Progressive Breakfast: Senate Jobs Plan ... Too Timid?

Each morning, Bill Scher and Terrance Heath serve up what progressives need to affect change on the kitchen-table issues families face: jobs, health care, green energy, financial reform, affordable education and retirement security.

Senate Jobs Package Coming Tomorrow

Senate jobs package to be unveiled tomorrow, in piecemeal form. W. Post: "Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) confirmed that Democrats planned to move forward with a jobs package that would include small business tax credits, a one-year reauthorization of the highway trust fund, money for Build America Bonds and some form of tax credit for employers who add new jobs ... Senate Democrats, who had been contemplating an initial bill with a cost of roughly $80 billion, now plan to move legislation in much smaller pieces but have yet to arrive at a price tag for the first bill ... The House passed a $154 billion jobs bill ... but with ballooning budget deficits much in the news, Senate Democrats are wary of moving anything that large."

Schumer-Hatch payroll tax credit to be included. NYT: "Senate Democratic leaders have to decided to include a proposal to waive the 6.2 percent Social Security payroll tax for any private-sector employer that hires a worker who had been unemployed for at least 60 days, Senate aides said ... Aides said that the proposal was projected to cost $10 billion over 10 years. It was not immediately clear how many new hires were expected to result."

Republican leaders attack Obama small biz lending plan. The Hill: "House and Senate Republicans lashed out at the proposal as a measure to recycle money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) ... 'It’s not for a piggy bank,' Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) told Peter Orszag..."

W. Post's Harold Meyerson warns jobs approach to small to meet huge gap: "...these may be programs that Republicans oppose at some peril -- forcing them to choose between the interests of their small-business backers and their opposition to all things Obama. Economically, however, their effect isn't likely to be great ... [Rep. George] Miller is looking at [public sector job] proposals, but it would probably take a mass movement of labor, community groups and whatever is left of Obama's scattered legions all demanding jobs and economic equity for such a bill to garner even a chance of passage."

Dodd Criticizes WH For Late Push On Tough Bank Reform

Senate Banking Chair publicly bristles at pressure from Obama on high-risk trading by banks, embraces Sen. Reed alternative. AP: "Dodd complained that the timing of Obama's proposal 'seemed to many to be transparently political.' 'It's added to the problems of trying to get a bill done,' Dodd said .... Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., suggested an alternative to [Paul] Volcker's proposal: prohibiting institutions which have commercial banking that amounts to less than 75 percent of their entire financial activities from having access to government protections. [Dep. Treas. Sec. Neal] Wolin said any legislation would have to be wary of removing the government safety net from any institution that conducts commercial banking. But Dodd said he liked the simplicity of Reed's plan."

CNNMoney.com sees Volcker proposal not clearing Banking Cmte. " The fate of President Obama's latest proposal to rein in banks was thrown into doubt on Tuesday after it got a chilly reception from key lawmakers ... If the Volcker rule can't get through the Senate banking panel, it's probably short lived."

OurFuture.org's Isaiah Poole sees split on the committee: "Today's hearing displayed a committee split between Republicans resisting anything that goes beyond window dressing (with the possible exception of Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., playing the role of the cantankerous populist on the committee) and Democrats whose questioning for the most part offered little in the way of forceful defenses of Volcker and the administration's proposals."

Volcker warns Senators of consequences of weak reform. Politico quotes: "...if banking institutions are protected by the taxpayer and they are given free rein to speculate, I may not live long enough to see the crisis, but my soul is going to come back and haunt you."

New Deal 2.0's Mike Konczal dissects Luntz memo on how to kill reform: "We ... need to come up with solutions that don’t simply say 'trust the regulators.' We need to convince people why the financial reforms we are proposing can’t be gamed by captured and/or asleep-at-the-wheel regulators."

