Obama Administration Tough On Auto Execs, But Pledges To Help Workers

President Obama may have come down hard on two of the struggling U.S. carmakers, but his administration is pledging support for hard-hit employees of General Motors and Chrysler.

In a nearly unprecedented move, Obama called for -- and received -- the ouster of GM CEO Rick Wagoner, as well as a variety of other conditions for GM and Chrysler continuing to receive federal assistance.

Obama says General Motors has just two months to come up with a new survival plan, and that Chrysler has only a month to come to a partnership deal with European carmaker Fiat.

The president also held out the possibility of bankruptcy for the automakers to erase "old debts that are weighing them down."

The carmakers have been working with federal officials since December to work to restructure their flagging companies. Sales of new cars have plummeted as the current deep recession has set in.

Even as Obama acknowledged the restructuring of the two once Detroit titans would be "painful," his administration promised to help shield autoworkers from that pain.

"I am committed to revitalizing the American auto industry and helping manufacturing communities create new jobs to rebuild local economies. For hardest hit workers and communities, we will do everything we can to provide relief and paths to re-employment," says Labor Secretary Hilda Solis. "The plan the president laid out today appropriately focuses on protecting the workers and communities feeling the effects of poor decisions made by the corporate leadership of the auto companies. Another goal is to achieve a sustainable auto industry in the U.S. for the future."

The Labor Department is already providing enhanced unemployment benefits to workers who have lost their jobs and additional job training funds to help displaced workers gain new job skills, Solis says. The federal Trade Adjustment Assistance program is available to provide income support, health insurance coverage, training funds and access to wage insurance.

"We will continue to look for ways to help these workers, their families and their communities," Solis says. "I look forward to working closely with President Obama and Director of Recovery for Auto Communities Ed Montgomery to make sure the communities hit hardest by the auto crisis can retool and revitalize their economies."

Watch more breaking news now on our video feed:


Bookmark http://onthehillblog.blogspot.com/ and drop back in for more news from the nation's capital.

Reeve Paralysis Act Signed With Big Lands Bill

A bill to help those afflicted by paralysis and spinal cord damage is now law, having been tucked into a massive lands and conservation bill signed by President Obama.

Title XIV of the omnibus lands bill contains the Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act, named for the late Christopher Reeve and his wife Dana. Best known as Superman, Reeve lived courageously with paralysis following a horse accident.

The Reeve measure was included within the massive Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009. The overall lands bill will protect millions of acres of federal land as wilderness, protect more than 1,000 miles of rivers through the National Wild and Scenic River System, and designate thousands of miles of trails for the National Trails System.

The Reeve part of the legislation, which enjoyed bi-partisan support, will promote collaborative research, rehabilitation and quality of life initiatives for millions of Americans living with paralysis and spinal cord injuries, according to a statement from a foundation that bears the Reeve name.

The legislation was introduced in the Senate by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), who worked closely together with Christopher and Dana Reeve to promote expanded research and quality of life for people living with paralysis, particularly spinal cord injuries prior to the Reeves' deaths. Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) introduced the Reeve bill in the House, along with her colleagues Reps. Mary Bono Mack (R-Calif.), Jim Langevin (D-RI) and Gus Bilirakis (R-Fla.).

The Act has three components that support and enhance paralysis research, rehabilitation, and quality of life programs:

Paralysis Research - Expands research on paralysis at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). This will encourage collaborative research by connecting scientists conducting similar work to further enhance understanding and speed discovery of better treatments and cures.

Paralysis Rehabilitation and Care - Builds on research to enhance daily function for people with paralysis, including a Clinical Trials Network, to measure effectiveness of certain rehabilitation tactics and encouraging shared findings on paralysis to improve rehabilitation.

Improving Quality of Life for Persons with Paralysis and Other Physical Disabilities - Works with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to improve the quality of life and long-term health status of persons with paralysis and other physical disabilities.

Peter Wilderotter, president and CEO of the Reeve Foundation, says, "In less than one month, with swift action, President Obama has twice expedited the promise of hope of medical research for so many. We commend his continuing commitment to improving the lives of millions living with paralysis."

