Progressive Breakfast: Boxer Stares Down GOP

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

GOP Boycotts Today's Climate Bill Mark-up. No One Cares.

Sen. Boxer to proceed with climate bill markup today despite Republican delay tactics, after offering procedural concessions. Climate: [1] "Boxer still plans to begin the markup at 9 a.m. with opening statements. But she agreed to suspend the markup at 2 p.m. for an open-door meeting with U.S. EPA officials to answer committee members' questions about the economic modeling of the legislation ... Republicans, who ignored yesterday deadline for filing amendments, also now have until 5 p.m. today to submit any suggested changes to the bill ... [GOP Sen. George] Voinovich declined to say whether he would attend the question-and-answer session ... But Voinovich did say he had no plans to back down on the boycott until he gets a more complete assessment of the climate bill from EPA..."

CQ notes an in-depth analysis will take weeks, and other studies are already completed. [2] "EPA officials said they would need another four or five weeks to produce a more in-depth analysis — which Republicans say is a necessity before they attend a markup. But waiting would put Boxer under pressure from the White House. President Obama wants the Senate bill to show movement before a U.N. climate change summit in Copenhagen begins Dec. 7. Democrats say there have been ample studies of the legislation. The EPA, Congressional Budget Office and Energy Information Administration conducted in-depth studies of the House legislation that Boxer says largely apply to the Senate bill, which she describes as '90 percent the same.' ... Inhofe said one Republican will attend Tuesday’s session to keep an eye on things, but he declined to name that senator. He said committee rules require the presence of two members of the minority to constitute a quorum."

Kerry and Graham to meet with top White House climate officials. ClimateWire: [1] "Kerry and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) are scheduled to meet tomorrow with several top Obama administration officials on the climate bill, including White House energy and climate adviser Carol Browner, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and Energy Secretary Steven Chu. 'We have to get back some of the things we've been requesting from them, which will help to be able to determine what's real in terms of options and negotiations and so forth,' Kerry said. Asked what materials he is waiting for, Kerry replied, 'Ah ha! You'll have to see.'"

Carbon market consulting firm concludes oil industry cost under cap-and-trade is manageable, picture mixed for power companies. WSJ's Environmental Capital: [3] "Oil companies are mightily exposed to the legislation—but the final bill will be just a drop in the bucket compared to their huge sales. Exxon, for instance, accounts for 6.5% of all the U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions covered by the Senate bill. The oil giant’s initial 'carbon bill' would be about $5.9 billion. But it can get almost all that back through slightly higher prices at the gas pump, leaving its net carbon bill at $277 million. Chevron and ConocoPhillips face similar, if smaller, bills. The picture for power companies is a bit different—the final bill is a bigger portion of their smaller sales and profits. Utilities with lots of coal will be hit hardest, Point Carbon notes. That means Duke (a net carbon bill of $129 million), Southern Company ($393 million), and American Electric Power ($252 million). Other power companies would actually come out ahead—those that have lots of renewable energy or low-emissions nuclear power plants. That group includes Exelon (net carbon gain of $1.7 billion), FirstEnergy ($494 million) and Edison ($279 million)."

Chairwoman of next month's Copenhagen meeting maintains hope for international agreement: [4] "I know it's difficult, and I know the time constraint. But I also know from conversations with many American friends that a lot can be achieved in a few weeks, provided that the health care bill is dealt with in the not-too-distant future. They must find out how to avoid coming empty-handed to Copenhagen ... The momentum is so big that something will come out of Copenhagen. The involvement from ministers is as strong as ever, and they will expect their negotiators to be able to come up with a text that marks clear political choices."

Copenhagen pre-game negotiations in Barcelona yet to make progress. Treehugger: [5] "...initial reports aren't exactly encouraging: An IEA official says negotiators aren't ready to solve any of the problems on the table; while pressure builds on the United States to actually commit to a meaningful 2020 emission reductions target ... Yvo de Boer, head of the UN Climate Change Secretariat: 'We need a clear target from the United States in Copenhagen. That is an essential component of the puzzle.'"

de Boer told Barcelona negotiators time is running out: [6] "On Monday he reminded negotiators in Barcelona that there were only five days left to narrow down options and come up with working texts before they regrouped in December."

Health Care Grinds On

House floor action won't begin this week. CQ: [7] "Differences among House Democrats over issues related to abortion and immigration have forced Democratic leaders to delay floor action on health care legislation until the end of the week as they attempt to satisfy moderate members of their caucus. A manager’s amendment that is expected to include compromise language on both issues will not be ready until Tuesday at the earliest, Democratic leadership aides said Monday. Because Democrats have agreed to allow House members — and the public — to see the amendment 72 hours before debate begins, floor action likely will not begin until Nov. 6, the aides said."

Politico speculates health care may not finally pass until 2010: [8] "The House could take up reform on the floor as early as this week, with a good shot at passing something by Veterans Day. But in the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid is still wrangling with his moderate members to corral 60 votes just to get the debate started. And on Monday, Reid sent a letter to Republicans acknowledging that he is waiting on the Congressional Budget Office’s cost estimates and analysis to finish drafting a bill. Democrats signaled that those estimates would not be ready this week, casting further doubt on their ability to finish reform this year."

The Hill reports House "centrists" are gradually coming around: [9] "'We’re not there yet, but we’re in a better spot than we were a week before the climate change vote,' said a Democratic leadership aide..."

