Campaign for America's Future News

The daily Progressive Breakfast serves up what progressive movement members need to know to start their day

Senate Bill And CBO Estimate Today (Really, Maybe, We Think)

Reid to show bill to fellow Senators at 5 PM ET. Politico: “Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will present the health care reform bill to Democratic senators at a special caucus meeting scheduled for 5 p.m. Wednesday, his spokesman said Tuesday night. Notice of the meeting went out to Democratic Senate offices Tuesday night, signaling the long wait for the merged bill is about to end.”

Ezra Klein gets a morning scoop: “According to sources in the leadership’s office, Harry Reid has the CBO’s estimate of the merged Senate bill in hand and is ‘very pleased’ with the numbers. The rest of the world should get a look at it sometime today.”

It needs 60. Senate Dems reject simple majority vote using budget rules. CQ: “Senate Democrats have abandoned plans to use a fast-track parliamentary strategy to avert a threatened Republican filibuster and pass a health care overhaul — a signal that they are considering major policy concessions to moderates. The most significant of these could be restructuring or dropping altogether [the] public option … One possible fallback is a proposal by Thomas R. Carper, D-Del., to create a government-sanctioned insurance plan that would be available only in states deemed to lack affordable private insurance plans.”

Swampland’s Jay Newton-Small details Carper’s trigger compromise: “The day the exchange is created states would have to meet an affordability test. Those that fail would be forced to compete with a non-profit co-op, based off of Senator Kent Conrad’s original idea. The co-op board would be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. There would be an angel investment footed by the taxpayers to be eventually repaid and reserves set to protect against taxpayer bailouts. That said, the details of the plan are still sketchy: such as what defines the affordability trigger (TBD ‘by people smarter than me,’ Carper said), how much will be needed in seed money, whether the Department of Health and Human Services should be involved and if states could eventually leave the co-op if they met certain qualifications. But, Carper argued, the plan is stronger than his previous suggestion – where states could elect to opt-in to a national government-run public plan. ‘Opt-in suggests it’s voluntarily but with the hammer approach those states would have to opt-in on day one,’ he said.”

FDL’s Jon Walker lambastes Carper: “it seems Carper has completely reinvented (cribbed? copied?) Snowe’s trigger proposal, and must be hoping no one notices … These two trigger proposals are essentially identical—and identically worthless.”

NYT notes that Sens. Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln and Mary Landrieu won’t commit to preventing filibuster. Bloomberg notes Sen. Ron Wyden may hold out if there’s no public option.

Rep. Stupak threatens to sink bill if his anti-abortion amendment is stripped out.

W. Post speculates on Reid’s tax provisions: “To scale back a plan to tax high-cost insurance policies, an idea that is highly unpopular among labor unions, Reid is expected to propose an increase in the Medicare payroll tax for families earning more than $250,000 a year. The provision would be expected to generate about $50 billion over the next 10 years. The extra revenue would allow Reid to reduce the number of people who would be hit by a new 40 percent tax on the most expensive insurance policies.”

Varying Assessments As Obama Leaves China

McClatchy analysis laments no new results on currency impasse: “…Chinese and American leaders diplomatically disagreed over China’s policy of fixing the value of its currency against the dollar … To critics back home, it all sounded like pronouncements made during the George W. Bush and Clinton administrations. Trade groups that feel harmed by China’s fixed-exchange rate wanted action. Instead, they got reassurance that China eventually will let markets set the yuan’s value.”

Grist’s Jake Schmidt sees positives on climate front: ” These were subtle, but important changes in the Chinese position that has occurred over the last year. Having President Obama talking about global warming with China on such frequency and at such a high-level has definitely helped with this shift … they did stress that [any intermediate Copenhagen] agreement could be more than just a mere piece of paper that has no meaning … Both countries will take mitigation commitments and “stand behind them” … Both countries actions to reduce emissions will be fully transparent.”

