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.
MORNING MESSAGE: Blaming The Economy's Victims For Economic Crimes
OurFuture.Org's Dave Johnson: Blame the unions, blame the unemployed, blame loans to the poor, blame the government... As income and wealth increasingly go to a few at the top public anger is directed at the economy's victims. ...This weekend CBS' 60 Minutes joined the anti-worker chorus, blaming public employee unions for the problems faced by the states. ...Tax cuts, income and wealth going to a few at the top, but the unions take the blame because they fight for a better life for working people. ...The unemployed and the checks they get are often blamed for their plight. They are called 'lazy,' and it is even suggested the be tested for drugs. ...People tend to think about what is put in front of them to think about. That's why everyone goes to see a new movie on the first weekend instead of waiting until they can get good seats with no lines. Wall Street and the likes of the Chamber of Commerce understand this so they put scapegoats in front of the public to mask what they are doing. Right now there is a corporate/right campaign to blame working people for the problems they caused.
Eleventh Hour Obstruction on 9/11 Bill
The Senate is set for a key vote on the 9/11 bill, says AP: "The Senate is set for a key test vote on a bill to aid people who became sick after being exposed to toxins at the World Trade Center ruins following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. New York Democratic Sens. Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand said they were confident they had the 60 votes needed to prevail on the vote expected Wednesday after the Senate completes its work on an arms control treaty with Russia. But they worry that Republicans who oppose the measure could try to stall a final vote as Congress nears the holidays and the end of its lame duck session. Some GOP lawmakers have complained that Democrats are rushing the bill through. They also have raised concerns about the bill's cost and how to pay for it. 'With the holidays fast approaching, we urge the Republicans to not drag this debate out needlessly,' Schumer said in a statement. 'For our 9/11 first responders, the finish line is finally in view.'"
Don't blame the Dems. Tom Coburn's objections to the 9/11 could keep Congress in session through Christmas: "In the face of mounting criticism about his opposition to the 9/11 bill, is Sen. Tom Coburn backing down? Not exactly. The Oklahoma Republican just posted a seven-page document on his website outlining why he opposes it.' The United States of America does have an obligation to provide for those devastated by the tragic events of September 11, 2001. It is not unpatriotic, however, to express concerns with the specific approach' of the bill,' he said. ...Coburn is prepared to insist on a full debate before passing the bill – a debate that could require the Senate to stay in session continuously until early next week, according to a Coburn aide. And the House would then have to reconvene after Christmas to pass the version that ultimately emerges from the Senate. So who will blink first – Democrats who want to pass the bill this year or Coburn who threatens to keep the Senate in session through Christmas and beyond?"
The NY Times says the 9/11 bill amounts to an unpaid debt to first responders: "Anyone who was in New York City on Sept. 11, 2001, remembers how the ash, paper and dust of the collapsing towers blew across Lower Manhattan. For days afterward, there was that peculiar smell — of burned paper and chemicals and death. That was the air that filled the lungs of tens of thousands of firefighters, police officers, nurses, paramedics, soldiers and civilian volunteers who toiled for months to uncover the dead. More than nine years later, many of those first responders are dead. Many are sick. Some are dying. Thousands need care for illnesses contracted through their heroism at ground zero. America owes them help, and Congress is poised to give it to them, if die-hard Republican objectors get out of the way of the majority. ...Supporters say they have the votes to bypass a Republican filibuster on Wednesday. The House would then have to pass the amended bill. The risk is that senators like Mr. Coburn will delay a vote until the clock runs out. We will leave it to the Republicans to work out the riddle of the gap between their professed honor for American heroes and their shabby disdain for those who risked their health and lives at ground zero. Mr. Coburn, at least, should allow a vote. President Obama should stop letting Jon Stewart carry the ball, step in and insist that Congress pass the bill. Congress should delay its Christmas break, if needed, to get this done. "
Tom Coburn blocks the 9/11 responders bill, and his Senate colleagues wonder where Sen. Coburn's heart is: "A group of senators from New York and New Jersey today joined with dozens of first responders to blast Republican opposition to the 9-11 health bill as the measure’s chances of passage dim with each passing day before Christmas. 'I believe we have the votes to prevail. The only thing standing in our way is people who will try to run out the clock,' Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-NY, said at a press conference on Capitol Hill. Schumer was referring to Sen. Tom Coburn, R-OK, who has vowed to oppose the bill – a move that could derail its chances of passage since every bit of time is precious as Christmas approaches. Earlier today Coburn – a doctor – told FOX News that the bill’s chances of passage are 'doubtful.'"
