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. Today, Bill Scher is off. Progressive Breakfast returns Tuesday.
Another Botched Response to Jobs Emergency
The House is expected to take up a jobs and tax fairness bill today, but the Senate has already gone home for the Memorial Day weekend, as conservatives in both parties and in both houses balk at making a real commitment to creating jobs. That means thousands of jobless workers could start to lose benefits that are set to expire at the end of the month even as legislators go to their states and districts to ask for their votes.
From CQ (subscription): "Senate Democrats blocked a Republican proposal that would have paid for a short-term benefits extension with funding from the 2009 stimulus law. Senate Republicans were expected to block a Democratic fall-back plan to extend expanded unemployment insurance and COBRA health care benefits for 14 days without offsetting the costs. As a result, those benefits will expire while lawmakers are on vacation — just as happened during Congress’ April recess."
In the Senate, Democratic Leader Harry Reid said that chamber would not act until the week of June 7, AP reports: "The delay means hundreds of thousands of jobless Americans will likely see their unemployment benefits expire starting next week, a disruption many have already suffered several times this year due to congressional wrangling. It also gives fund managers more time to try to weaken a controversial proposal that would hike their tax rates. Some Senate Democrats aim to water down the measure."
The spending side of the bill has already been watered down by the House to address the concerns of Blue Dog Democrats, who still balked at supporting the bill even though, AP reports, "the latest proposal would strip out $24 billion earmarked to help cash-strapped states cover medical costs. ... [It] would also strip out $6.8 billion in subsidies to help jobless people pay for health care."
House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Rep. Sander Levin, D-Mich., tells The Hill what is expected to unfold on the House floor today: A measure to pass a $92.5 billion bill that "includes $39.5 billion for an extension of unemployment benefits through November. That portion of the bill is not offset with other spending cuts or tax increases. The other portion, which is paid for with offsets, totals $53 billion and includes tax extender provisions, summer jobs and the Pigford case settlement for black farmers. The $53 billion cost of the provisions is offset with tax provisions, including a change in the way that "carried interest," a common payment for hedge fund managers, is taxed."
"Carried interest" is the unearned income that is taxed at a 15 percent rate while earned income is taxed at up to 28 percent. Politico says prospects for a tax fairness bill that equalizes tax rates between earned income and income earned by hedge fund managers, private equity owners and venture capitalists are "on the verge" of becoming law, but only because of efforts to weaken its impact: "Progressives are warily eyeing Cantwell, Kerry, Menendez and a number of Democratic senators they fear could support industry carveouts, including Tom Carper of Delaware, Ron Wyden of Oregon, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania and Mark Warner of Virginia.... The Service Employees International Union is lobbying the senators to oppose any carveouts. They’ve activated their members in each of the states and asked them to contact their senators."
CQ says "Pelosi seemed disinclined to agree to any Senate changes on carried interest, despite the concerns some Senate Democrats harbor about that provision. Pelosi said she has been a supporter of venture capitalists and believes they do important things. However, she later asked a reporter, “You don’t get taxed as capital gains for the work that you do, why should they?”
Teacher funding to help school districts avert layoffs appears dead. The Washington Post: The proposal's chief advocate in the House (Rep. David Obey, D-Wis.) abruptly canceled a committee meeting to put the money in a war spending bill. Its lead sponsor in the Senate (Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa) gave up trying to do it, acknowledging that he lacked the necessary votes.
Krugman read the news today, and oh boy is he depressed: "Here's where we are: growing GDP, but mass unemployment still the law of the land, with only tiny progress so far. What can be done? Well, we could have more fiscal stimulus — but Congress is balking even at the idea of extending aid for the ever-growing ranks of the long-term unemployed. Fiscal responsibility, you see — hey, and let's make sure estate taxes stay low! ...It's depressing: shibboleths and conventional wisdom are blocking all routes out of this slump. And I worry that policy makers will just sit there, for years and years, all the while congratulating themselves on the soundness of their policies."