HuffPost's Les Leopold has a populist litmus test for the upcoming Tea Party conference: "Do they have the nerve to defend the average taxpayer from Wall Street's rapaciousness? Are they going to demand a windfall tax on these outrageous bonuses? Or are they going to oppose all taxes and let Wall Street waltz off with the loot?"

Bailed Out Institutions Still Paying Big Bonuses

AIG planning $100M in bonuses. NYT: "The American International Group has agreed to cut employee bonuses by $20 million and will distribute about $100 million on Wednesday ... the reductions may not be enough to appease the company’s critics, who do not accept the company’s argument that it has to honor contracts established before its government bailout ... The last time A.I.G. paid a round of retention bonuses, worth $168 million ... employees agreed to pay back roughly $45 million ... The complaints subsided, but [an October audit found] that only $19 million of the total due back had been received."

Bank of America bonuses total $4.4B. Bloomberg: "...top Bank of America performers in global banking and markets will receive bonuses of about $5 million, while managing directors will get $2.5 million to $3 million ... spokesman Robert Stickler said[,] 'The most important thing is that much more of year-end compensation is now deferred and tied to long-term stock performance and there are clawbacks.'"

Compromise Health Care Bill In The Works

Reconciliation strategy appears to be alive. AP: "Leading lawmakers ... have started writing a compromise bill, but it's unclear when the legislation will be ready for votes ... The measure would change the massive Senate-approved health bill to what bargainers from the White House, Senate and House agreed to last month, Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., said ... Rangel said leaders have to decide whether the health package would begin moving before or after Congress tackles legislation aimed at creating jobs ... The measure Rangel discussed would be a so-called reconciliation bill..."

HCAN's Jason Rosenbaum lists growing number of Senators open to reconciliation strategy from Sen. Sanders to Sen. Nelson.

Speaker Pelosi looks to move end of antitrust exemption as first step. Politico: "The vote is part of her new two-track strategy to tackle things that won’t be included in a more sweeping bill — if Congress ever passes one — while giving her members something politically popular to vote on. The move also puts pressure on Republicans, the industry and wavering Democrats, who wish their leaders would abandon the push altogether."

Progressive Caucus chair angling to put public option back in health care bill. The Hill: "Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), the co-chairman of the caucus of House liberals, said he will be meeting with House and Senate members on reviving the provision ... The public option had been scrapped by Senate leaders out of a concern that centrist Democrats would not support a bill containing the public insurance plan, but it's unclear how many would vote to support a bill under reconciliation establishing the government-run plan."

WH contrasting its budget with Rep. Paul Ryan's conservative alternative that guts Medicare. The Hill: "White House Budget Director Peter Orszag on Tuesday argued Ryan’s plan to cut the deficit through reforms to Medicare would raise healthcare costs for families and individuals." Ryan defends approach to Ezra Klein as "rationing": "Rationing happens today! The question is who will do it?"

Newsweek's Jessie Senga finds failure on health care reform may cost Democrats the support of young (and uninsured) voters: "...there are probably more Yankees fans in Massachusetts than there are young people who voted in the Massachusetts Senate special election ... Just 15 percent of eligible voters under age 30 participated. The numbers were similarly dismal during two other Republican electoral victories from last fall ... if Democrats don't pass health-care reform, youth turnout may plummet."

Booman Tribune questions if Sen. Lincoln's poll numbers would still be tanking if she backed public option: "She tried to be 'moderate' or 'centrist' by seeking in a very public way to water down health care reform. In return, she's won a 9% approval rating among Republicans and a 17% approval rating among Independents. We don't know what those numbers would look like in the alternative universe where she was supportive of a public option, but they couldn't be much worse ... Just 51% of Democrats approve of the job she's doing, and that is why she has no chance of winning reelection."

Obama Signals Senate May "Separate" Cap-and-Trade From Energy Bill

Reuters reports Obama opens door to narrower Senate bill at NH town hall. Quotes the President: "The most controversial aspects of the energy debate that we've been having: the House passed an energy bill and people complained that, 'Well, there's this cap-and-trade thing,' ... We may be able to separate these things out. And it's conceivable that that's where the Senate ends up."