Sen. Coburn may be unmoved, but the White House says Jon Stewart 'put awareness' on the 9/11 bill: "The White House said today that comedian Jon Stewart has 'put the awareness' around the 9/11 health care responders legislation, hoping that will lead to additional Republican votes for the bill. 'If there's the ability for that to sort of breakthrough in our political environment, I think there's a good chance that he can help do that,' White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said. 'I think he has put the awareness around this legislation -- he's put that awareness into what you guys cover each day, and I think that's good.' Last Thursday Jon Stewart devoted an episode of 'The Daily Show' to the bill, a move that raised the public profile of the story, helping to bring the issue into the national spotlight. Gibbs said today that he hopes Stewart can convince the Republicans further in a final push for passage. 'It seems, at the end of a long year, around the holiday season, a pretty awful thing to play politics about. But that's a decision that 42 Republican senators are going to have to make.'"
The Guardian's Michael Tomasky says those Republicans complaining about the busy pace of this "Lame Duck" Congress should have thought about that when they were threatening to filibuster everything: "It's true that the voters spoke on 3 November. But the rules are the rules. These people are members of Congress until 5 January. If people want to change that rule, fine, then change it. But let's bear in mind that we're seeing this flurry of activity because we've just lived through a two-year period in which the Republican minority in the Senate has threatened a record number of filibusters and forced a massive number of cloture votes. Most of the things blocked by this minority, or at least a whole lot of them, enjoyed majority support among the people. ...Besides, I can't help but notice that these allegedly unpopular measures sneaking in through the legislative backdoor are getting votes from...Republicans! And they're getting votes from Republicans because they are, in fact, not unpopular. The tax deal wouldn't have passed without Republican support. DADT repeal, as well. The Start treaty will need nine GOP votes, and it looks as if it will get them. So, if conservatives are unhappy about this productive lame-duck session, their beef is with the Republicans who keep voting for Obamian positions. It's a railroad-age schedule in the jet era, our legislative calendar. No doubt about that. If they want to change it, fine. But until they do, the rules is the rules. Next year, when an openly gay soldier joins the army and volunteers for duty in Afghanistan, no one is going to say to him or her, "Sorry, but you only won this right from lame-duck lawmakers.""
Here Comes the Tax (Cut Deal), Man
Fortune magazine says the estate tax lobby may be tiny but it's powerful nonetheless: "The super-rich got an early Christmas gift in the $858 billion tax package that President Obama signed into law on Friday. ...The windfall for the well-heeled wasn't delivered out of thin air. Indeed, a small band of the richest Americans have acted as their own secret Santas on this issue for years. A 2006 report by Public Citizen and United for a Fair Economy -- both nonprofits opposed to concentrated wealth -- identified 18 families financing a coordinated campaign to repeal the estate tax altogether. Among the leading names behind that push: the Gallos (E&J Gallo Winery), the Kochs (Koch Industries), the Mars' (Mars Inc.), the Waltons (Wal-Mart (WMT, Fortune 500)), and the Wegmans (Wegmans Food Markets). At the time, the report estimated the families' collected net worth to be at least $185 billion, roughly equal to the market cap of Google (GOOG, Fortune 500) today."
CSM's Howard Howard Gleckman says the tax cut deal with Republicans is neither smart nor a stimulus: "A modest thought experiment: Here is a check for $858 billion. Your job is to boost short-term economic growth. What would you do with the money? President Obama and a huge bipartisan majority of the Senate have given us their answer (and the House is likely to add its support tonight or tomorrow): They’d extend the Bush-era tax cuts, restore the estate tax but at an historically low level, cut payroll taxes for all, protect the middle-class from the Alternative Minimum Tax for another year, and continue jobless benefits for the long-term unemployed. But upon closer inspection, very little of this massive increase in the deficit over the next few years will actually boost growth. If you care about the bang for the buck—and given our long-term fiscal mess, you should—this new law is a colossal waste of money. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to use $850 billion in a way that's less effective than much of what’s in this package. By my rough calculations, more than half —at least $450 billion—will do little or nothing to boost the economy in the short run. It won’t increase demand for goods and services. It won’t increase investment. And it certainly won’t create many new jobs. It will, however, provide a fabulously generous tax windfall to those who need it least."
