Republicans Struggle With Political Reality On Immigration
Senate Republicans explain to House Republicans they can't stop Obama's immigration executive actions. The Hill: "Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ... told House Republicans not to expect miracles, since it would take 60 Senate votes to send the House bill to Obama’s desk, and McConnell only has 54 Republican votes ... Republican leaders have made clear to Senate and House conservatives that they are not going to let Homeland Security funding lapse if they cannot pass language repealing Obama’s executive orders ... 'Under no circumstances will we see any shutdowns,' [Sen. John Cornyn] said."
House having a hard time accepting reality. Politico: "One option is for the Senate to pass a 'clean' Homeland Security funding bill that lacks the immigration riders. But that won’t fly in the House, said Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), who predicted: 'There won’t be a clean bill. We have to absolutely confront the president ... Sometime, somebody’s got to pass something, right?' But nobody seemed to have many ideas Thursday for a strategy that could draw the needed Democratic support in the Senate while satisfying the demands of House conservatives."
Republicans also back away from Obamacare repeal. The Hill: "In the past, some conservatives objected to any ObamaCare bills that fell short of full repeal ... No more. ... 'I’m guessing that they’ve had this "squirrel finds a nut" moment of reasonableness,' one Senate GOP aide said. The GOP remains far from consensus on how to handle the law, but threats from the party’s far-right members have largely faded as members look to show a GOP Congress can govern ahead of 2016..."
Obama Pledges To "Play Offense"
Obama tells Dems he will "play offense" despite Republican control of Congress. Politico: "...at the Thursday summit in Baltimore, Obama vowed to defend his agenda against Republicans in Congress, promised to stand firm against GOP efforts to dismantle his agenda and called on his Democratic colleagues to help sustain his expected vetoes ... He vowed more executive actions [and promoted] his trade agenda to many Democrats who oppose [it.]"
But Obama may be running out of big executive actions. Politico: "White House officials know there are only so many new options left that can still grab the public’s attention. So they’re eyeing softer goals over the next two years: They’re hoping to find creative new executive actions that aren’t on the radar of most policy experts, and they want to squeeze more impact out of the ones Obama has already launched ... But even Democratic policy experts aren’t convinced there are a lot of 'big bang' ideas left that aren’t already in the pipeline or crossed off the president’s checklist..."
Rep. Paul Ryan backs giving Obama "fast-track" trade authority. Time: "'This is an area we can find common ground with the President, but we need the President to engage,' said Ryan ... 'We need the president to engage on this issue with his own party. We need him to make it a priority in the State of the Union.' ... Still, there is already sniping [on both sides] that the other party could tank the deal before congressional leaders even announce a goal of a timeline of when they would like to pass [it.]"
VP Biden to call for water infrastructure spending. The Hill: "The White House estimates that some $600 billion in infrastructure improvements will be needed to address water management over the next two decades ... the vice president will unveil a proposal for a new type of municipal bond, called Qualified Public Infrastructure Bonds, which will allow public-private infrastructure projects to raise municipal bonds."
Breakfast Sides
"GOP to Give Elizabeth Warren's Consumer Protection Agency the Darrell Issa Treatment" reports Mother Jones: "Now that Republicans control both houses of Congress, they have another weapon at their disposal: new subpoena powers they can deploy to blitz the CFPB with document requests. The goal is obvious: dig out material the GOPers can use to embarrass the agency. And if nothing untoward is discovered, Republican legislators can at least pin down the bureau with onerous paperwork demands."
"Will the FCC’s net neutrality decision cost Americans $15 billion in new taxes? Nope" reports W. Post: "At question is whether the Federal Communications Commission will change the way it regulates the Internet by 'reclassifying' broadband providers as a public utility ... Opponents of the change argue it would cost Americans $15 billion a year ... New taxes are prohibited as long as the Internet Tax Freedom Act is in effect, so it is inaccurate to say there would be $15 billion in new taxes. There may be state charges and fees, but there is no proof that all of the current fees on telephone services would apply again to Internet services. It will not add up to $15 billion, and likely not add up to $11 billion — the worst-case scenario."
