Economic Populism Or What?
The Daily Beast's Michael Tomasky explains what President Obama can learn from Sen. Elizabeth Warren: "Is 2014 going to be the year that Barack Obama tacks—and stays—left? He’s given big economic populism speeches before, but he has tended to raise the subject and then just quietly let it disappear for a few months at a time. ...Liberals are aching to see a Democratic president really tackle these issues in an aggressive way. That desire helps to explain Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s rock-star popularity, along with her plain-spoken charisma, the way she sometimes has of saying in two blunt sentences the things that progressives have been desperate for years to hear a leading politician say. In nearly every other Democratic pol, Obama usually included, there’s a hedging you can hear in the words or voice when he speaks of inequality, a care being taken not to get too far out there and rile up the overclass. Not so with Warren. She lets it rip."
Jared Bernstein charts the evolution of the inequality vs. growth debate: "First, while today’s debate asks whether inequality hurts growth, the oldsters among us remember the time when the received wisdom was pretty much the opposite: you can have strong aggregate growth or you can have equity, but you can’t have both. ... Back in the 1980s and early 90s, OECD (and other) economists argued that the Europe generally had less inequality than we did because their labor (and product) markets were more rigid—much more collective bargaining, higher minimum wages, stricter rules about hiring and firing. But they paid for that with lower growth rates. A rigorous look at those claims found them to be unconvincing—the “flexibility” turned out to be less about growth and more about distribution. Unions, for example, have been found to have little impact on growth but considerable impact on who benefits from said growth."
Demos' Amy Traub explains the problem with employment credit checks, and why we need Sen. Warren's Equal Employment for All Act: "The opportunity to work hard and get ahead is a core value of American society. Yet today in the United States, qualified job seekers are turned away from employment because of their personal credit history. People whose credit is damaged as a result of medical debt, student loans, a layoff, divorce, predatory lending, identity theft, or simple error are shut out of jobs—despite a lack of evidence connecting someone’s credit history with their job performance. Senator Elizabeth Warren’s Equal Employment for All Act would prohibit the use of personal credit history in employment, eliminating a serious barrier to economic security for many Americans."
Budget Deal Update
Budget bill prospects brighten in Senate [CNN]: "A bipartisan budget compromise now appears to have enough support in the Senate to clear a crucial test vote on Tuesday after several conservative Republicans announced their support. While all the votes are not locked in, Senators and aides in both parties said Monday night they expected to break a filibuster and that the budget would pass later this week. Orrin Hatch of Utah, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Johnny Isakson of Georgia joined four other Senate Republicans who had already said they will either support the bill or, at a minimum, vote in favor of critical procedural motions that require a supermajority of 60 votes to prevail. That should happen if most of the 55 members of the Democratic caucus also vote yes, which is likely."
Mother Jones' Erika Eichelberger explains what's happening with the unemployment benefits ending for 1.3 million Americans: "On December 28, 1.3 million people will lose their unemployment insurance. That's because Congress failed to add an extension of those benefits into the budget deal that will likely pass the Senate this week. Here is some background."
Obamacare Marches On
A Drop in Opposition to Obamacare Helps Stabilize a Struggling Presidency [ABC News]: "Public opposition to the new health care law has eased in the past month, enough to help level off Barack Obama’s falling popularity – but not to turn it around. Fifty-five percent of Americans in a new ABC News/Washington Post poll disapprove of the president’s job performance overall, unchanged from last month’s reading as the worst of his career. Forty-three percent approve, a scant percentage point from 42 percent in November. Better for the president is an easing of opposition to the Affordable Care Act, with attitudes back to a close division on the law; 46 percent of Americans support it, with 49 percent opposed. Opposition is down from a record 57 percent last month amid the new system’s troubled rollout."
On health care, White House and others reach out to LGBT Americans [Washington Post]: "As a critical deadline for signing up for insurance under President Obama’s health-care law approaches, the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community has emerged as a major target for the White House and outside groups. A disproportionate number of LGBT Americans are uninsured and qualify for federal premium subsidies to help buy coverage, and the administration is intensifying its efforts to get them enrolled before the end of the year. There are several reasons for this disparity, among them that same-sex partners often don’t qualify as family members for employer-based insurance plans and that individuals sometimes lose coverage when they are fired because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. The White House on Tuesday will release an infographic on the Affordable Care Act’s benefits for the LGBT community."
Immigration’s next hurdle: Obamacare [Politico]: "The flawed rollout of the Affordable Care Act has endangered another of President Barack Obama’s top agenda items: Immigration reform. It’s forcing the White House and its allies to confront a basic, but politically potent, criticism. If the government can’t build a website, how can it be trusted to correctly process millions of undocumented immigrants and require every employer to verify the status of their workers?"
Senate Confirmation Battle Simmers Down
Senate simmers down after two all-nighters, but what was the point? [Christian Science Monitor]: "On Friday, the Senate’s leaders agreed to end the round-the-clock sessions and take up two nominations at a normal hour Monday, then move on to the House budget agreement and the defense bill – though another set of nominations later in the week could again spark drawn-out debate, including over Janet Yellen to head the Federal Reserve. Friday’s cease-fire begs the question: What was the point of this exercise? The issue at hand – changing the rules on the filibuster on most presidential nominees – is not inconsequential, even if a bit inside baseball."