Read the small print on the tax cut deal, urges Dean Baker: "The only net stimulus in this package comes from replacing the $60bn Making Work Pay tax credit in 2011 with a $110bn reduction in the payroll tax and the allowance full expensing of new investment. The latter is projected to cost $55bn a year for the next two years. The full expensing in this deal replaces a provision of the 2009 stimulus package that provided for 50% expensing, which means that the net boost to the economy is half this size. In sum, the net stimulus for the economy from this package in 2011 will be in the range of $70bn, or about 0.5% of GDP. This is not likely to provide a substantial boost to growth. ...[T]here is every reason to expect that 2011 will be another year of weak growth, with little, if any, decline in the unemployment rate. The economy will be somewhat stronger as a result of this tax package being put in place, compared to a scenario in which nothing was done, but this is very far from the fabled "second stimulus" that some are acclaiming."
Obama may find his way through tax code reform, writes Amitai Etzioni at HuffPo: "President Obama has found a new way to deal with the difficult political situation he is facing as a result of the midterm elections. He recently unveiled a major policy move that cannot be easily boxed in as left or right, and hence serves his tendency to seek common ground. However, unlike previous moves, it does not seek to do so by splitting the difference or compromising. ...This time, President Obama is calling for a major tax reform that would greatly simplify the code, close many loopholes, and thus allow reducing the rate without increasing the deficit. This proposal, on the face of it, has appeal to both sides. The GOP cannot reject out of hand a proposal that promises to lower tax rates. The Democrats, the progressives included, cannot reject out of hand a proposal that entails reducing deductions that serve only those better off (the poor do not pay income taxes, and most of those with modest incomes do not file itemized returns and hence do not benefit from most deductions). Indeed, the progressives can hope that the reform will lead to taxing income from investment at the same rate as that of labor. That is to say: rather than facing gridlock, this proposal has a fair chance to move forward, as both sides vie over how to shape it, rather than to block it."
Economic Update
AP: The economy may be growing, but hiring still lags: "In 2010, the economy rebounded fitfully from the Great Recession - starting strong, wobbling at midyear but showing enough vigor by year's end to quell fears of a second recession. Yet Americans hardly felt relief under the weight of high unemployment, which began the year at 9.7 percent and is now 9.8 percent. ...As the year closes, the economy makes broad gains. Factories produce more. Consumers - the backbone of the economy - return to the malls. Congress passes $858 billion in tax cuts and aid to the long-term unemployed. Yet more than 15 million Americans are still unemployed. Economists say a full economic recovery remains years away."
At HuffPo, Zach Carter and Ryan Grimm report that the Senate eliminate legal aid to homeowners in foreclosure: "Despite mounting evidence of big banks committing serious fraud in the foreclosure process, the U.S. Senate eliminated $35 million in legal aid to homeowners trying to keep their homes. The fund was wiped out in order to meet government spending caps advocated by Sens. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) and Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), but will likely end up costing taxpayers much more in the long run, as wrongful foreclosures burn through the balance sheets of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The slashing of the foreclosure-assistance fund is just one casualty of Washington's increasing bipartisan push to cut spending across the board. The $35 million fund was created by the Wall Street reform bill signed into law by President Barack Obama in July, but the Senate never took the additional necessary step of appropriating the money. Even if it had been appropriated, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) last week gave up on passing a budget for next year in the face of Republican opposition to earmarks."