TPMDC adds: "The remarks represent the first time the President has acknowledged that the Senate may not be willing to adopt a cap and trade system ... Obama's tacit acceptance of the move ... appears to make that result only more likely--and will likely raise the ire of environmentalists..."

Mother Jones' Kate Sheppard laments lack of fight: "... Obama didn't endorse the idea of an energy-only bill. But he also didn't he use the opportunity to make a clear, full-throated affirmation of why the cap is a crucial part of a bill."

Change.org's Mike Gaworecki looks to the EPA: "... If cap-and-trade is all but dead on the Senate floor, and the environmental movement has yet to produce an alternative behind which to unite, it’s a damn good thing the Obama Administration is factoring money for EPA regulation of greenhouse gas emissions into its budget."

Reuters notes Senate climate bill talks still proceeding: "Democratic Senator John Kerry, the leader of the group, told reporters 'a lot of progress' was being made. But he added that there still is no deal on the mechanism for reducing carbon dioxide emissions. 'It is accurate that we are still working on precisely what carbon-pricing mechanism, what shape it will take,' Kerry said, adding, 'We know we need to price carbon.' A Senate aide close to the negotiations told Reuters that the goal was to get a bill ready for floor debate by April, after the Environmental Protection Agency conducts an economic analysis of whatever compromise is produced ... Asked when the senators might be able to unveil a compromise bill, Lieberman said, 'Probably not before March.' ... Kerry, Graham and other senators have talked of the possibility of a 'hybrid' system ... that imposes cap and trade on coal-fired power plants, coupled with 'some sort of cap and dividend or emissions fee for other industrial sources' of carbon pollution. Cap and dividend refers to a system that would reduce industry's carbon emissions and compensate consumers for potentially higher energy prices. But it would not create a market for trading pollution permits like cap and trade does."

Draft bill has expanded nuclear provisions. The Hill: "Climate change legislation being written by a Senate climate trio includes additional loan guarantees, tax breaks and a streamlined regulatory approval process to boost the nuclear energy industry."

Sen. Lindsey Graham worried putting energy in jobs bill will undercut support for comprehensive climate bill. Politico quotes: "'If you take some of the green stuff out, some of the goodies, and put it in the jobs bill, you’re hurting the idea of having an energy package that would attract support.' ... A draft of legislation circulated on Capitol Hill last week included $12.5 billion for jobs that 'improve energy efficiency,' including retrofits for residential, commercial and affordable housing properties — and for manufacturing plants."

WSJ on what an alternative energy bill could be: "One possibility for Senate Democrats is to push forward with a bill already approved by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources that would require electric utilities nationwide to generate 15% of their electricity supplies through renewable resources, with some portion met by energy efficiency measures, by 2021."

Consensus elusive on Cape Wind. NYT: "[Interior Sec.] Salazar has set a March 1 deadline for the tribes and the project’s developer, Energy Management, to reach a compromise on the plan. But the interior secretary said Tuesday that he was 'not holding my breath on consensus,' suggesting that he expects he will have to determine the fate of the 130-turbine wind farm by April on his own."

Deficit Fever

WH and Sen. Kent Conrad disagree over long-term budget coal. CQ: "The chairman singled out the administration’s goal of dropping the deficit to 3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in fiscal 2015. White House Budget Director Peter R. Orszag argued at the hearing that this goal could be achieved by balancing the budget, with the exception of interest on the national debt — an idea dubbed 'primary balance.' ... 'Put me down as a skeptic,' Conrad responded."

Sen. Conrad offering support for short-term deficits. The Hill: "Conrad warned against 'premature deficit reduction,' arguing that it was 'critically important' to use deficit spending to help spur a weak economy."

