelor’s degree fell by 15% percent, after adjusting for inflation. The same jobs their peers got just ten years earlier are paying less. So, just as college is getting more expensive, graduates are less able to pay for it.

This is an inconvenient truth that cannot be wished away. College grads are an important segment of the advanced skill workforce that we are relying on to get America moving again. Instead we find too many them living in tents, spending valuable time wondering how Adele could feasibly “set fire to the rain” instead of developing the next cancer treatment, the next manufacturing technology, or the next software designed to protect America’s borders. If they can’t find work, then where does that leave the rest of us? Perhaps we’ll all be living in tents, playing Hacky Sack and Frisbee, sooner than we think. Like it or not, this truth is here, and until we address it college grads will only become more frustrated and more disconnected. With good reason.

Read more on the debt burden facing today’s college grads: The Payback Stress Index: A New Way to Measure the Pain of Student Debt.

For new college graduates, the world is their oyster. Without many of the real-world burdens the rest of us face, they can do anything they set their mind to.

That is, unless they start their careers staggering under a pile of student debt. It would appear that student debt is one rather onerous real-world burden bestowed upon college graduates the day they are handed their diplomas—and this burden is causing them more stress now than at any point in the last decade.

Using data on average student debt and wages for young college grads, PPI has calculated the Payback Stress Index. This new measure enables us to quantify, for the first time, the increasing burden of student borrowing for today’s college graduates.

Based on the Payback Stress Index, PPI finds that paying off college debt was 58% more economically stressful for students who graduated in 2010 compared with students who graduated in 2000. Specifically, we calculated how long it would take to pay back the average student loan, given the average earnings of full-time workers aged 25-34 with only a bachelor’s degree. We then indexed that calculation to what the average repayment time was in 2000, assuming an interest rate of 6 percent, and assuming that the representative college graduate paid 5 percent of earnings at each repayment. The chart below of PPI’s Payback Stress Index maps the rise in financial stress facing each class of college graduates.

After a campaign often described as “boring,” a New Hampshire Republican electorate showing no great signs of excitement performed its expected duty on January 10, giving Mitt Romney a solid win and making it increasingly difficult to see a path to the nomination for anyone else.

Romney’s 39 percent of the vote in New Hampshire was about what the polls had long predicted, but some last-minute turbulence in surveys and speculation that Paul or even Huntsman could pull an upset reset expectations nicely for Mitt, making his comfortable win look formidable. Paul’s 23 percent of the vote was also pretty predictable, and now that his two best states are behind him, we can expect his campaign to focus on small caucus states where it’s easy to pack rooms. Huntsman, having staked his entire campaign on a New Hampshire breakthrough, campaigning virtually nowhere else, may talk bravely of his third-place (17 percent) finish as giving him a “Ticket to Ride” to later states, but it’s hard to see much of a constituency for his defy-the-Tea-Party campaign in more conservative parts of the country. But like everyone else persisting in this strange nomination contest, Huntsman can help prevent other candidates from consolidating the non-Romney vote, at least until the money runs out.

If there was any surprise in New Hampshire, it’s probably how poorly the “true conservative” candidates performed. Newt Gingrich, who had the coveted endorsement of the New Hampshire Union-Leader, narrowly finished fourth (with 10 percent) ahead of Iowa co-winner Rick Santorum (9 percent), who clearly did not get much of a “bounce.” Rick Perry made no pretense of campaigning in New Hampshire, but still, it’s a bit shocking to see this one-time bully-boy of the field finishing just ahead of Buddy Roemer, with less than one percent of the vote.

Now the campaign will quickly move to its crucial southern phase, with primaries in South Carolina on Saturday, January 21 and in Florida on January 31. Victories by Mitt Romney in both would pretty much wrap up the nomination for him, and the latest polls from South Carolina and Florida have shown him likely to do just that.

Mitt Romney’s campaign for the Republican nomination is unfolding like a well-crafted business plan. He hit his numbers in New Hampshire last night, saw his most dangerous rivals tumble, and reinforced the aura of inevitability that surrounds his candidacy.

Everything seemed to fall Romney’s way. After his dizzying ascent in Iowa, Rick Santorum fell back to earth with a fifth-place finish. Newt Gingrich, who went snarling across New Hampshire like a wounded beast, flamed out. Ron Paul came in second, which suits Romney just fine. Paul’s libertarian purism inspires cult-like fervor among his young followers, but it will never command majorities in GOP primaries.

Yes, it was a good night for John Huntsman, but probably the best he’ll have this year. His did well among independents, moderates and voters who don’t like the Tea Party, a not-so-representative sample of the GOP electorate. He has nowhere to go, and it seems unlikely Romney would put another Mormon on his ticket.

Now it’s on to South Carolina, where Romney already leads, and where Paul’s useful presence will inhibit last-ditch attempts by conservatives to form an “anybody but Mitt” coalition. If he wins in the South, the race is effectively over.