American workers, writes NYT's Catherine Rampell, are losing hope for a recovery: "When will the economy begin to recover? The National Bureau of Economic Research’s Business Cycle Dating Committee says the recovery began in June 2009, but unemployed Americans beg to differ:
That pie chart is from a new report from Rutgers’s Heldrich Center for Workforce Development, which has periodically resurveyed the same group of American workers who were unemployed at some point in the year after the financial crisis hit (and many of whom are still unemployed). In November 2010, the center asked these workers when the economy would 'begin to recover.' As you can see, 13 percent of these respondents said the economy would begin to recover more than five years from now, and another 15 percent said it would 'never' begin to recover. (Image source: The New York Times)"
Attention holiday shoppers! Froma Harrop wants to know, "Can we break the China habit?": "It's been tough watching fellow shoppers fill their carts with Chinese imports as the People's Republic stomps on American interests and values. At WalMart, Bed Bath & Beyond and other big chains, it's hard to find goods NOT-made-in-China. Lamps, popcorn makers, kitty scratch boards. Cuisinart toasters and Emeril cookware. Made in China. ....The creepy thing: China is not our friend, but it's become our keeper. America's Christmas trees groan with ornaments made in the country that lets North Korean threaten our troops and Asian friends. China supports the regime of the bizarre Kim Jong-il and his son, bent on strutting the world stage as a nuclear menace. China could close down the North Korean freak show tomorrow, but it won't because that would create a unified Korea allied with the United States. China doesn't want us to have strong ties in Asia."
Poverty is up in America's rustbelt: "Earlier this year, many were stunned to learn that the United States is experiencing the highest levels of poverty in over four decades, with 1 in 7 Americans below the poverty line. But new data shows that more Americans in the southern United States and the Rust Belt have felt the recession's severest impacts than those in the rest of the country. The U.S. Census Bureau recently released 2009 poverty estimates, and they show the numbers and percentages of Americans in poverty to have increased most markedly since before the 2007 economic meltdown in the Southwest and the South, with severe increases also in Michigan and Ohio."
Health Care Reform Hamstrung?
NYT reports that the stopgap spending bill passed by Congress hamstrings government programs: "The Securities and Exchange Commission has stopped hiring and halted most travel by agency officials. Hundreds of millions of dollars in aid to nations like Pakistan is held up, as are American contributions to global health and emergency food programs. A systems upgrade by the Internal Revenue Service to improve electronic data-keeping and speed tax refunds could be delayed for years — all because the federal government is operating on a temporary measure largely at last year’s levels. Congress on Tuesday approved yet another temporary spending bill, this one running through March 4, the fourth such stopgap measure since the fiscal year ended Sept. 30. The effective spending freeze amounts to a reduction when rising costs are taken into account — a welcome outcome to many Republicans — and disrupts the government’s ability to carry out programs and policy changes."
Ezra Klein says the Senate's continuing resolution keeps the lights on, but defunds health care reform and financial reform: "This is, of course, a temporary resolution. So we might still see a fight on this early next year, or much more to the point, in March. In the meantime, the various agencies charged with implementing 2010's legislative achievements will have to do more with less -- which probably means they'll have to do less, and what they do get done will get done less well. You might also see them making strategic decisions about what they do and don't get done. To put it another way, if the Republicans are going to force the executive branch to cut back its activities, the executive branch may focus the cutbacks in sectors the Republicans rather like. Nevertheless, this is bad news for the health-care bill and the financial-regulation bill. There's been a tendency to assume that the universe of options for passed legislation was binary: Either they went forward, or they get repealed. But with an angrily divided government, we may find ourselves in that little-known middle category: The Republicans can't repeal them and the Democrats can't fully fund them, and so rather than simply going forward, they limp forward."
The NY Times reports that the Obama administration is proposing a new rule on raising health insurance premiums: "The Obama administration said on Tuesday that it would require health insurance companies to disclose and justify any increases of 10 percent or more in the premiums they charge next year. State or federal officials will review the increases to determine if they are unreasonable, the administration said in proposing regulations to enforce the requirement. Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of Health and Human Services, said the review of premiums would 'help rein in the kind of excessive and unreasonable rate increases that have made insurance unaffordable for so many families.'"
Making Sense of the Census
Census figures could launch redistricting wars, says NPR: "The figures out Tuesday from the Census Bureau are just the first batch of numbers to come from the 2010 count. More detailed information about race and neighborhood populations isn't due out for another few months. That's the data state lawmakers will use to redraw their congressional districts. And that redistricting process is sure to cause partisan battles."