Meanwhile, Defense Dollars Just Keep On Flowing
The defense authorization bill is having no real problems moving through Congress, says the New York Times: "Senators delivered a bipartisan 67-to-28 vote for the war financing bill after rejecting a series of Republican proposals on border protection as well as a plan by Senator Russ Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, to require President Obama to produce a timetable for withdrawing from Afghanistan. "
In the House, "the fiscal 2011 defense authorization bill (HR 5136) is expected to pass by a comfortable margin." CQ reports that "the House defeated an effort to steer funds away from the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter’s alternate engine program, rejecting, 193-231, an amendment by Chellie Pingree, D-Maine, that would remove $485 million specifically authorized for continued development of the F136 alternate engine, made by General Electric and Rolls-Royce. That model would compete with Pratt and Whitney’s F135 engine. The amendment also included more general limitations on the use of funds for the second engine.The vote comes despite a White House veto threat against the inclusion of the engine funding."
There's no serious effort to cut military spending, but here's an argument that doing so might actually increase our national security: "At over $700 billion this year, total military spending rivals Social Security as the largest item in the federal budget. We are spending more than at any time since World War II, yet our principal enemy has no multimillion-person army, no air force, no navy, no sophisticated anti-aircraft systems - in short, none of the kinds of weapons our arsenal is best designed to fight against. And of that $700 billion per year, the vast bulk — over $500 billion — goes towards the Pentagon's base budget, not the wars in Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan. A forthcoming report from the Sustainable Defense Task Force — a group of defense and budget experts convened with the encouragement of Rep. Barney Frank — presents a menu of options for making cuts in the Pentagon budget without undermining our basic security. Look for details within the next two weeks. There are plenty of savings to be had from eliminating unneeded weapons systems and cutting waste, fraud and abuse, but it is important to note that any substantial reduction in Pentagon spending will have to involve reducing U.S. global commitments. We can't and shouldn't continue to structure our forces as if they should be able to go anywhere and do anything. This is directly relevant to the new National Security Strategy."
Political Spillover From Gulf Oil Catastrophe
The oil from BP's doomed rig may not reach the shores of the Potomac, but the blame has: "Oil-spill updates continue to gush out of the Gulf and Washington at volumes difficult to estimate. BP initiated its risky "top kill" maneuver Wednesday and the Coast Guard reported cautiously [Thursday] that the oil stream has abated. If the effort works, BP will begin to plug the well with concrete in the next day or so. President Barack Obama held his first press conference in 308 days this afternoon. He placed a moratorium on new deepwater drilling permits for six months and ordered the Interior Department to expedite its reforms of the key oil-industry regulatory office. Blame has lapped up on the shores of the Potomac as crude sullies the Gulf coast, destroying livelihoods and wildlife. Obama spoke today after a week when scrutiny of the disaster led directly to the Department of Interior's Minerals Management. A report from Interior's inspector general accuses officials there of gross conflicts of interest and misconduct prior to 2007 (The report was commissioned before the accident but accelerated after)."
The president's press conference may have changed perceptions, but reality remains the same, says Dan Froomkin: "The press conference was a powerful rhetorical rejoinder to the growing perception that Obama has been personally disengaged from the disaster in the Gulf. But there was very little there for those who are more concerned with what's actually happening on the ground and in the water than with presidential optics. And to those unhappy with the speed or the extent of the government response, to those scientists who question some of the decisions that have been made, and to those Louisiana residents who think not enough is being done, he didn't actually announce any changes. There is no new plan. He just tried to redefine what is."
Digby dubs Sen. Landrieu "BP's Handmainden," and contrasts Landriew's visibility with the Senator's criticism of the president's visibility on the Gulf oil disaster: "Landrieu has certainly been visible — fluffing British Petroleum in an unseemly way from the very beginning. Perhaps she will not pay a price for that politically — I've been schooled recently that the people of Louisiana love their corrupt politicians and expect them to keep Big Oil happy. If that's what Landrieu is talking about in terms of the president, I hope he doesn't listen. The last thing I want to see is President Obama on TV telling all of us that BP is blameless and that we need even more offshore drilling as soon as possible, as Landrieu has been doing. Somehow, I think the "political price" for doing that might be a little bit higher for him than it is for her. (And I don't think she should count on being rewarded for her servile obeisance to the oil industry at this point. It's not quite the political winner it used to be.)"