Wilderotter was referring to an earlier decision by Obama to relax restrictions on federally funded stem cell research -- a promising area for paralysis victims.

Wilderotter says, "The Christopher & Dana Reeve Paralysis Act will expedite the search for cures and treatments for millions of Americans living with paralysis caused by spinal cord injury, stroke, MS, Parkinson's and many other diseases and disorders. On behalf of the Reeve Foundation, I would like to express our appreciation of Senator Harkin, who for so many years has devoted his career to others. Senator Harkin has been a wonderful friend to the Reeve family and the Reeve Foundation. People living with paralysis all over this country are celebrating today because of his dedication and commitment to the disability community."

Watch more breaking news now on our video feed:


Bookmark http://onthehillblog.blogspot.com/ and drop back in for more news from the nation's capital.

NEWS ANALYSIS: Why Moderates Should Not Be Feared

With critical votes looming on President Obama's budget proposals, much hysteria has been aimed at moderate Senate Democats who are accused of trying to "water down" or "derail" the president's ambitious agenda.

Most of that anger has been directed in recent weeks at Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana and his group of centrists as having organized to stand in the way of Obama's progressive change.

That's too bad, because what progressives see as a crisis could well be, in fact, an opportunity.

While dealing with the moderates may require more patience from progressives upfront, it may well help Obama politically in the long-run and improve the long-term durability of his agenda.

First, let's be clear: It is not Bayh and his cohorts driving the agenda. Obama is very much in the driver's seat. He is dictating the agenda the Senate moderates must deal with, not the other way around.

Also, realize the moderates are not voicing concern for some nefarious reason. Bayh and most of the others simply are Democrats elected from "red states," and as such the Obama policies must be able to "play in Peoria," so to speak.

Pushing as much progressivism as the widest number of Democratic votes will hold as a test strengthens -- not weakens -- Obama's priorities in education, health care, energy and elsewhere.

By using the Senate moderates as a filter, Obama and smart progressives can learn the lessons -- and avoid the political pitfalls -- of his previous two predecessors.

Take Bill Clinton first. His is the most obvious debacle. His mismanagement of his agenda -- certainly the perception of that agenda -- in large measure caused Democrats to lose control of Congress in 1994. From then on, Clinton's ability to enact progressive legslation was severely crippled.

While progressives today understandably want to enact as much of Obama's program as possible, it's doubtful they would want to see some short-term benefit at a long-term political cost similar to that experienced by Clinton.

Then there is George W. Bush. He rammed his initiatives through a Republican Congress with abandon for five years -- with Karl Rove crowing all the while about a "partisan realignment" in favor of Republicans.

Except it was all a mirage. That GOP realignment collapsed starting in 2006, driving Republicans to the weakest point they've seen in decades. Obama has already worked to undo wide swaths of what Republicans took years to put together.

The fact is: those Republican initiatives from those years are not proving to be very durable and are being easily swept away by new political winds. Progressives should want their agenda to be more sturdy than that.

Bush's programs were easily rubber-stamped by a GOP-led Congress. But rubber-stamp policies, as we've seen, do not hold up well. A rubber-stamp progressive agenda would be likely as ephemeral.

No, as usual, Obama has his eye on the long-view and is looking to enact his programs in such a way as to be accepted by most Americans and to endure for years after he is gone. He understands building a progressive program on a solid foundation may not be exciting or sexy -- but it is certainly necessary.

Obama is humble enough to understand the risks to the overall good he can do, and so he wants to do it the right way.

Sure, it takes patience and is not as satisfying from an "instant gratification" perspective. But progressives had to endure eight years in opposition to Bush. Surely, they can delay some short-term satisfaction to help build a strong foundation for eight years of the Obama administration.

Watch more breaking news now on our video feed:



Bookmark http://onthehillblog.blogspot.com/ and drop back in for more news from the nation's capital.

NEWSWEEK Cover: Obama Is Wrong

As the debate over the rescue of the financial system-which is crucial in stabilizing the economy and returning the country to prosperity-unfolds, Paul Krugman has emerged as President Obama's toughest liberal critic, writes Newsweek Editor-at-Large Evan Thomas in his profile of Krugman.