W. Post’s Harold Meyerson hold free-traders accountable for China predictions 10 years ago: “…after U.S. Trade Representative Charlene Barshevsky reached an agreement with her Chinese counterpart 10 years ago this week on normalizing trade relations, an intense debate took place in Congress and in the nation. U.S. business leaders, members of the Clinton administration, a majority of congressional Republicans and a minority of congressional Democrats all argued that the deal was a win for the American people … [But the] China that has emerged since trade relations were normalized has become not just an economic giant but the planet’s leading protectionist power … Our economic elites wanted the higher profits that came with cheaper Chinese labor. They prevailed, and today we are floundering to clean up their mess.”

Congress Putting Together Jobs Bill

CQ reports House working to iron out differences quickly: “Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer said Tuesday that Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., asked committee chairmen to submit ideas for a bill that could pass the House by its target adjournment date of Dec. 18 … But there are significant differences of opinion among House Democrats, particularly on how to pay for any job-creation package. And Senate Democrats, who have their own ideas for addressing the issue, will probably be occupied with a health care overhaul the rest of the year.”

Jobs v. Deficit, Congress v. White House? The Hill on debate over TARP funds: “Congressional Democrats want struggling workers and homeowners to receive money from the $700 billion Wall Street bailout. That conflicts with the Obama administration’s idea of dedicating some of the money toward reducing the deficit … ‘Main Street’s most immediate concern is not deficits; it’s the economy and jobs,’ [Rep. Pete] DeFazio said.”

Progressive press WH on jobs. TPMDC: “Progressive groups representing millions of workers and minorities across the country assembled today to send a message to President Obama and Congress — it’s time to do more to create new jobs. The AFL-CIO, the NAACP and the National Council Of La Raza held a joint event today on what the groups called the ‘worst crisis in America today’ — unemployment. Leaders of each group called on Washington to put other priorities aside and immediately begin pumping billions into job creation programs the groups say will target the worst-hit in the economic downturn.”

Financial transaction tax considered by House to pay for jobs bill. The Hill: “The idea is attractive because it’s very small, likely 0.25 percent of each trade. And since Wall Street is perceived by many as having caused the economic slump, brokers have little political standing to try to stop it.
It also has the support of the nation’s largest labor union … Small- and medium-sized investors would hardly notice a transaction tax, but major trading firms may see it as a significant threat to their profits.”

W. Post defends WH on hiccups in stimulus stats: “It is exceedingly difficult for even the most conscientious government agency or contractor to calculate the jobs impact of a stimulus grant or contract. How can one know for sure whether a job would have been lost in the absence of stimulus money? If money helped cover someone’s paycheck for only a few weeks or months, how should that be counted? If money has been allocated but will not be spent for several months, should its jobs impact be tallied now or later? A close examination of the stimulus reports suggests plenty of instances in which the number of created jobs is being understated, as some recipients of multiple millions of dollars report that they have yet to save or create a single job.”

Victory In Texas Wind Farm Dispute

USA Today reports wind power companies seeking stimulus funds will build US turbine plant: “Companies planning a controversial wind farm in Texas that would seek millions in federal stimulus funds said Tuesday that they’d build a U.S. plant to make wind turbines and employ 1,000 people. The news follows criticism that the farm planned to use Chinese-made turbines and that too many federal stimulus dollars have gone to foreign-owned wind firms. The companies didn’t say when the plant – to be one of the biggest in the U.S. for wind turbines – would be built or whether it would supply turbines to the Texas farm … [Sen. Chuck] Schumer raised opposition to the wind grants earlier this month after the West Texas farm was announced and the Investigative Reporting Workshop at American University reported on the heavy flow of stimulus dollars to foreign wind firms. U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu, in a letter to Schumer dated Friday, defended the awards. He said the companies that supplied turbines to the funded farms had U.S. plants and that the farms are in the U.S., creating local installation jobs and tax revenue. He cited industry statistics that 53% of the value of turbine parts installed under the program were American-made.”

