Each morning, Bill Scher and Terrance Heath serve up what progressives need to affect change on the kitchen-table issues families face: jobs, health care, green energy, financial reform, affordable education and retirement security.
Prospects Brighter For Energy Bill, Not Climate Bill
President touted both House carbon cap and Senate proposals without carbon cap. Politico: "He didn't call on the Senate to adopt a similar cap-and-trade plan; instead, he gave primetime props to Senate proposals along the lines of a bill from Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) that sets up a nationwide renewable electricity standard and a more recent measure crafted by Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) that promotes energy efficiency in buildings and new cars and trucks."
Time's Bryan Walsh says "it may be time to bury cap-and-trade.": "...he made no mention of the policy that mainstream environmentalists have spent the last several years fighting for: carbon cap-and-trade. Just about every other idea had a cameo ... Environmentalists who've staked their reputation on a carbon price—including Al Gore, who called on the President after the speech to focus on a cap—will need to reckon with that."
The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder reports the WH not only hasn't given up on a climate bill, but has a game plan: "It's called 'getting to conference.' That is, the Senate needs to pass a bill this year. And then the House and Senate will (in theory) put in some sort of carbon pricing mechanism when the two chambers reconcile their bills. It's just much easier to get bills passed without forcing the Senate to try to pass a bill it does not have the votes to pass."
Mother Jones' Kate Sheppard laments lack of specifics: "...Obama could have offered clear direction on several issues: for instance, by clarifying the administration's stance on eliminating the liability cap to protect oil companies from damages following a spill, or by offering a hard number for how much money BP must set aside for the independently administered fund the government has proposed ... There wasn't even a clear call for a carbon cap, which I fear all but dooms its chances this year."
Green Energy Reporter argues this is how Obama governs effectively: "The address was actually pure Obama and those who expected something else haven’t been paying attention to the way he governs. Just as when the health bill passed, he has provided a general outline of what he wants and asked Congress to work out the details ... The president is pushing for higher fuel efficiency standards (a controversial idea, at least before the BP spill) and his mention of wind and solar-powered electricity probably refers to a Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) ... while failing to mention climate change, Kerry-Lieberman or concrete details on how he planed to transition out of fossil fuels, Obama’s speech did provide some hints as to the energy policy he wants to sign into law."
Alternet's Zach Carter argues this is Obama governs ineffectively: "Obama has steadfastly refused to stick his neck out on almost any policy during his presidency. Passing a health care reform bill was the goal, not securing the public option that could rein in long-term health care costs. Passing the stimulus was the goal, not passing one large enough to actually break the back of the recession. After tonight's speech, it's not clear what, exactly, Obama is fighting for on climate change, but he is adamant about not alienating 'either party.'"
Michael Tomasky argues Obama failed to explain what needs to be done: "It's not supremely important that a president be an emoter-in-chief. But he does need to be an explainer-in-chief, especially during moments of duress. ... He accomplished that only fractionally ... Toward the end, as he discussed the need for comprehensive energy legislation, he spoke fairly strong words, but somehow his face conveyed that he wasn't really sure Congress would listen to him ..."
Or did Obama actually telegraph that he will fight for a strong bill? BooMan Tribune: "It sounds like Obama is going to fight for the climate part of the climate and energy bill. That's great. A lot of people doubted that he would try. I wish he had spelled out a little what the obstacle is to tackling the climate part of the bill, which is a combination of the filibuster rule and a handful of Democrats from coal and oil producing states. ... If he's going to go to war, and it sounds like he's prepared to that, he has to rally the troops. I see this as too conciliatory, which is an ongoing critique of the president that many share. On the other hand, the president tends to win, and he tends to know what he can get and what he can't."
NYT's Andrew Revkin sees the speech as pragmatic: "Part of me wishes he had not stepped back quite so far, starting from what appears to be a clean slate in search of new ideas. But in the end I think he’s right to take a breath and focus hard on the agonizing challenges in the gulf with full force."
Grist's David Roberts somewhat thanks we didn't get a push for coal and nuclear: "...what three policies did Obama choose to call out individually? ... 'raising efficiency standards in our buildings ... standards to ensure that more of our electricity comes from wind and solar power ... boost our investments in such research and development' ... Normally Obama's energy pitch includes ritual nods to 'clean coal,' nuclear power, and domestic drilling. None of those made an appearance last night..."
Teryn Norris at HuffPost argues the President has create an opening for massive investment in clean energy: "If cap and trade is dead, then what's next? The only serious alternative that could attract bipartisan support is a comprehensive national strategy for clean energy competitiveness and innovation -- including substantial new federal investment in research, development, demonstration, deployment, and manufacturing..."
Climate Progress' Joe Romm says "The talking points are better than the speech": "... he can do better than pulling punches, especially on climate, as this [speech] does. We’ll see if he’s serious about his words in the coming days if he personally lobbies Senators — especially Democrats."