NYT reports that Census results suggest power in Congress will tilt South and West: "The Census Bureau rearranged the country's political map on Tuesday, giving more Congressional seats to the South and the West, and taking away from the Northeast and the Midwest, in largely anticipated changes that will have far reaching implications for political life cycles over the next decade. Bureau officials declared that the United States population had grown to 308,745,538 over the last decade, an increase of about 9.7 percent, close to what the bureau had estimated but the slowest rate of growth since 1940. It was the first result from the 2010 census conducted this year, a finding that will be used to reapportion seats in Congress, based on new state population counts, and, in turn, the Electoral College."
The Census shows Hispanics flourishing in the U.S.: "The U.S. Hispanic minority is rapidly expanding across the country from its traditional base around the Mexican border region and will nearly triple to about 130 million by mid-century, census data shows. ...Latinos are leading the transformation of the United States, where ethnic and racial minorities are expected to become the majority by 2050, according to U.S. Census Bureau projections. By then, nearly one in three U.S. residents will be Latino, the Census Bureau projects. There are more than 45 million Hispanics in the United States, double the number 20 years ago, according to the American Community Survey that drew on five-year estimates from 2005 to 2009. Its data was made available in advance of the 2010 Decennial Census released on Tuesday. While long a presence in areas like California, Arizona and Texas, Latinos are increasingly moving to across the country to work. In Georgia and North Carolina, for example, their share of the population has grown by nearly 50 percent since 2000."
Texas picks up 4 House seats thanks to Census results: "Texas will pick up four more congressional seats, expanding the state's U.S. House delegation to 36 seats and further boosting Texas political clout in the nation's Capitol. Texas had the biggest increase of any state as the Census Bureau announced new congressional apportionment based on population shifts over the past decade. The Lone Star State, which has grown faster than the nation as a whole, had been expected to get either three or four new seats. The Texas Legislature will determine the location of the new districts when it redraws district boundary lines."
Washington state will get its 10th House seat, due to Census results: "Washington will not only be picking up a new 10th congressional district, but its share of federal funding should increase as the U.S. Census Bureau reported Tuesday that the state has been one of the fastest growing in the country over the past 10 years. The new congressional seat will give the state added clout on Capitol Hill. Only 11 other states will have more members in the House. Officially, the state now has a population of 6,753,369 ó up 14.1 percent, or more than 830,000 people, over the past 10 years. Not only is Washington the fastest growing state on the West Coast, numerically it was the eighth fastest growing state in the nation and percentage-wise the 13th fastest growing. Washington also grew faster than the national average of 9.7 percent."
New Census data shows Democrats must focus on immigration: "...[T]he demographics aren't all positive for the GOP, and if the Democrats pay attention to issues such as immigration reform, long-term trends could end up boosting the Democrats. Latinos are the fastest-growing minority group in the country, and they are changing the political complexion of states like Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and Nevada--all states that went from being fairly reliably Republican to swing states, and which may, in the next decade or two, become reliably Democratic. Even Texas may come into play for the wounded Democrats in future elections. Hispanics are still a gettable voting group for the GOP; former President George W. Bush was making genuine inroads among Latinos. But Sen. John McCain lost ground among Hispanics in the 2008 race, quite likely because he abandoned the commitment to immigration reform he had once embraced. To stem systemic losses in the future, Democrats cannot make that same mistake."
Republicans should keep the corks in the champagne over the Census results, writes Robert Scheer: "Before they pop the Champagne corks, Republican strategists need only remember one of the chief take-aways from the midterm elections: Latinos saved the Senate for Democrats. Latinos in Nevada, California, Colorado and Washington provided the winning margin for Democratic Senate candidates -- both on the strength of their heavily-Democratic performance and in increased turnout as a percentage of the electorate. Of course Barack Obama's victory in 2008 rested heavily on solid support among African Americans and Latinos -- especially in states like California, Colorado, Florida, North Carolina, Nevada and Virginia. But the Latino part of that equation is even more important today, since Republicans have been driven by their Tea Party base to oppose immigration reform and to infuriate Latinos with their proposals to repeal the 14th Amendment and Arizona's 'papers please' law."