TNR's Jonathan Chait reminds Obama's budget reduces the deficit from its projected levels: "Most of the commentary castigating Obama for the deficit is an attempt to imply, usually without quite saying so, that Obama's policies have caused the red ink ... What [such commentary] fails to say is what will happen to federal borrowing if Obama's budget is not adopted."

Politico chronicles the hypocrisy from fiscal "squawks": "Politically, they need to espouse fiscal restraint while simultaneously fighting cuts that could threaten home-state interests and the jobs they provide ... Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) ... takes exception to Obama’s plan to trim the deficit by raising taxes on corporations, calling it the 'coward’s way out.' ... Coal-state lawmakers are furious with the Obama administration’s decision to target the coal industry ..."

Reuters retracts story falsely saying WH plans to end middle-class tax cut: "The story was taken down Monday night, but still led the conservative Drudge Report at 11:30 a.m. Tuesday. Later, the website added that it had been pulled."

Digby diagnosis the source and symptoms of "Deficit Fever": "Suddenly, you can't turn around without getting a panicked lectureabout the deficit. But in all the discussions about the horrifying, worse-than-terrorism, scarier-than-nuclear-war threat to everything we hold near and dear, nobody ever seems to discuss the fact that much of the deficit is due to unemployment."

Matt Yglesias offers a second opinion on deficit fever: "Roughly speaking, people got it into their heads over the years that "deficits" are "bad" (which is usually true, but also pretty simplistic) and then the economic situation became very bad, so people have decided that large deficits must be the problem. This is a misunderstanding ... [But people] are upset, and they say they want a smaller deficit. So Obama's proposing to give it to them, and seems to have no intention of doing anything about its own forecast of a years-long bleak economic situation."

Marshall Auerback, writing at HuffPo, notes that the president isn't immune to the fever: "Give Obama credit. He packs a veritable trifecta of innocent, but deadly, frauds into one sentence: government debt is bad, markets determine interest rates, and deficits represent a form of 'intergenerational theft.' Then, he adds several new ones to boot. Unfortunately, he's got it backward. The deficits he decries actually help to sustain demand and create jobs, thereby supporting the economy — not destroying it."

Bipartisan Outreach: Ingenuous Or Futile?

NYT reports WH looking to step up engagement with GOP: "...the White House is intensifying its push to engage Congressional Republicans in policy negotiations as a way to share the burden of governing and put more scrutiny on Republican initiatives. Top aides say Mr. Obama intends to follow through quickly on his State of the Union proposal for bipartisan White House brainstorming sessions ... The White House’s goal is to show voters that Mr. Obama is willing to engage Republicans rather than govern in a partisan manner while forcing Republicans to make substantive compromises or be portrayed as obstructionist..."

HuffPost's Cenk Uygur warns bipartisanship in practice will only favor corporations: "Whenever there is a bipartisan agreement in Congress from now on, look to see who benefits from it — I guarantee you that ninety-nine out of one hundred times it will be corporate America."

The Atlantic's James Fallows shares a note "from some with many decades' experience in national politics" on why bipartisanship can't work: "Bipartisanship in the American sense means compromising on legislation so that a sufficient number of members of Congress from BOTH parties will support it ... It can't happen if the minority party members vote as a block against major legislation."

Disturbing picture of the conservative base from new Research 2000 poll commissioned by DailyKos: "...these results explain why it is impossible for elected Republicans to work with Democrats to improve our country. Their base are conspiracy mongers who don't believe Obama was born in the United States, that he is the second coming of Lenin, and that he is racist against white people. They already want to impeach him..."

Ezra Klein finds what the conservative base believes is more alarming than amusing: "There are a lot of hypotheses for why these numbers don't say what they seem to say ... But we'd all better hope it's a pretty good explanation, because these are the folks who choose the general election candidates for one of the country's two major parties. And it's hard to see this group of people rewarding compromise with Barack Obama."

Views expressed on this page are those of the authors and not necessarily those of Campaign for America's Future or Institute for America's Future