The daily Progressive Breakfast serves up what progressive movement members need to know to start their day
Afghan Address Receives Tepid Response
Some Dems pledge to try to block plan. USA Today: "...Obama [is] facing a potential mutiny on this issue among liberal interest groups such as MoveOn that helped elect him and Democratic legislators on whom he is counting to pass a health care bill in the next few weeks ... Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., said he will pull out all the parliamentary stops to block the plan and 'prevent this error from occurring.'"
Obama, in roundtable with newspaper columnists, says: "I am painfully clear that this is politically unpopular. Not only is this not popular, but it's least popular in my own party. But that's not how I make decisions."
Lieberman suddenly sees the wisdom of deficit spending. Swampland's Jay Newton-Small: "'Is there any way that we can delay [paying for the surge] so that we don't stifle the recovery that seems to be beginning now?' bemoaned Senator Joe Lieberman ... yet every Democrat -- and most Republicans -- I spoke with was adamant that the funding, which is expected to come in a supplemental bill early next year, should be offset. House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey suggested a war tax. Senator Ben Nelson, a Nebraska Democrat, proposed war bonds."
W. Post on lack of plan to pay for additional troops: "Key leaders rejected a proposal from liberal members to impose a 'war tax' that would hit workers earning as little as $30,000 a year, but they offered no plan of their own ... [Rep. Jim] McGovern said the only way to pass the funding measure might be to use a parliamentary move that would split the legislation into two parts, one including humanitarian and diplomatic aid -- which would probably pass on a bipartisan vote -- and another including the military funding. Pelosi used such a move in 2007 and 2008 to approve war funds largely on GOP support."
HuffPost's Sam Stein reports some military and civilian personnel would stay in Afghanistan for an indefinite time: "Senior White House officials said Tuesday night that while President Obama intends to start drawing down U.S. forces in Afghanistan starting in July 2011, the administration is committed to keeping an unspecified number of civilian personnel and military trainers in the country long after."
Salon's Juan Cole argues the Iraq surge is no model for Afghanistan: "The Pashtuns are thus not analogous to Iraq’s Sunni Arabs. They are a plurality of the population, not a minority, and they have not lost the low-intensity civil war in which the country is embroiled. Nor have they been ethnically cleansed under the current government. The Sunni Arabs of Iraq threw in the towel, joined in elections, and even formed pro-American militias only as it became clear that the Shiites were routing them. The Pashtuns are not in that position."
American Prospect's Tim Fernholz argues Obama avoided addressing tough policy questions: "...he never responded to the most basic questions many have been asking for months: Why is defeating the Taliban central to defeating al-Qaeda or preventing another major terrorist attack on the U.S., especially when the majority of operational planning for the 9-11 attacks happened outside of Afghanistan? Will more troops in Afghanistan push insurgents into nuclear Pakistan, further destabilizing it? And perhaps more importantly, are American troops and their efforts to impose centralized governance fueling the insurgency rather than dampening it?"
President looking to intensify attacks in Pakistan as well. NYT: "...quietly, Mr. Obama has authorized an expansion of the war in Pakistan as well — if only he can get a weak, divided, suspicious Pakistani government to agree to the terms. In recent months, in addition to providing White House officials with classified assessments about Afghanistan, the C.I.A. delivered a plan for widening the campaign of strikes against militants by drone aircraft in Pakistan, sending additional spies there and securing a White House commitment to bulk up the C.I.A.’s budget for operations inside the country."
New Public Option Compromise Expected Soon
The Hill reports Sen. Carper, at Sen. Reid's behest, will unveil new proposal soon: "Sensing that his bill may need changes, Reid recently called on Carper and Sens. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Mary Landrieu (D-La.) to come up with new legislative language on the hot-button issue of the public option. Carper indicated that significant progress has been made and it is a question of when, not if, the new healthcare plan will be unveiled. Carper initially said an outline of his measure could be issued later this week, but later said it is more likely to emerge next week."
Sen. Ben Nelson digs in on Stupak amendment. HuffPost's Jeff Muskus: "Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) said Tuesday that he won't vote for health care reform unless the bill contains the same sort of restrictive abortion provisions as the House legislation, adding yet another hoop Democratic leaders will need to jump through as they scramble for 60 votes."
Senate conservatives engage in rank hypocrisy on Medicare. LAT: "...Republicans took to the Senate floor Tuesday to renew their claims that the cuts would harm seniors. 'How many times have you heard from senior citizens in your state saying, '"I paid into this trust fund. I paid for my Medicare all my life. Now it's going to be cut. How is that fair? How is that fair to my generation, the greatest generation?"' Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) asked ... The GOP charges infuriated Democrats, who pointed out that many Republicans have voted for even deeper cuts to Medicare in the past. When McCain was running for president, his top aide talked of trimming Medicare spending to fund new tax credits to help Americans buy health benefits."