The Census data may favor Republicans, writes Slate's Christopher Beam, but long-term demographic trends favor Democrats: "The census data released yesterday counted people, but it didn't say anything about who they are. The figures show that the populations of traditionally Republican states like Texas, Georgia, Arizona, and Utah are growing, while those of Democratic states like New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey are shrinking. The growing states therefore get more congressional districts—Texas gains four seats in the House, for example—while the shrinking states lose them. What the data doesn't tell you—yet—is the demographic makeup of these shifting populations: their race, ethnicity, age, education level, and income. The Census Bureau will roll out that data in February and March, according to a spokesman. Until then, we won't know whether the United States is becoming more Democratic or more Republican. But trends over the last decade or so suggest the country is becoming bluer. When we talk about population growth in the United States, we're almost invariably talking about a group that votes Democratic."
Who does the Census help? Not who you might necessarily think, says Ezra Klein: "In the short term, this is very good for Republicans. But is that true in the long term? A lot of these changes are driven by Hispanic immigrants. Texas gets more seats now, but the way it's getting those seats bring us closer to the day when Texas becomes a viable target for Democrats. Same goes for Arizona -- and that's a state where Hispanics are getting increasingly radicalized against the GOP. As Larry Littlefield pithily puts it, 'It seems that most of the growth is in Blue portions of Red states.'"
Dream a Little DREAM Act
Against long odds, Obama is promising to push for immigration reform in 2011: "President Barack Obama told Congressional Hispanic Caucus members Tuesday that he'll renew his push for comprehensive immigration reform in 2011 ó even though such an effort would face even longer odds in a Congress where Republicans control the House. Obama made the pledge after the defeat last weekend of a more narrowly tailored reform measure, which cleared the Democratic House by a slim margin but failed in the Senate on Saturday."
Politico reports that Sen. John Tester has drawn progressives' ire for his DREAM Act vote: "After embracing him in his 2006 upset win over GOP Sen. Conrad Burns, progressives turned on Montana Sen. Jon Tester in response to his vote against the DREAM Act on Saturday, complicating his prospects for reelection next year. The first-term Democratic senator's decision to oppose legislation that would have provided a pathway to citizenship for children who came to the country illegally instantly roiled the liberal base. ...In a brief two-line statement, Tester called the DREAM Act 'amnesty' and his office framed the vote as adhering to the will of his constituents. 'As someone who comes home every weekend, he votes based on what's right for Montana, not on outside pressure from one side of any issue,' explained spokesman Aaron Murphy."
Kos notes that Tester doesn't want to tout his DREAM Act vote in his latest email: "Notice anything missing? I find it curious that Tester refuses to tout his DREAM Act vote. Perhaps he realizes that taking a baseball bat to innocent kids who want to serve their country or go to college may not be something to brag about? Perhaps that should be the rule -- don't vote a certain way unless you'd be proud to include it in your next fundraising blast. And on that front, Tester's DREAM vote failed miserably."
New START or Non-Starter?
President Obama has secured the GOP votes to pass his U.S.-Russia nuclear treaty: "President Barack Obama locked up enough Republican votes Tuesday to ratify a new arms control treaty with Russia that would cap nuclear warheads for both former Cold War foes and restart on-site weapons inspections. Eleven Senate Republicans joined Democrats in a 67-28 proxy vote to wind up the debate and hold a final tally on Wednesday. They broke ranks with the Senate's top two Republicans and were poised to give Obama a win on his top foreign policy priority. 'We are on the brink of writing the next chapter in the 40-year history of wrestling with the threat of nuclear weapons,' Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry, D-Mass., said after the vote."
Fred Kaplan, at Slate, says that Republicans picked a silly fight on the new START, and lost badly: "The Senate seems on its way to ratifying the New START on nuclear arms, an achievement that looked unlikely to say the least just a few weeks ago. If a Republican were president, the accord would have excited no controversy and at most a handful of diehard nays. As even most of its critics conceded, the treaty's text contains nothing objectionable in substance. There were two kinds of opponents in this debate. The first had concerns that President Barack Obama would use the treaty as an excuse to ease up on missile defense and the programs to maintain the nuclear arsenal. In recent weeks, Obama and his team did as much to allay these concerns as any hawk could have hoped—and more than many doves preferred. So that left the second kind of opponent: those who simply wanted to deny Obama any kind of victory. The latter motive was clearly dominant in this debate."
