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.
Unemployment Insurance Cut Off For Many As Bunning Filibuster Continues
Top Senate GOPer says Bunning filibuster will eventually fail. McClatchy: "Congress will pass legislation aimed at keeping certain jobless benefits, highway and transit money and other government programs funded, Sen. Jon Kyl, the Senate's number 2 Republican,said Sunday. But several programs still expired at midnight, and Congress has failed to extend them because of an objection by Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky ... The Senate is not expected to act until Tuesday at the earliest, which means that as of Monday morning, certain extended jobless benefits weren't available. Neither were some highway or transit funds, small business loans or help for newly-laid off workers for their insurance premiums."
CQ suggests Dems will now push for long-term extensions of aid instead of short-term: "... Senate Democrats abandoned the idea of a short-term extension and will put many, if not all, of the extensions into the tax extenders bill. Democratic leaders had already envisioned adding provisions to the bill that would extend unemployment insurance and the health care subsidies through Dec. 31 and extend the payments to doctors through Sept. 30. Adding the safety net extensions and other expiring programs could build support for the bill among Democrats, but it could also embolden more Republicans to call for offsets."
"Sen. Bunning May Single-handedly Cause 2,000 Federal Worker Furloughs" headlines ABC's The Note: "... he also stopped an extension of the Highway Trust Fund for 30 days. That means the fund cannot be used to pay for any of its programs or its employees."
House leadership confident it can pass Senate jobs tax credit, but progressive pushback persists: "Liberal members continued to balk at approving the legislation, which they argue is too focused on tax breaks and will do little to create jobs ... In a meeting with the Congressional Black Caucus, the House leadership tried to assuage those concerns by promising to address them in later legislation ... progressives and CBC members pushed to conference the Senate and House bills ... House leadership aides and key senators said a conference was unlikely because it would slow down passage of the bill."
In response to an article on long-term unemployment, NYT gets letters from Americans living with the reality of long-term unemployment. John Thomas Ellis: "You quote Allen Sinai, the chief global economist at the research firm Decision Economics, as saying: 'American business is about maximizing shareholder value. You basically don't want workers. You hire less, and you try to find capital equipment to replace them.' If that's how business defines profits, then we desperately need to redefine our priorities and our business laws."
At Open Left, Chris Bowers explains how Bunning's block will do real damage to Democrats: "With the country unhappy, most voters will blame national problems on the current governing party: Democrats. Additionally, the country does not understand, or really care about, Senate procedure such as the filibuster. As such, a handful of Republican Senators can, if they are feeling sufficiently spiteful and/or Machiavellian, use arcane Senate procedure to cut off unemployment insurance to over one million Americans, and actually get Democrats blamed for it."
MyDD's Desmoinesdem, points out that Bunning's obstruction on unemployment benefits will cost states money and jobs: "Sometime this week, or perhaps later in March, Senate Democrats will break the Republican obstruction. But when that happens, 'state governments will still have to deal with the extra administrative costs of shutting down and restarting the extended benefits programs.'"
Dodd Financial Reform Proposal Hit From Left and Right
Sen. Dodd proposes "Bureau of Financial Protection" within Treasury, instead of independent consumer agency. NYT sums up progressive criticism: "...[An interagency] council could veto the rule or send it back to the bureau to be rewritten. Heather Booth, executive director of Americans for Financial Reform ... said that true independence would mean that the agency was 'not subject to veto by the regulators whose failures got us into trouble in the first place.' ... Consumer advocates have [also] voiced particular alarm at unfair practices by companies not covered by banking rules, like mortgage servicers, credit counseling agencies, debt collectors and payday lenders."
HuffPost's Ryan Grim adds: "Each time the agency wanted to write a rule, it would have to consult with bank regulators. The agency would then have to respond to each and every bank regulator objection in the Federal Register. If the bank regulator was still unsatisfied, it could appeal to the 'systemic regulator,' whose mission is to protect the safety and soundness of the banking industry. Anytime a new rule is proposed, bank lobbyists argue that it will be burdensome and make the system less safe and sound. If the systemic regulator agreed with the banks -- as they often do -- then the consumer protection rule would be voided. Notably, the consumer protection agency has no veto power over any rules issued by bank regulators, which demonstrates which regulator will be superior."
Bloomberg reports that GOP negotiators are rejecting the Dodd compromise for seemingly opposite reasons: "Committee Republicans rejected Dodd’s proposal because it split consumer protection from the safety-and-soundness responsibility of bank regulators ... Shelby’s staff on Feb. 26 circulated two proposals to committee Republicans. One calls for a three-member Financial Products Consumer Protection Council with a chairman appointed by the president, the FDIC chairman and the director of a newly created federal bank regulator ... The other would establish a consumer protection division at the FDIC to be run by a director appointed by the president with a five-member board..."