NPR goes to a diner in Metarie, La. to get reaction to President Obama's news conference Thursday on the Gulf oil catastrophe: "He's [Obama] trying to do the best he can under the conditions. I mean who the hell could do better?" said 78-year-old Buddy Carver, a retired electrician who is a regular at the diner. "I mean this is something that happens once in a lifetime. It ain't Obama's fault." But Obama supporter August Wallace, a 47-year-old airport bus driver, asked, "What was the delay on his part? I guess he didn't see the magnitude of the problem. ... Now he sees it but like the federal government, always a day late."
Oil prices shot up when President Obama announced he was opening more areas to offshore drilling. Oil prices nosedived when the moratorium was put in place and are still falling. Connection? Mark Sumner at Daily Kos: "Clearly oil prices go up when drilling is expanded, and down when a drilling freeze is announced! Quick, freeze it all and gas will be $1 a gallon! Or it could be that oil prices have almost nothing to do with drilling activity whose production won't be reflected on the market for years. It could be that prices are instead driven far more by global events, like a financial meltdown in Greece that caused anticipated changes in world demand. Hard as it is to believe, it could be that Mitch McConnell and others throwing around wild numbers reveal that they are know-nothing blowhards attempting to capitalize on tragedy to expand the activity that brought on the problem in the first place. Could be."
A Wall Street Journal investigation "suggests the rig was unprepared for the kind of disaster that struck and was overwhelmed when it occurred" and raises questions about "whether the U.S. has sufficient safety rules for such complex drilling operations in very deep water."
Next to Wall Street, BP is the next best example of the need to rethink regulation; especially corporate self-regulation: "BP is exhibit A. For years it has promoted its 'green' credentials to the point of transforming its logo, advertising and website into celebrations of the environment. The public relations division trumpets the company's commitment to human rights and fair labour standards. Like some other companies, BP issues annual sustainability reports attesting to its compliance efforts in these fields. But BP's catastrophic gusher shows how corporate hype can peddle an illusion at the expense of the oceans. President Barack Obama's declaration that "we will trust, but we will verify" sounds reassuring. But for some time the assumption has been that companies would regulate themselves and be competently monitored for the public good. Nothing could be further from the truth."
Ezra Klein writes that while Obama said he was wrong to believe "that the oil companies had their act together," offshore drilling is dangerous even if the industry and regulators "have their act together": "Pressed on whether he regrets the endorsement of offshore drilling, Obama held firm. 'I believe what I said at that time, which was that domestic oil production is an important part of our overall energy mix,' he said. 'It has to be part of our overall energy strategy.' Instead, he pushed blame back to oil companies: "Where I was wrong was in the belief that the oil companies had their acts together when it came to worst-case scenario." But the reality remains — and he touched on this briefly — that drilling this deep in the Gulf of Mexico for our little recoverable reserves is inherently dangerous. That is true regardless of how much oversight regulators exert and regardless of how extensive industry plans to mitigate a spill may be."
Sen. Lindsay Graham pushes back against President Obama's offshore oil drilling moratorium; tells The Hill that dwindling Democratic support for oil drilling has "sapped his rationale for convincing fellow Republicans to support the comprehensive energy and climate change legislation. ... Graham’s firm stance means it will be significantly tougher — if not virtually impossible — for Obama to muster 60 votes" for either energy legislation or an immigration reform bill, of which Graham was a potential Republican supporter.
Progress On Ending 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'
Politico's Ben Smith: "Despite some last-ditch resistance from the service chiefs, grudging acceptance from the Pentagon, and nothing resembling a push from the White House, the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" cleared its key hurdles tonight."
A McClatchy Newspapers story notes that "Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a Navy veteran who opposes repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," solicited letters from the four military chiefs saying that changing the policy before the Pentagon finishes its review would send the wrong message to service members." Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., had this rebuttal:"Those who tell me that the presence of gay and lesbian members of the military undermine the effectiveness of a fighting force and undermine unit cohesion must have never heard of Israel . . . as effective a fighting force as (any) in modern times. So the notion that you must deny American gay and lesbian citizens their rights has no basis in reality."
A Gallup poll earlier this month found that 70 percent of Americans support allowing openly gay men and lesbians to serve in the military, while 25 percent oppose it.