Senate Democrats remain split on taking up climate legislation. Bloomberg: "'The climate bill isn’t going to stop the oil leak,' said Senator Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat. “The first thing you have to do is stop the oil leak.' ... 'We don’t have the 60 votes yet, I know that,' Kerry told reporters. 'But we’re close enough to be able to fight for it.' ... 'There’s not a great call for it in the Democratic caucus,' said West Virginia Democratic Senator Jay Rockefeller ... 'It’s unrelated,' said Senator Ben Nelson, a Democrat from Nebraska. 'Obviously the emissions that we are talking about are primarily coal-fired electricity generation from Nebraska. That doesn’t have much to do with the Gulf.' ... Senator Jeff Bingaman ... said yesterday he plans to advocate for an energy-only bill that passed his panel last June. The measure would require utilities to get as much as 15 percent of their power from renewable sources by 2021. The Senate 'should definitely do an energy bill' that doesn’t include a carbon cap-and-trade program, said Senator Kent Conrad ... Dorgan said yesterday on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal[,] 'I doubt very much whether those 60 votes exist right now.'"
President begins to lobby wavering lawmakers. Politico: "Lieberman said Obama’s staff has told him the president planned to reach out to individual lawmakers soon — and soon after, Senate staffers confirmed that Obama had summoned Massachusetts Republican Sen. Scott Brown to the White House on Wednesday to talk about the bill. On Tuesday, Obama quietly dispatched Energy Secretary Steven Chu to lobby for the bill with a handful of skeptical Senate Democrats, including Landrieu, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, Evan Bayh of Indiana and Tom Carper of Delaware ... 'They are much more engaged than they were previously,' said a Democratic staffer working on the bill. ' ... But I think right now they are still at the stage of trying to figure out what might be in the bill ... whether or not this thing is going to be weak or strong.'"
Reid to meet with Dem caucus tomorrow. The Hill: "Reid is gathering the Senate Democratic caucus for a meeting Thursday to discuss how to proceed on energy and – maybe – climate change provisions. He wants to bring a bill to the floor as soon as next month."
Sens. Kerry and Lieberman herald new EPA analysis of climate bill showing reduced energy bills. McClatchy: "The energy and climate bill that Republicans call a light-switch tax would lower electricity bills, at least in its early years ... increases after 2030 largely would be offset by rebates ... The EPA also estimated that the overall cost of the legislation would be an average of $79 to $146 more per household per year through 2050, including higher energy costs and increased prices of goods and services."
Grist's David Roberts criticizes EPA for lowballing the benefits: "EPA's analysis only measures costs; it does not measure benefits. Specifically, it does not include the benefits of avoiding climate change. If you think that's absurd, well, you're right. As Michael Livermore wrote last week, the 'all costs no benefits' method of analysis utterly distorts lawmakers' perspectives. Obviously if the costs of unrestrained climate change were included, the bill would look like a screaming bargain ... Even with those weaknesses, however, the analysis still shows costs that are, in the grand scheme of GDP growth between now and 2050, tiny."
NYT's David Leonhardt chides Republicans who reject cap-and-trade, a market-based solution that they used to support: "What does Mr. Graham now favor? A series of command-and-control regulations. He has introduced a bill with Senator Richard Lugar, an Indiana Republican, that would mandate specific standards for cars, trucks, homes and offices. It would also give the energy secretary the power to award loans to companies he thought could do a good job of setting up programs to retrofit buildings. State officials would do the same for factories. The bill, in short, puts more faith in government than the market."
GOPers can't quit Big Oil. Politico: "...Republicans are now struggling with how to show appropriate outrage at Big Oil while sticking to their long-standing pro-drilling, pro-oil-company policies."
"BP, White House Escrow Deal Stalls" reports Bloomberg: "The two sides continue to negotiate over issues including the size of the fund, who would administer it and whether BP shareholders would have to approve the transfer of money required for the account, according to the people, who asked not to be identified describing the private talks ... the president’s aides consider today’s talks crucial to resolving differences..."
House members rip oil companies for weak oil spill crisis plans. W. Post: "The government-mandated plans all came under attack at a congressional hearing Tuesday: Three of them listed the phone number for the same University of Miami marine science expert, Peter Lutz, who died in 2005. Four talked about the need to protect walruses, which, as Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) dryly noted, 'have not called the Gulf of Mexico home for 3 million years.'"
New head selected for Minerals Management Service. NYT: "Michael R. Bromwich ... has limited experience with the oil and gas industry. But he has built a reputation as a seasoned investigator and independent watchdog who specializes in cleaning house."