Beltway view is Lieberman won't filibuster. The Hill: [10] "Reid’s staff has told anxious liberals that Lieberman has given the Democratic leader assurances that he will not wreck the reform bill because of Reid’s decision to include the public option, according to two sources briefed on the issue. As a result, well-connected liberals inside the Beltway who are in touch with Reid’s office have taken a more optimistic view of Lieberman’s position, while activists and bloggers outside the loop have seethed over his statements from last week."

Ezra Klein flags Jon Gruber analysis that House bill will reduce premiums: [11] "...the CBO projected that, absent reform, the cost of an individual policy in the nongroup market would be $6,000 for a plan with an actuarial value of 60 percent. This implies that the same plan that cost $6,000 without reform would cost $4,540 with reform, or almost 25 percent less ... This conclusion is consistent with evidence from Massachusetts ... the results have been an enormous reduction in the cost of nongroup insurance in the state: The average individual premium in the state fell from $8,537 at the end of 2006 to $5,143 in mid-2009, a 40 percent reduction, while the rest of the nation was seeing a 14 percent increase."

House Dems argue their bill will reduce premiums. NYT: [12] "As the House moved toward climactic votes on legislation to remake the health care system, the Congressional Budget Office said Monday that middle-income families might be required to pay 15 percent to 18 percent of their income on insurance premiums and co-payments under the proposal. Democrats cited the figures as evidence that the legislation would reduce premiums for many low- and middle-income families who currently lack affordable coverage."

Senate analysis challenges where private insurance revenue goes. NYT [13]: "The health insurance industry likes to cite figures showing that 87 cents of every dollar in premiums is spent on medical claims. But a new Senate analysis suggests that for-profit insurance companies are spending much less than that, especially for policies sold to individuals and small businesses. Instead, as little as 66 cents of each dollar paid in premiums goes toward doctor and hospital bills, while the rest covers administrative expenses, marketing and company profits..."

Republican plan won't even ban discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions: [14] "Republicans plan to offer a measure much narrower in scope and more modest in its goals. GOP leaders are unable to say yet how much their bill would cost or how many Americans would gain health insurance under their plan, but Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said Monday that his party's bill was sent to the Congressional Budget Office for scoring ... Boehner said Monday that the measure would not include language banning insurance companies from denying coverage to consumers with preexisting conditions..."

Nebraska poll shows support for public option, despite Sen. Nelson's opposition: [15] reports HuffPost.

Economic Breakfast Sides

Bloomberg speculates Congress may stop Fed from endings its intervention in the housing market: [16] "Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke is gambling that come March, he can stop the purchases of mortgage-backed securities that have propped up the U.S. housing market. Congress may have other ideas ... Bernanke ... is counting on private investors to fill the void left by the Fed when its purchases end. If he’s wrong, he may come under pressure from politicians to maintain support for housing or even extend credit programs for small businesses and consumers. That would threaten the Fed’s ability to conduct an independent monetary policy."

HuffPost's Shahien Nasiripour reports WH Chief of Staff Emanuel backs Rep. Maloney amendment to weaken financial reform: [17] "White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel has been telling Democratic members of the House Financial Services Committee that he supports amending the Investor Protection Act of 2009 -- a bill designed to beef up protection for investors -- in order to exempt small businesses from a requirement in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act that mandates audits of internal controls ... Emanuel is said to support an amendment proposed by Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) that would exempt firms with a market capitalization of less than $75 million from the reporting requirement."

Politico reports on pushback against House too-big-to-fail bill: [18] "...House Financial Services Committee chair Barney Frank may postpone today's scheduled committee consideration of systemic risk legislation and instead call for further hearings ... postponement would come following 'significant' concerns from Dems on the committee over how the bill is structured. The main dispute centers on who would pay -- and when -- if the federal government is forced to dismantle a giant bank whose collapse would threaten the financial system. The White House and Frank initially preferred language that would place the cost on the failing company's competitors but would give the competitors 60 months from the time of the wind-down to pay back the government, sticking tax-payers with the bill for five years. Some Democrats and other opponents of the White House/Frank plan would rather assess fees on banks with $10 billion or more in assets. The fees would go into a fund to be used to wind down failing firms if necessary. Banks are not thrilled with the idea of paying into this fund ... Frank yesterday indicated he would be willing to push an amendment that would require firms to pre-pay. Treasury Secretary Geithner has warned that such a fund would create moral hazard, encouraging excessive risk-taking on the part of banks who know they have such a fund to rely on."

Senate reform bill may come next week. CQ: [19] "Dodd, D-Conn., and his aides have confirmed several major tenets of the pending proposal, including many that break from ideas put forth by the Obama administration and House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank, D-Mass. Most notably, Dodd has said his proposal will include a consolidation of federal banking regulators, an idea that has been panned as politically untenable by Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner and Frank."

Fed discussed exec pay with top bankers. NYT: [20] "In 20-minute sessions, Fed officials told bankers that they might need to fundamentally reform their pay practices as the agency moved forward with a comprehensive review of 28 large financial institutions. Fed officials imposed a Feb. 1 deadline for them to submit a written plan of any changes, but urged them to begin the overhaul now as they considered bonuses for 2009 ... Some analysts questioned whether the meetings — and the Fed’s newfound focus on pay — were largely a public relations exercise ... "