Each morning, Bill Scher and Terrance Heath serve up what progressives need to effect change on the kitchen-table issues families face: jobs, health care, green energy, financial reform, affordable education and retirement security.
MORNING MESSAGE: The Slash, Crush and Topple Act
OurFuture.org's Isaiah Poole: "The House GOP ;Cut, Cap and Balance' bill would cut federal spending by $111 billion in fiscal year 2012, with none of those cuts coming out of defense and security spending. The legislation would then go on to require total spending to be reduced from about 24 percent of gross domestic product today to 18 percent of GDP by 2021 ... The $111 billion in cuts ... would do direct harm to economic growth ... The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that this alone would lower by 700,000 the number of jobs created and cut economic growth by nearly three-quarters of 1 percent ... It would not only require the kind of dismantling of Medicare that Ryan envisioned ... but would make cuts in Social Security benefits and an increase in the retirement age inevitable. That's true of Social Security because the one significant action Congress could take to make the Social Security trust fund solvent for at least the next 75 years—lift the payroll tax cap—would be virtually off limits."
House Votes On Radical Plan To Slash Budget Today
"Debt talks on three tracks" reports USA Today: "The Republican-led House of Representatives plans to vote today on a 'Cut, Cap and Balance' plan featuring deep spending cuts and a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution ... The Democratic-led Senate is pursuing a bipartisan fallback plan to raise the $14.3 trillion debt limit in three installments and throw responsibility for deficit reduction to a new panel of lawmakers whose recommendations would require up-or-down votes in Congress ... The White House is holding out for a deficit-reduction package now..."
President pledges to veto House GOP plan if necessary. W. Post: "The White House said the bill would set up an 'unacceptable choice' between a disastrous failure to lift the nation’s borrowing limit or passing a balanced budget amendment that would require draconian spending cuts in Medicare, Social Security and other federal programs. 'This is a measure designed to . . . duck responsibility, dodge obligations and dismantle, eventually, if signed into law, our social safety net,' White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters at his daily briefing."
As bipartisan Senate plan gains momentum, conservatives slam McConnell. The Hill: "The fallback option, which would give Obama nearly unilateral authority to raise the debt limit, continued to gain momentum Monday as Sen. Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), an influential member of the Senate Democratic Conference, endorsed it ... Conservative opposition to the McConnell-Reid plan intensified on Monday as a coalition of activist groups, including some affiliated with the Tea Party, sent a scathing letter to Capitol Hill bashing it."
Package of spending cuts expected to be attached to the bipartisan Senate plan. NYT: "Officials knowledgeable about the talks say that the Senate leaders are also negotiating a package of spending cuts that would be attached to the McConnell plan, though perhaps not until it reaches the House. That package would reduce discretionary federal spending by $1.1 trillion over 10 years, take about $200 billion out of programs like federal pensions and agricultural subsidies and save another $200 billion in interest payments."
Huge jump in support of raising debt limit in CBS poll. NYT: "The number of Americans who say the debt ceiling should be raised has increased from 24 percent last month to 46 percent this month ... Two-thirds of all Americans want an agreement to contain both spending cuts and tax increases, including majorities across party lines, and most would prefer that lawmakers reach an agreement, even if it’s one respondents do not fully support, rather than have the United States default."
NYT's David Brooks slams fellow conservatives for snubbing major deal heavily weighted towards spending cuts and retirement security reductions: "...let us pause to identify the people who decided not to seize the chance to usher in the largest cut in the size of government in American history ... American conservatism now has a rich network of Washington interest groups adept at arousing elderly donors and attracting rich lobbying contracts [such as] Grover Norquist ... The talk-radio jocks are not in the business of promoting conservative governance. They are in the business of building an audience by stroking the pleasure centers of their listeners ... A series of compromises that steadily advance conservative aims would muddy their story lines and be death to their ratings."