Credit Rating Compromise Emerges At House-Senate Conference
Movement towards credit rating reform compromise after yesterday's House-Senate conference meeting. CQ: "The resulting language would call on the SEC to complete the study and allow it to establish within two years a system to prevent issuers from selecting the agency that would rate their products. Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., who had pushed the original language in the Senate version of the bill, called the compromise 'a major step in the right direction.' 'The language agreed on by the conference committee means more time and more study than I think is necessary, but it also means definite action will be taken,' he said in a statement ... conferees continue to haggle over House language to prohibit credit rating agencies from providing risk-management or other investment advice to issuers of the securities they rate."
NYT adds: "... the decision to put off any new restrictions on the ratings agencies could leave lawmakers open to criticism that they are failing to take aggressive action."
Fed sets caps on credit card late fees. W. Post: "The Federal Reserve issued its final regulations on fees for late credit card payments and other violations Tuesday, setting a $25 cap for one-time offenders and a $35 limit for frequent transgressors ... According to statistics cited in the ruling, the average late fee is $38 while the typical over-limit charge is $36. A government report in 2006 found that penalty fees accounted for 10 percent of revenue for credit card issuers. The regulation also bans penalty charges that are larger than the amount of the violation, a common consumer complaint."
Right-leaning, bank-friendly New Democrat Coalition formally opposing Senate derivatives firewall. The Hill: "The New Democrat Coalition, a group of 69 centrist House Democrats, is preparing a letter that will urge lawmakers to drop the provision ... The lawmakers argue the conflict-of-interest concerns are addressed by a separate proposed ban on proprietary trading at banks that is dubbed the 'Volcker rule.'"
Senate Jobs Bill To Get Even Smaller
Filibuster expected to block Senate version of latest jobs bill, force an even smaller bill. CQ: "A procedural vote scheduled for Wednesday morning on the measure (HR 4213) is expected to show that Democratic leaders do not have the required 60 votes — because Republicans and moderate Democrats want a less expensive bill with less deficit spending ... 'Obviously, there are going to have to be some major revisions,' said Republican Sen. Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, a key swing voter who said she has been talking with Democrats about possible changes ... Snowe said she has suggested moving the Medicare payment provision into a separate bill and offsetting it with unspent money from last year’s economic stimulus law ... The expected failure of the procedural vote would also likely doom attempts by Democrats such as Bob Casey of Pennsylvania to expand the bill by reviving about $8 billion in COBRA health insurance subsidies for laid-off workers..."
Time on deficit hysteria thwarting routine legislation, ignoring advice of economists, prompting further cut backs: "...Democrats are also looking at trimming unemployment benefits in hopes of a deal. Senator Jon Tester, a Montana Democrat, on Tuesday proposed cutting $25 a week in extra unemployment compensation, which would reduce the overall cost of the bill by $6 billion. But even that cut may not be enough. 'There's $80 billion in this bill that's not offset,' says Senator Ben Nelson, a Nebraska Democrat who says he's not inclined to vote for the bill unless the nonemergency provisions — by his definition almost everything save flood aid — are paid for."
IN Gov. Mitch Daniels raises the bar on deficit hysteria. The Hill: "To Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels (R), the federal debt represents as much of a threat to the American way of life as terrorism."
Time's Michael Schuman rounds up the economic debate over global austerity, ends up worried: "I don't believe the austerity measures will send the global economy back into recession ... But I do fear that this mad rush for the fiscal exits will lead to an even more anemic, tepid recovery, with true healthy growth pushed off further into the future. That means continued high unemployment. And that's not good for anybody."
Read more: http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2010/06/16/will-austerity-programs-doom-the-recovery/?xid=rss-topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+time%2Ftopstories+%28TIME%3A+Top+Stories%29&utm_content=Google+Reader#ixzz0r1SCwqu1
Friction rising between House and President over state and local aid in war spending bill. Politico: "The backdrop in both cases is a Saturday night letter from Obama calling for action on education and Medicaid assistance but giving no direction on how to pay for them — or how to win support in a deficit-conscious Congress ... it was widely seen by Democrats as more political showmanship at their expense by the administration. Clearly annoyed, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) called White House congressional liaison Phil Schiliro to her office Monday, and House Appropriations Committee Chairman Dave Obey served notice that he would withhold action on Obama’s new war funding until the dust clears on domestic spending issues."
Small biz bill advances. The Hill: "The House on Tuesday voted 247-170 to advance legislation providing tax breaks to small businesses to the Senate. At least 5 Republicans supported the bill's passage. The tax portion of the bill is expected to be combined with loan incentives for small businesses before it travels to the Senate. ... The small business bill is expected to attract several amendments in the Senate, including a fix for the estate tax.
Katrina vanden Heuvel, in W. Post, argues tension between White House and progressives is healthy: "Renewed energy should bolster, not weaken reform efforts ... progressives can open political space for the fights that need to happen to show working Americans that Democrats are fighting for them. The tension between Obama and the progressive movement isn't a threat to the president. Rather, it may be needed to save him."