A new report from a congressional watchdog agency says the START missile system may cost a lot, and not work anyway: "The missile defense system that President Barack Obama plans to deploy in Europe starting next year may not function properly and could face significant cost overruns, a nonpartisan congressional watchdog agency warned Tuesday. The report raises questions about legislation that would strengthen the U.S. commitment to the deployment plan that the White House was negotiating in return for Republican votes it needed for Senate approval of a new U.S.-Russia nuclear arms reduction treaty. According to the Government Accountability Office, Obama has committed the Defense Department 'to a schedule that could be challenging to meet, based on the technical progress of missile defense element development and testing programs.'"
Comeback Kid, Part Deux?
NPR asks whether President Obama's recent legislative victories have changed his standing with voters: "President Obama has racked up major legislative victories in just a few weeks. His string of successes extends from passage of the most significant tax legislation this decade to the repeal of 'don't ask, don't tell' and now, it appears, the ratification of a new arms pact, the New START. And during a lame-duck session of Congress, no less, when traditionally nothing meaningful is done. Polls show that as many people still disapprove of the job Obama is doing (48 percent) as approve of it, but that still represents an improvement for the president, for whom November's midterm 'shellacking' represented a low point. But polls also show people are more confident that Obama is leading the nation in the right direction and that he has regained ground among the all-important swing voters. Pundits say the president's compromises with Republicans have sparked a midterm comeback for him, a la President Clinton in 1995."
Washington Whispers has ten reasons why Obama should be re-elected: "Despite his political troubles and poor approval ratings, President Obama continues to be an odds-on favorite to win re-election less than two years before the 2012 election. But should he be re-elected? We put that question to our Whispers insiders who seemed to struggle with an answer. Democrats say he has to be given time to complete his agenda. Republicans joked that a second term would make George W. Bush look like FDR or Reagan by comparison. In the end we pulled the 10 best reasons for why Obama should be re-elected."
President Obama's approval ratings are up .... among Republicans, says Taegan Goddard: "A new Gallup poll shows President Obama's approval rating holding steady at 46%. Key findings: 'Liberal Democrats' approval of Obama remained subdued, averaging 80% in the past week, similar to the 79% in the previous week and below the 88% found just prior to the midterm elections... In contrast, Obama's approval rating among moderate/liberal Republicans (including independents who lean Republican) has increased in December, rising from 20% to 29% in just the past two weeks. This is his highest level of support from moderate/liberal Republicans since May.'"
Don't call it a comeback, warns Ari Berman at HuffPo: "Time for a reality check: Obama's presidency didn't end after the midterm election and it hasn't been revived during the lame duck session of Congress. Polls currently show a mixed bag of news for Obama. After dropping precipitously in 2009, his numbers have held steady for much of 2010. According to the latest Gallup poll, 46 percent of Americans approve of the job he's doing as president, while 45 percent disapprove. He's facing a divided country and a weak field of prospective 2012 GOP challengers, with the possible exception of Mitt Romney, who'll spend the next year trying to convince Tea Party activists how 'Romneycare' is different from 'Obamacare.' Good luck with that, Mitt. Yet other numerical indicators don't paint a rosy picture for the president. No president since FDR has run for re-election or been re-elected when the unemployment rate was over 8 percent. Nearly six in ten Americans believe the country is headed in the wrong direction, according to the latest Marist poll. Obama's approval ratings among liberal Democrats--his strongest and most reliable constituency--fell below 80 percent for the first time last week, after the tax deal was announced. He's losing his base but failing to bring independents back into the fold."
