China Climate Deal Reverberates
China climate deal could set stage for global agreement. NYT: "The agreement has given a fresh jolt of optimism to negotiations aimed at reaching a new international climate treaty next year in Paris, where the American and Chinese targets are expected to be the heart of the deal ... But experts and negotiators cautioned that the emissions reductions targets now put forth by the two countries will not be enough to prevent an increase in global atmospheric temperature of 2 degrees Celsius ... As a result, architects of the Paris agreement are adjusting their expectations that it will resemble a collection of targets pledged by individual countries, along with commitments from each government to follow through with domestic action."
Climate issues looms large for 2016. NYT: "For Republicans, the issue of climate change, like immigration and same-sex marriage, is one that potential candidates and their advisers are starting to grapple with as they try to carve a path to the presidency ... some Republican strategists worry that the position on climate change that could help win them their party's nomination could hurt them in a general election, particularly in a contest with a larger number of young and minority voters."
While Keystone Builds Momentum
Embattled Sen. Mary Landrieu gets Keystone vote next week. The Hill: "Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) requested unanimous consent Wednesday night to proceed on a vote that green lights the oil sands project in a last ditch effort to boost her reelection bid. Landrieu's request and agreement to a modification by Senate Minority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) sets the chamber up for a vote on the pipeline as early as Tuesday."
WH could still veto. Politico: "The White House stopped short of a veto threat against the bill, but spokesman Josh Earnest gave it a chilly welcome ... 'The administration has taken a dim view of these kinds of legislative proposals in the past. It's fair to say that our dim view of these kinds of proposals has not changed," Earnest told reporters ... And Obama's opinion won't even matter unless Landrieu can find 60 pro-Keystone votes in the Senate, where pipeline backers have counted only 57 backers for months. That count appeared to rise to 58 on Wednesday, when Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) agreed to back the bill."
Federal Workers To Strike Today
"Federal contract workers in D.C. plan one-day strike" reports McClatchy: "The food service workers at the Capitol and Pentagon will be joined by workers at the National Air and Space Museum and the National Zoo as well as Union Station, a major Washington train station. The protest is aimed at President Barack Obama, designed to press him for an executive order ... protesters want a $15 per hour wage as well as the ability to collectively organize."
"The right economic message can get the Democrats back on track" argues W. Post's Harold Meyerson: "The Democrats' mission ... is to advance policies that make the economy fairer without, for now at least, expanding government. One way to do that would be to reduce taxes on the middle class and the poor. Cutting the payroll tax would be a good place to start, offsetting the shortfall by instituting taxes on investment income that would go, like payroll taxes, to supporting Social Security and Medicare. Another option is to advance the cause of paid family and medical leave. Corporate tax reform offers still another avenue. How about reducing taxes on corporations that pass along the nation's annual productivity increase to their employees through wage hikes, while raising taxes on corporations that don't?..."
Senate Dems may create leadership position for Sen. Warren. Politico: "...Reid, is engaged in private talks with the Massachusetts freshman to create a special leadership post ... It's unclear exactly what the new job would entail but luring the populist liberal into leadership could inject fresh blood into a team reeling from significant midterm election losses."
Immigration Action May Come Soon
Fox News reports Obama will issue immigration executive action next week: "President Obama is planning to unveil a 10-part plan for overhauling U.S. immigration policy via executive action -- including suspending deportations for millions -- as early as next Friday ... The plan calls for expanding deferred action for illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children -- but also for the parents of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents. The latter could allow upwards of 4.5 million illegal immigrant adults with U.S.-born children to stay..."
Nothing firm, says WH. The Hill: "'The President has not made a decision regarding the specific measures he will take to fix our broken immigration system,' a White House spokesperson said in a statement. 'In fact, he has not yet received final recommendations from the Department of Homeland Security. As the President has said previously, he is committed to taking action before the end of the year.'"
Conservative Justices On Weak Ground In Obamacare Case
Justice Scalia should uphold Obamacare's subsidies, argues W. Post's E. J. Dionne: "In their dissent from the 2012 decision upholding the law, Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito read the law exactly as its supporters do ... Textual interpretation, Scalia insisted, should be 'holistic' and 'contextual,' not 'wooden' or 'literal.' Courts, he said, should adopt the interpretation of a law that 'does least violence to the text,' declaring that 'there can be no justification for needlessly rendering provisions in conflict if they can be interpreted harmoniously.' If Scalia wants to be true to his own principles, can he possibly side with a convoluted reading of the law that apparently never occurred to him before?"
NYT's Linda Greenhouse sees SCOTUS move as worse than Bush v. Gore: "That's not the case here. There was no urgency. There was no crisis of governance, not even a potential one. There is, rather, a politically manufactured argument over how to interpret several sections of the Affordable Care Act ... Further, the case the court agreed to decide, King v. Burwell, doesn't fit the normal criterion for Supreme Court review. There is no conflict among the federal appellate circuits. (Remember that just a month ago, the absence of a circuit conflict led the justices to decline to hear seven same-sex marriage cases?) ... This is a naked power grab by conservative justices ... An intriguing question is whether there was a fifth vote as well, from the chief justice. I have no idea..."