The Treatment's Jonathan Cohn delves deeper into the Medicare hypocrisy: "During the 1990s, Republicans eyed Medicare savings as a way to free up money for tax cuts, the majority of which would benefit the wealthy. Today, Democrats want to use Medicare savings as a way to finance health care reform, which will--on balance--do a lot more to help the poor and middle-class. You can argue whether such a shift is fair--more on that later--but it's hard to argue that such a shift is less fair than what the Republicans had in mind. In the '90s, the Republicans weren't overly specific about the kinds of cuts they had in mind. They simply wanted to slash Medicare's funding, in many cases because they supported Newt Gingrich's crusade to let Medicare 'wither on the vine.' The Democratic approach is to find savings that target the program's inefficiencies, whether it's unjustified subsidies to private insurance companies or payments to hospitals that have chronically high rates of inpatient infections. If those reductions work as planned--and I think there's good reason to think they will, although I concede that's a fair debate--one result will be better care for seniors."
Republican leader refusing to agree to expedited amendment process. CQ: "Behind the scenes, Reid’s attempts to reach a time agreement governing consideration of initial amendments yielded only the promise of a weekend session and no deal. Late Tuesday, Reid sought an agreement to begin voting on amendments Wednesday afternoon, but Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., objected. For now, Reid, D-Nev., has shown no sign that he will try to use procedural levers to speed action, despite the scant three weeks left before Christmas, the target date Democrats set for a Senate vote on the bill."
Dems remain optimistic reports W. Post: "...even as partisan divisions hardened and contentious amendments stacked up, Democrats increasingly expressed optimism that they would succeed in passing a bill before Christmas."
Mixed Reports On Bernanke Support
Bloomberg reports Bernanke has support from a majority on Banking Cmte: "Ben S. Bernanke has the backing of a majority of U.S. senators on the Banking Committee for a second term as Federal Reserve chairman ... Some said they will support Bernanke, while others said they’re leaning in his favor."
HuffPost's Ryan Grim reports Dems are waiting until Bernanke's testimony: "Two days before Ben Bernanke's confirmation hearing, most Democrats on the Senate Banking Committee are withholding judgment, waiting to hear directly from the chairman of the Federal Reserve ... Before voting to confirm Bernanke, [Sen. Sheldon] Whitehouse told HuffPost he wants to hear '[t]hat they're willing to take their eyes off an exclusive gaze on the welfare of Wall Street and start giving a red hot damn about the American public.'"
House cmte expected to pass broad financial reform package today. W. Post: "The final pieces of a package to overhaul the financial regulatory system are expected to win approval Wednesday from a key House committee with the support of black lawmakers who previously blocked the legislation to protest President Obama's handling of the economy. House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said in an interview Tuesday that members of the Congressional Black Caucus had made sufficient progress in talks with the administration to permit the legislation to move forward ... It remained unclear whether the caucus had received any promises from the administration. A spokesman for [Rep. Maxine] Waters said only that 'members are keeping things very close to the vest on this.'"
Dodd to accept big changes to his initial financial reform bill. CQ: "Senate Banking Chairman Christopher J. Dodd anticipates 'significant changes' to his plan to overhaul financial industry regulations after he turned it over to four bipartisan working groups, a senior Democratic aide said Tuesday. ... Dodd will appraise the progress of the working groups as soon as the end of this week and still intends for the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee to approve a bill before 'the end of this session,' the aide said. But the small number of workdays remaining this year will make it difficult to move even a bipartisan bill — which could push Dodd to take a more partisan route, according to the aide."
Intra-party dispute over House "too-big-to-fail" legislation. CQ: "The Judiciary Committee, slated to mark up the legislation (HR 3996) Wednesday, had indicated that it would veer sharply from the version crafted by the Financial Services Committee, which would give federal regulators the authority to restructure institutions whose impending failure is threatening to undermine the economy. Judiciary Democrats were working on language that would instead expand the bankruptcy code to deal with such situations, giving the government the option of forcing a systemically risky firm into bankruptcy, according to a House aide. But Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank, D-Mass., said late Tuesday that an agreement acceptable to all sides would be worked out, though he offered no details."
Derivatives industry moves to block strong reforms. Bloomberg: "The association that sets standards for the $605 trillion privately negotiated derivatives market is creating a committee to improve the way it governs itself as the industry seeks to fend off the toughest of regulations being debated by U.S. lawmakers."
Wonk Room reports the bank lobby is pressing members to vote against it.
Felix Salmon wonders what happened to the overdraft fee crackdown bill.
Sen. Conrad Promotes More Stimulus
Sen. Conrad tells TNR that the Senate could approve increased aid to states and infrastructure investment: "I think there’s strong consensus in the short-term about the need to do more things that generate jobs. The things that have the most support are infrastructure, aid to states--the states are laying off people--and some kind of jobs credit ... to small business."