CBPP's Chad Stone makes "The Crumbling Case for Cutting Spending to Stimulate the Economy": "The first new study is from the International Monetary Fund. In its 2010 World Economic Outlook, the IMF put the kibosh on the idea that deficit reduction would boost economic growth in the short run. IMF researchers have now presented a revised and extended version of the analysis, which reinforces the IMF’s earlier conclusion. The second new study, by Roberto Perotti [finds] these international examples have little in common with current U.S. budget and economic conditions. What makes the Perotti study so significant is that he has been one of the leading researchers cited by advocates of sharp, immediate cuts in government spending. Perotti conducted detailed case studies of the four largest multi-year deficit-reduction efforts that researchers have commonly regarded as spending-based. He found that they were actually much smaller, and much less tilted toward spending cuts, than previous studies had assumed."
Bankers Attack CFPB Nominee Cordray
Bankers attack nomination of Robert Cordray to head CFPB. LAT: "'He was a crusading state attorney general who went after financial firms,' said Jaret Seiberg, a financial services policy analyst for MF Global, a major derivatives broker. 'The industry has good reason to be suspicious.' ... The U.S. Chamber of Commerce said it had 'deep concerns' about how Cordray would use the agency's powers ... One financial industry executive, who requested anonymity because the consumer agency will be regulating the industry, said Cordray was not any different ideologically from Warren."
"Congressman Who Harassed Elizabeth Warren Showered With Donations From Banks And Predatory Lenders" reports ThinkProgress' Lee Fang.
Wall St. reform working, so conservatives are trying to stop it. NYT: "...banking profits have grown and institutions that invest on behalf of average Americans are praising the tougher stance in Washington ... But there remain signs that the tightened regulatory measures could still be undone, creating uncertainty about whether the actions that have helped to stabilize Wall Street will be in place when the next crisis hits. Two dozen bills in Congress seek to dismantle parts of the Dodd-Frank Act ..."
Legally dubious "robo-signing" of mortgage deals still happening. AP: "Mortgage industry employees are still signing documents they haven't read and using fake signatures more than eight months after big banks and mortgage companies promised to stop the illegal practices that led to a nationwide halt of home foreclosures. County officials in at least three states say they have received thousands of mortgage documents with questionable signatures since last fall, suggesting that the practices, known collectively as 'robo-signing,' remain widespread in the industry."
Corporations Fight Plan For Fair Secret Ballot Union Elections
Corporate forces complain to NLRB about proposed rules for fair union elections. W. Post: "Employer representatives told the labor board that streamlining the election process would deprive employers, especially small businesses not versed in labor law, of the chance to consult with lawyers and communicate with their workers prior to a vote ... Union representatives countered that employers have ample opportunity to communicate with their workers and noted that the purpose of the 1935 National Labor Relations Act was to give workers a voice with their bosses, not vice versa ... the board will take comments until late August."
UT-Austin labor law prof Julius Getman praises NLRB proposal in LAT oped: "In a six-year study of union representation campaigns that I conducted with Northwestern University's Stephen B. Goldberg and Jeanne Brett, we found that employees were far more familiar with company arguments against unionization than with arguments in favor of unionization. And this difference was based primarily on the fact that almost all employees (83%) attended one or more company meetings during unionization campaigns, but only a fraction (36%) attended union meetings ... The new rules the board is proposing will improve the balance between employer and union representatives, while staying within the limits imposed by the Supreme Court."
NLRB getting "feisty" says Politico: "'This administration has made a wholesale attack on employers to the benefit of organized labor,' said Rick Manning, communications director with Americans for Limited Government, a conservative advocacy group. The apocalyptic language from the right is the rule rather than the exception ... But to labor, largely marginalized during eight years of the Bush era, the NLRB under Obama is simply doing its job: policing corporations for unfair labor practices and leveling the playing field for American wage earners. The GOP and its well-heeled corporate benefactors, unions argue, are overreacting to an inevitable leftward recalibration under a Democrat after a long business-friendly run — including more than two years of operating without a quorum or the ability to act on complaints."
