No Spending Cuts On Debt Limit Hike
Republicans try to figure out how to surrender on debt limit. W. Post: "Facing a timeline that leaves no room for trial and error, some party leaders were advocating a debt-ceiling solution that would wrap several popular, must-pass items around a provision to extend the federal government’s borrowing authority beyond the November midterm elections. That approach has drawn support from some surprising quarters, but several senior GOP advisers made it clear over the weekend that such a proposal would require a bloc of Democratic votes, because about 30 Republicans oppose raising the debt ceiling under any circumstances ... Once the chamber closes Wednesday, the House will not return for a full workday until Feb. 26, which is one day beforeTreasury Secretary Jack Lew has said he will lose his ability to juggle the nation’s finances."
Deficit hawks "in the backseat" says The Hill: "House Republicans who used to talk about the trillions in spending cuts they would enact are now struggling to come up with even a token fiscal reform to attach to legislation raising Washington’s debt limit ... Tax reform, to simplify the code, raise revenue and lower some rates, appeared to die last week ... With near-term deficits shrinking — they are forecast to rise in the long term — both parties are talking more about economic fairness than about fiscal prudence; the buzz is about inequality, ObamaCare and immigration ..."
But W. Post's EJ Dionne fears "We are all Austrians now": "To a remarkable degree, our politics are haunted by the principles of Austrian economics and their sweeping hostility to any actions by government to keep downturns from becoming catastrophes or to promote greater economic fairness ... Too many conservatives are operating on the basis of theories that history and practice have discredited. And liberals have been more reluctant than they should be to call the ideological right on this, partly because they never fully got over the shell shock of the Reagan years and also because they have a strange aversion to arguing about theory."
Schumer Floats New Immigration Compromise
Sen. Chuck Schumer seeks to take away excuses for GOP to kill immigration reform. Politico: "The Gang of Eight leader’s plan: Pass a law this year, but don’t allow it to actually start taking place until 2017 — when President Barack Obama leaves office. That’s meant to target the heart of House GOP resistance to taking up immigration measures this year — that they simply don’t trust Obama to implement the law .... Ali Noorani, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, said lawmakers should not reject Schumer’s proposal outright, noting that it would take a minimum of a year to 18 months to write regulations and do other procedural steps to prepare for implementation of new immigration laws."
TNR's Jonathan Cohn explores if it can work: "Will Schumer's proposal change the debate? Boehner spokesman Michael Steel was quick to dimiss it, calling the proposal 'entirely impractical' because it 'would totally eliminate the president’s incentive to enforce immigration law for the remainder of his term.' But it's always best not take such declarations at face value. Presumably Boehner is trying simultaneously to reassure nervous conservatives that he won't cut a bad deal, to give Republicans more leverage should more serious negotiations begin, and to create a handy excuse in case legislation simply proves impossible to achieve."
Corporations Angle For More Tax Cuts
NY Gov Andrew Cuomo proposes corporate tax cut. NYT: "Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo is pushing for New York to rewrite how the state taxes the banking industry, hoping to discourage financial services companies from migrating to other states. But his plan, which includes a tax cut for all corporations, not just banks, is prompting distress among some labor leaders and liberal activists, who are already smarting over Mr. Cuomo’s refusal to support an income tax increase on wealthy residents in New York City that is being sought by Mayor Bill de Blasio."
Infrastructure banks should not be funded by corporate tax breaks, writes EPI's Thomas L. Hungerford: "In mid-January, Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) introduced the Partnership to Build America Act of 2014 ... similar to a bill introduced in the House ... The worst part of the bills is how the initial funding is acquired—by providing expensive tax breaks for multinational corporations that contribute to its start-up financing. Specifically, the bills would reward multinationals that contribute to the bank’s financing by allowing them to repatriate earnings held overseas tax-free (a 'repatriation tax holiday,' in budget jargon) ... The cost to the government of acquiring the initial $50 billion for the bank would be between about $70 billion and $100 billion in increased deficits and more debt. A direct appropriation of $50 billion would save the government a substantial amount of money—money that could be put to better use than subsidizing multinational corporations to do something they would eventually do anyway."
But "corporate backing is helping Obamacare go mainstream" reports McClatchy: "Although many companies remain wary of associating with the health law while it remains a political lightning rod, the Affordable Care Act is increasingly entering the mainstream as major corporations, sports teams and others integrate it into their business ... State leaders running their own marketplaces have actively sought partnerships with sports teams and other businesses whose customers may be more likely to need health insurance ... Some major corporations such as Jackson Hewitt see sound business reasons to educate their customers. They are also giving a potential lift to the health law."
Front group for the restaurant lobby aims to stifle minimum wage hike. NYT: "The Employment Policies Institute, founded two decades ago, is led by the advertising and public relations executive Richard B. Berman, who has made millions of dollars in Washington by taking up the causes of corporate America. He has repeatedly created official-sounding nonprofit groups like the Center for Consumer Freedom that have challenged limits like the ban on indoor smoking and the push to restrict calorie counts in fast foods ... The sign at the entrance is for Berman and Company, as the Employment Policies Institute has no employees of its own. Mr. Berman’s for-profit advertising firm, instead, 'bills' the nonprofit institute for the services his employees provide to the institute. This arrangement effectively means that the nonprofit is a moneymaking venture for Mr. Berman..."