Never mind President Obama's comeback. Roger Bybee has a three-point plan to save Democrats: "If the Democrats are to regain power, they must first wage an elemental battle over their party’s fundamental identity and strategy. ...The remarkable plummet in public enthusiasm for the Democrats over the past two years indicates that the party of Roosevelt desperately needs a progressive transformation. It needs to re-connect with the people most victimized by the increasing inequality that is coming to define our country. But this will only happen if three things occur: 1. The Democratic Party must clearly represent the interests of working families and the poor... 2. Strong grassroots movements must force President Obama to rediscover his progressive side... 3. Democratic politicians must recognize 'free trade' for what it is: economic poison for the country, and political poison for the party. "
Breakfast Sides
MSNBC reports that President Obama will sign the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," ending the military ban on gays and lesbians serving openly, and delivering on a campaign promise: "Fulfilling a campaign pledge, cheering his party's downcast liberals and striking a blow for what he sees as basic human rights, President Barack Obama is set to sign a landmark law Wednesday that tells America's armed services to let homosexuals serve openly for the first time. So many gay rights and Democratic activists were expected at the signing ceremony that the White House booked a large auditorium at the Interior Department. ...While the elation is real, Pentagon officials caution it could be premature, since the bill requires service chiefs to complete implementation plans before lifting the old policy — and certify to lawmakers that it won't damage combat readiness, as critics charge. Also, guidelines must be finalized that cover a host of practical questions, from how to educate troops to how sexual orientation should be handled in making barracks assignments. While officials have avoided timetables, the process will probably take months. Still, for gay and lesbian Americans, Wednesday is a watershed. And for Obama, it is a day to revel in the achievement of a goal he's long championed. It is also the second of three expected victories in what's turned out to be — for Obama — a surprisingly productive lame-duck Congress. Weeks after his self-described "shellacking" in the midterm vote, he's won lopsided approval of a tax cut compromise, and the Senate is poised to deliver his top foreign policy goal: ratification of a new nuclear arms treaty with Russia."
After hitting a constitutional snag, the House has passed the food safety bill again, and sent it to the president's desk: "A major food safety bill that passed the House and Senate earlier this year before stalling because of a procedural problem won final approval Tuesday and now goes to President Barack Obama to be signed into law. The bill, designed to increase government inspections of the food supply in the wake of recent deadly foodborne disease outbreaks, originally passed with wide support in both chambers after originating in the Senate. However, it needed approval again because it violated a constitutional requirement that bills that raise revenue be initiated in the House. The Senate passed its version of the Food Safety Modernization Act on Sunday, and the House voted 215-144 for final approval on Tuesday in one of the final sessions of the lame-duck Congress. The bill, which represents the most sweeping overhaul of the food safety system since 1938, allows for greater governmental regulation of the U.S. food system -- currently in the national spotlight for numerous egg and produce recalls."
NY Attorney General Andrew Cuomo is suing Ernst & Young for Leman fraud: "The big accounting firm Ernst & Young helped Wall Street investment bank Lehman Brothers fraudulently conceal its deteriorating financial condition before its collapse in September 2008, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo charged on Tuesday. ...In his lawsuit, Cuomo said the fraud lasted for seven years before Lehman's bankruptcy. It centers on a type of transaction called "Repo 105," approved in audits by Ernst & Young. That allowed Lehman to transfer assets to European banks in exchange for cash, which was used to reduce the bank's leverage - or how much it had borrowed. Investors, analysts and regulators often view excessively high leverage as a warning sign for a company's financial condition. The problem with these transactions, according to the lawsuit, was that they were designed simply to reduce how much debt Lehman appeared to have just before it released its quarterly financial report to the public - so-called window dressing used to conceal the firm's risk level."
Texas may be home to Big Oil, but Reuters reports the Lone Star state is taking a shine to solar energy: "Texas has long been home to Big Oil companies that specialize in extracting petroleum from hard-to-reach places. Now the hip college town of Austin is vying to become the epicenter of a potentially giant market for carbon-free electricity generated by the hot Texas sun. The rest of Texas may follow, if the state legislature passes incentives that will change the economics of buying panels from hippie cool to low-price hot. Big U.S. solar companies like SunPower Corp., born in California's Silicon Valley and nurtured on that state's renewable-friendly incentives, are looking to Texas as the new frontier for U.S. solar deployment. Texas, the second most populous state behind California, is the hub of the U.S. energy sector. Traditional oil companies like Exxon Mobil and ConocoPhillips call it home, but it also claims the mantle as the top U.S. producer of wind power."
