MORNING MESSAGE: 14 Reasons To Repeal The Sequester
OurFuture.org's Richard Eskow: "It’s been four years since Wall Street ruined the economy, we’re nearly nine million jobs behind where we need to be, and for years our politicians have debated how much less – not how much more – they’ll do about it. Now we’re about to be hit with another round of devastating spending cuts, thanks to the so-called 'sequester.' Today, let’s rise up and demand action from Congress on our real problems once and for all. Click here to take action."
25 Days Til Sequester
No sign of common ground to avoid sequester. Politico: "But once again, rather than working together on a deal, House Republicans and Senate Democrats are on divergent paths ... It’s Obama’s responsibility to replace the spending reductions, GOP leadership staff says. Don’t expect any more legislation from the House. They’ve passed legislation to stop the cuts, they say. On the other side of the Capitol, Senate Democrats will push for revenue increases to help blunt the sequester — including closing corporate tax loopholes, they say ... But the politics for the GOP is complicated. Defense hawks are sure to hammer leadership for not softening its rhetoric and policy stance. And conservatives are salivating for spending cuts — something the sequester offers."
President insists on more revenue in next budget deal, during CBS Super Bowl interview. NYT: "'Can we close some loopholes and deductions that folks who are well connected and have a lot of accountants and lawyers can take advantage of so they end up paying lower rates than a bus driver or a cop?' Mr. Obama said in the 10-minute interview in the White House. 'If you combine those things together,' Mr. Obama said, a budget deal could reduce the deficit 'without raising rates again.' ... Republicans, having acquiesced to the tax increase in the year-end budget deal, are now insisting that further deficit reduction must come through spending cuts."
Bipartisan House Immigration Bill Expected Soon
Bipartisan House group close to immigration compromise, but unknown if it will include path to citizenship. The Hill: "That group, sources say, is trying to release a draft bill directly before or after President Obama’s State of the Union address on Feb. 12. Releasing an actual legislative text would put the House group out in front of the coalition of eight Republicans and Democrats in the Senate ..."
Reid expresses confidence Senate will pass immigration bill on ABC's This Week.
Sen. Lindsey Graham yet to suffer conservative backlash for pushing immigration reform. Politico: "What’s happening in South Carolina mirrors what’s happened among conservative thought leaders nationally. Television host Sean Hannity, columnist Charles Krauthammer and others have announced changes in heart on immigration reform since the election."
Congress May Revisit Too-Big-To-Fail
New push to limit size of banks. Bloomberg: "[Sen. Sherrod] Brown and fellow Banking Committee member David Vitter, a Louisiana Republican, are considering legislation that would impose capital levels on the largest banks higher than those agreed to by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision and the Financial Stability Board, which set global standards. Brown also plans to reintroduce a bill he failed to get included in Dodd-Frank or passed in the last Congress that would cap bank size and limit non-deposit liabilities ... Still, lawmakers are nowhere near consensus on what approach to take -- whether raising capital standards, limiting the size of institutions or curbing subsidies."
BofA's shady actions may unravel settlement. NYT: "...according to new documents filed in state Supreme Court in Manhattan late on Friday, questionable practices by the bank’s loan servicing unit have continued well after the Countrywide acquisition; they paint a picture of a bank that continued to put its own interests ahead of investors as it modified troubled mortgages ... The filing raises new questions about whether a judge will approve the settlement. If it is denied, the bank would face steeper legal obligations."
NYT's Paul Krugman explains why Republicans are determined to block a full-term for CFPB head Richard Cordray: "Mr. Cordray, whose work has drawn praise even from the bankers, is clearly not the issue. Instead, it’s an open attempt to use raw obstructionism to overturn the law. What Republicans are demanding, basically, is that the protection bureau lose its independence. They want its actions subjected to a veto by other, bank-centered financial regulators, ensuring that consumers will once again be neglected, and they also want to take away its guaranteed funding, opening it to interest-group pressure. These changes would make the agency more or less worthless — but that, of course, is the point."