“Cash For Caulkers” Building Momentum

NYT’s David Leonhardt reports WH seriously considering “cash for caulkers” expansion of green stimulus for home weatherization: “The housing bust has idled contractors and construction workers, who could be put to work insulating homes and caulking air leaks. Many households, meanwhile, would save substantial money — not to mention help the climate — by weatherizing their homes, research by McKinsey & Company has shown. All in all, a cash-for-caulkers program seems like a promising part of the jobs program for 2010 that Mr. Obama has suggested he is planning. But I would also mention one point of caution: the details of any caulkers plan will matter enormously. Weatherizing a home, as I recently discovered, turns out to be a lot more complicated than buying a car … Imagine, though, if the Energy Department put together a weatherization-for-dummies fact sheet and Mr. Obama began promoting it.”

Calculated Risk praises: “There are many unemployed construction workers – so this would help with unemployment (a real jobs bill) – and weatherization would save the homeowners money over time.”

Get Energy Smart Now intrigued, awaits details: “How much cash should go upfront? What percentages? What sort of controls over the program? How long to run this?

Senate Jockeying Around Climate Bill

Sen. Reid hopeful climate bill can pass in spring. Climate Progress: “The good news is that Reid sees this bill as part of the economic stimulus and jobs package the administration is putting together, which should increase the motivation to pass it.”

The Hill reports coal-state Sen. Jay Rockefeller wants to push back into summer, if not farther “[Rockefeller] said climate legislation should not reach the floor before July of next year, putting the controversial bill on the schedule only months before Election Day … This, however, may be a bid to push climate change legislation into 2011 … Boxer noted, however, that Baucus told her he would mark up a climate change bill in the Finance Committee in January. The move suggests Baucus may be trying to lay down his legislative marker in the debate before it leaves him behind … At the moment, Reid appears to be siding with Boxer on timing.”

The Vine’s Brad Plumer question’s Baucus effort to weaken carbon cap: “Currently, the Senate cap-and-trade program aims to cut greenhouse-gas emissions 20 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. Senators like Max Baucus have asked for 14 percent or 17 percent. But here’s a question: Would weakening the near-term targets really make the climate bill any cheaper? … weakening the short-term cap—while keeping the target for 2050 in place—might actually do very little to budge carbon prices. That’s because polluters are allowed to ‘bank’ permits and save them for the future…”

New GOP senator from Florida possible Yes vote. CQ: “[Sen. George] LeMieux worked on environmental issues as an aide to Gov. Charlie Crist, who appointed him to the Senate after fellow Republican Mel Martinez resigned. That background and his statements on environmental issues have led environmental groups to view LeMieux — along with Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Olympia J. Snowe of Maine — as one of the best bets to provide the Republican vote or votes that may be needed to cut off a filibuster of legislation that includes a cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions.”

Sens. Lamar Alexander and Jim Webb introduce nuclear power bill. AFP: “Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) and Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), noting they cannot support the cap-and-trade climate bill now churning through the Senate, said their plan could cost $20 billion over 10 years. It would include $100 billion for carbon-free electricity loan guarantees, expected to chiefly benefit the U.S. nuclear industry.” The Green Grok scoffs: “… this is not a climate mitigation bill. And, if passed, it probably won’t even do much to advance clean energy. History suggests that federal subsidies, by themselves, cannot effectively transform our energy infrastructure … if they’re wrong [on nuclear], not only have they wasted gobs of taxpayer money, they have lost us time, discouraged private investment in other technologies by giving nuclear a competitive edge, and kept at bay a potential unfunded winner … It’s just a wee bit ironic that conservative senators like Webb and Alexander find themselves promoting federal handouts instead of tapping market forces in the case of climate change.”

Attempt To Block Fed Audit Bill

HuffPost’s Ryan Grim reports on new bill to stop Paul-Grayson: “Rep. Mel Watt, a Democrat from North Carolina, has introduced an amendment intended as an alternative to the measure to audit the Federal Reserve introduced by Reps. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and Alan Grayson’s (D-Fla.) . But instead of increasing transparency, as the amendment claims to do, Watt’s measure would instead make the institution more opaque.”