Jeh Johnson Confirmed By Senate As Secretary Of Homeland Security [Huffington Post]: "The U.S. Senate confirmed Jeh Johnson as the next secretary of Homeland Security on Monday. In a 78-16 vote, the Senate approved the former Defense Department general counsel, President Barack Obama's pick for the position. Democrats used their newly initiated lower threshold for defeating filibusters Monday to win Senate confirmation of President Barack Obama's nomination of former top Pentagon lawyer Jeh C. Johnson to be secretary of homeland security. On a 57-37 vote, Democrats broke a GOP blockade against Johnson before the Senate minutes later confirmed him on a 78-16 vote. Until Democrats unilaterally changed the Senate's filibuster threshold on presidential nominations, it would have taken 60 votes to clear Johnson for a final vote."
GOP Civil War Heats Up
GOP Rep. Peter King launches PAC for anti-Tea Party set [MSNBC]: "New York Congressman Peter King, a potential 2016 contender, launched his own Political Action Committee to push back on the tea party. The hawkish Republican unveiled his PAC, American Leadership Now, during a visit Monday to the early primary state of New Hampshire – his fifth visit within the past year. The PAC looks to boost campaigns for middle-of-the-road Republicans, overshadowed in recent months by the fringe sector of the party, who share King’s more moderate vision on domestic policy and tough stances on foreign policy."
Swampland's Alex Roger's reports that the tea party is out to avenge the firing of a conservative staffer: "The Tea Party wants to avenge Paul Teller. Teller was fired last week from his post as executive director of the Republican Study Committee, a congressional group that steers the right-wing agenda, after allegedly leaking private conversations over the course of years to outside political groups. 'This is personal,' says Brent Bozell, a conservative commentator and chairman of For America. 'They are making it personal by attacking people by personally besmirching their integrity. I’m just not going to stand for it. Paul Teller is a good man.' 'What it’s telling the conservative movement is ‘we don’t want to do business with you,’' adds Bozell. 'It’s political suicide.'
Christie's Troubled Bridge Over Jersey Waters
Democrats cross Chris Christie over bridge [Politico]: "Democrats who have spent months agonizing over how to damage Chris Christie’s presidential prospects think they’ve finally found an entry point. It’s on a bridge between New Jersey and New York. The Republican governor, who coasted to a double-digit reelection win in blue New Jersey in November, is being pummeled on a daily basis by local and national Democrats over the bizarre story of sudden lane closures earlier this year onto the George Washington Bridge, which caused massive traffic delays for days on the New Jersey side. Democrats allege the lane closures were retribution against the mayor of Fort Lee, a Democrat who declined to endorse Christie against his underfunded rival in the governor’s race, Democrat Barbara Buono. Lanes in Fort Lee to the bridge were reduced from three to one for four days in September. The closures came ahead of the gubernatorial election at a time when Christie, who received crossover endorsements from a number of Democrats, was looking to maximize his support from the rival party."
Rachel Maddow: Chris Christie ‘rotten and vindictive’ political payback scandal deepens [Raw Story]: "Not only did a high school friend of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) lack both a resume and a job description for work at the center of a political mystery, MSNBC host Rachel Maddow said on Monday, but the man has become a nuisance for people reporting on his suspected activities. 'Something rotten and vindictive and petty has been going on in New Jersey,' Maddow said. Maddow explained that David Wildstein, who resigned on Dec. 6 after being revealed as the person who ordered the suspicious closing of two lanes on the George Washington Bridge in September 2013, was paid more than $150,000 a year to serve as Christie’s 'director of interstate capital projects' at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, a position that had no job description attached."
Breakfast Sides
Paul Ryan wins Iowa poll! What's that mean for 2016? [Christian Science Monitor]: "Iowa Republicans love Paul Ryan, apparently. That’s probably the most surprising finding in the Des Moines Register’s new poll of possible 2016 presidential candidates. Fully 73 percent of self-described GOP respondents to the Iowa survey view Representative Ryan (R) of Wisconsin either very or mostly favorably. That makes the former VP candidate and current House Budget Committee chairman the leading Republican hopeful in the state. Of course, the Iowa caucuses are still three years away, but it’s not too early to start chewing this stuff over, right? Right? Bueller? Bueller?"
Fracking may increase health risks, scientists warn [The Guardian]: "Fracking may increase health risks from hormone-disrupting chemicals released into the environment, say researchers. Scientists sounded the warning after studying water pollution at sites in the US where the controversial natural gas drilling technique is used. The team looked at 12 suspected or known "endocrine disrupting chemicals" (EDCs) used in fracking operations and measured their ability to mimic or block the effects of reproductive hormones. ...Dr Susan Nagel, from the University of Missouri, one of the authors of the study published in the journal Endocrinology, said: 'More than 700 chemicals are used in the fracking process, and many of them disturb hormone function. With fracking on the rise, populations may face greater health risks from increased endocrine-disrupting chemical exposure.'"