Stateline reports states facing major cutbacks: "Moving from furloughs of state employees to more permanent downsizing, states are girding for the deepest workforce cuts yet when they hammer out their fiscal 2011 budgets next year. ... 'I think we’re kind of in a permanent retrenchment,' says Raymond C. Scheppach, long-time director of the National Governors Association."
Economist's View's Mark Thoma hopes the jobs summit is not just for show: " The administration needs to do more than just acknowledge that it 'feels your pain,' it needs to alleviate some of the problem with a jobs program that produces results ... there's only a month or two left before it will be too late to do anything in time to affect employment before the election. And if it doesn't get done in time to help congress get votes, it's unlikely it will get done at all no matter how bad the problem gets."
Uneven economic growth, reports W. Post: "The uneven nature of the economic recovery was on display again Tuesday with the release of mixed data on pending home sales, manufacturing and construction spending. The residential real estate markets showed signs of gaining momentum, in the new data while manufacturing appeared to lose steam after a growth spurt over the summer. More troubling, the commercial real estate sector seemed to be in 'free-fall,' as one analyst put it."
House estate tax vote expected tomorrow. CQ: "On Thursday, the House is expected to pass a permanent extension of the 2009 estate tax structure, which would amount to a $233.6 billion cut in taxes beginning in 2011, without a dollar in offsets and with all the benefits going to people worth at least $1 million ... Democrats are using the estate tax bill as a middle ground in their caucus, where liberals are lukewarm on estate tax cuts but where some moderates support an even more generous proposal ."
Dean Baker rips Pete Peterson for pushing commission to cut back Social Security and Medicare: "...we face the prospect of Congress creating a commission to cut Social Security at the behest of a person who has personally profited to the tune of tens of millions of dollars from a special tax loophole that his friends in Congress slipped into the tax code. This is corruption at its worst. The Wall Street crew simply will not rest until they have sucked the last dollar away from everyone else and Congress appears ready to help."
India May Move, Aussies Fall Short On Climate
Pressure on India to move on climate. W. Post: "... President Obama's pledge for the United States to cut emissions by 17 percent by 2020 and an offer by China to lower by 40 percent its carbon intensity -- that is, carbon dioxide emissions relative to the size of its economy -- have put new, unexpected pressure on India, a senior government official said Tuesday. A new carbon-intensity target may be announced by New Delhi this week, said the official ... Some environmental activists say that a commitment on carbon intensity is not ambitious enough and that India should announce emission cuts instead."
Australian Senate rejects carbon cap bill. Sydney Morning Herald: "The Federal Government will make a third attempt at winning Senate approval for its emissions trading scheme when Parliament resumes sitting in February ... [Acting PM] Gillard said the Government would consider all options, including a double dissolution election, if the new bill was defeated."
Watthead reports on new solar power manufacturing bill: " U.S. Senators Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Michael Bennet (D-CO), and Robert Menendez (D-NJ), as well as Congressman Dave Camp (R-MI) introduced the Solar Manufacturing Jobs Creation Act, intended to boost the international competitiveness the U.S. solar manufacturing industry. After introducing the legislation, Senator Stabenow said it was necessary to 'help us win the global race against China and other countries to produce solar technology in the clean energy economy.' The bi-partisan legislation would extend the existing solar Investment Tax Credit (ITC), which offers a 30 percent tax credit for solar energy investment and deployment, to cover the construction of new solar manufacturing facilities as well. The ITC was recently given an eight-year extension in the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (EESA) of 2008. The new legislation would also give solar manufacturers access to the temporary cash grant program created by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), which has successfully boosted the deployment of renewable technologies, primarily wind power."
Major utility company closing 11 coal plants. NYT: "[Progress Energy CEO Bill] Mr. Johnson also said the company was taking a risk by reducing its output of carbon dioxide, which is not yet regulated, in the near term. He and others expect that Congress will eventually impose a limit on carbon dioxide emissions, possibly in the form of percentage reductions based on a baseline year. By closing the plants now, Progress is effectively cutting its baseline, meaning it may have to reduce emissions even further in the future. 'We need to do the right thing, regardless of that, and this is the right thing,' he said in a telephone interview. If there is a control system added later, he said, 'we’d be making a strong argument, 'Don’t penalize us for doing the right thing."'"
Formerly green Republicans abandoning carbon cap bill. Politico: "[Rep. Mark] Kirk is one of a growing group of Republican candidates flip-flopping away from cap and trade as they stare down more-conservative primary challengers. Republicans who once flouted their green bona fides are tacking right, to the point of questioning the science behind global warming, believing it’s politically toxic within the conservative base to favor anything Democrats want to do about the climate."