NYT's Paul Krugman says Dodd plan should be blocked: "There are times when even a highly imperfect reform is much better than nothing ... An imperfect health care bill can be revised in the light of experience ... A weak financial reform, by contrast, wouldn’t be tested until the next big crisis ... Better, then, to take a stand, and put the enemies of reform on the spot. And by all means let’s highlight the dispute over a proposed Consumer Financial Protection Agency."
Reuters' Felix Salmon worries nothing with teeth can attract bipartisan support: "The Bureau of Financial Protection proposed by Dodd was pretty toothless ... yet even this weak excuse for a CFPA has proved too much for the Republicans ... I’m beginning to think that Dodd should accept whatever Corker would find acceptable ... Then Elizabeth Warren should team up with the Center for Responsible Lending to create a Consumer Financial Protection Agency entirely unafilliated with the government..."
Dodd optimistic in Politico oped: "...the good work done by the Democrats and Republicans on the Banking Committee has put financial reform in a strong position ... make no mistake: We will have reform this year."
WH Expected To Push Simple Majority Vote To Finish Health Care Reform
WH to chart health care course this week. W. Post: "President Obama is planning to tell Democrats his preferred strategy this week ... Increasingly, the White House appears to favor having the House pass a version of the measure that cleared the Senate with 60 votes in December. The Senate would then pass changes to the bill to satisfy some demands of House Democrats. That Senate vote would take place under a parliamentary procedure known as reconciliation, which requires 51 votes rather than 60. It remains unclear whether Democrats have enough votes within their ranks for this strategy to work."
Bloomberg canvasses hesitant Dems: "'“It looks like we’re trying to cram something through,' said Representative Baron Hill, an Indiana Democrat who voted for the original House bill. Hill said he might not back a measure if it goes through reconciliation ... A 'sizeable number' of the 54 ... Blue Dogs are also concerned, said South Dakota Representative Stephanie Herseth Sandlin."
Dems and GOPers joust to frame meaning of "reconciliation." Politico: "'...if Speaker Pelosi rams this bill through the House using a reconciliation process, they will lose their majority in Congress in November,' House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said on NBC’s 'Meet the Press.' ... Democrats, in turn, argued Republicans have no grounds to criticize, accusing them of rank hypocrisy given their frequent embrace of the tactic during the past 30 years ... In a rhetorical shift, Democrats have begun avoiding the word 'reconciliation,' in favor of 'simple majority.'"
House Dem "no" vote expected to resign. Political Wire: "If Rep. Nathan Deal (R-GA) does in fact step down from his House seat today to focus on his run for Georgia governor, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D) will find it offsets one of the Democratic votes she's already lost in the last couple of months ... His potential resignation gives Pelosi a little breathing room."
Washington Monthly's Steve Benen nails GOP Sen. Lamar Alexander for phony complaints of moving too fast: "Alexander keeps saying we should try to do a little bit at a time, overlooking the fact that we've been doing a little bit at a time ... As Frank McArdle, a consultant with Hewitt Associates explained, 'We've had a lot of incremental reforms already.' S-CHIP expansion here, Medicare expansion there. Some insurance reforms here, some expanded access there. This has been the model for 15 years — since right-wing opposition led to the death of the last attempt at comprehensive reform. Is the system any better as a result of incrementalism? No, it's considerably worse, and deteriorating further with each passing year. We tried it Alexander's way. Why stick with failure?"
Tripartisan Climate Bill Draft May Come This Week
CQ reports Sens. Kerry, Lieberman and Graham will circulate "opening bid" draft bill: "... each of the three major polluting sectors of the economy – electric utilities, transportation, and manufacturing – will be subject to different forms of regulation. The proposal is likely to apply an emissions cap only on electric utilities, while the transportation sector would be subject to some form of tax based on carbon content in fuels, according to people familiar with the negotiations ... The senators also continue to explore whether to incorporate the so-called cap-and-dividend structure into their bill ... requiring polluters to pay the government for permits to emit, and then returning those fees directly to consumers ... Electric utilities are likely to find the new approach less appealing [than the House cap-and-trade bill] ... Depending on how the utility cap is structured, it could win the backing of companies that rely on low-emissions fuels, such as nuclear power and natural gas."
Climate Progress somewhat skeptical that hybrid plan can get 60 votes: "The lack of regional equity is one of the political Achilles heels of that [cap-and-dividend] approach, though that would be far less true if you refunded just the portion of the money generated by the carbon price on gasoline — hence some of the interest in that approach."
The Hill sees GOP Sen. Alexander open to Kerry-Lieberman-Graham: "Senate Republican Conference Chairman Lamar Alexander (Tenn.) said Sunday that lawmakers could advance energy and climate legislation by adopting a step-by-step approach that eschews sweeping measures. Alexander’s comments appear to indicate that he’s keeping an open mind about the climate and energy plan that Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) are crafting."