Krugman, a columnist for The New York Times, a professor at Princeton and a Nobel Prize winner in economics, was a scourge of the Bush administration, but has been critical, if not hostile, to the Obama White House, skeptical of the bank bailout and pessimistic about the economy.

As the debate continues, there are worries among the establishment that his "despair" over the administration's bailout plan might be right.

"Krugman may be exaggerating the decay of the financial system or the devotion of Obama's team to preserving it. But what if he's right, or part right?," Thomas writes. "What if President Obama is squandering his only chance to step in and nationalize ... the banks before they collapse altogether?"

BUSINESS: "The Education of Timothy Geithner." Senior Editor Michael Hirsh profiles Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who is finally starting to hit his stride. For two months he seemed to stumble again and again as Obama's point man on the financial crisis. He disappointed markets and pundits with what seemed like hesitant half-steps, and the attacks on him grew ever more savage.

The criticisms have lessened since last Monday, March 23, when Geithner delivered the long-awaited details of his scheme to save the banking system. And a few days later he revealed the most dramatic plan for regulating finance since the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 (the dismantling of which a decade ago may have contributed to the crisis). Most of all, Geithner seemed, at long last, to take charge.

Caught in the Act of Thinking." Senior Editor Jonathan Alter writes that the same reporters who had blasted President Obama for demeaning the presidency by cracking jokes on "The Tonight Show" and drinking a beer at a basketball game now claim Obama's boring. On Sunday he had to defend himself on "60 Minutes" from the charge that he was "punch drunk" with mirth; by Wednesday, he was derided as too serious and professorial.

However, Obama seems perfectly content to be caught in the act of thinking in prime time. In doing so, he may be making news in a larger sense. He was signaling that he actually trusts people to stick with him through a complex, long-term argument. This is a radical idea for an American president.

ECONOMY: "The Peril of Financial Linguistics." Senior Editor Daniel Gross writes that the toxic assets, poorly performing mortgages and collateralized debt obligations festering on the books of banks that made truly execrable lending decisions have been transformed in the latest federal bank- rescue plan into "legacy loans" and "legacy securities"-safe for professional investors to purchase, provided, of course, they get lots of cheap government credit.

More insidiously, the word "legacy" is frequently deployed to deflect blame. Legacy financial issues are, by definition, holdovers from prior regimes. The legacy gambit is necessary, in part, because the prior nomenclature used to describe the stuff in question was so corrosive. In trying to rebrand dodgy financial instruments, Treasury secretaries like Henry Paulson and Timothy Geithner are continuing a recent tradition. So much of the finance sector's innovation in the past 30 years, it turns out, wasn't developing new stuff, but rather developing new ways of talking about preexisting stuff.

Watch more breaking news now on our video feed:


Bookmark http://onthehillblog.blogspot.com/ and drop back in for more news from the nation's capital.

NEWS ANALYSIS: Obama's Week Exposes Meaninglessness Of The 24/7 'News Cycle'

This week probably should leave journalists, broadcasters, commentators, pundits, spinmeisters -- and any other noisemakers who contribute to the multimedia cacophony that is the so-called 24/7 "news cycle" -- rethinking their place in the universe a bit.

To listen to the din recently, you should be convinced that mobs are lining up outside the White House, pitchforks at the ready, over the outrage of the AIG bonuses. You also would be pursuaded further that President Obama is sinking in the polls daily as his budget and change agenda is undone by Democratic leaders in the House and Senate.

And, in perhaps the greatest irony of all for those who are themselves the ones feeding and perpetuating the constant stream of mostly soundbites and general bloviation that calls itself news and analysis -- you would think that Obama himself is just talking too darn much under some threat of being "overexposed."

Like the proverbial game of telephone, these storylines just get more exaggerated and overblown as they are repeated to fill TV airtime, column inches in a newspaper, or lines of text on blogs.

That Obama proved the truth of that this week with his primetime White House press conference probably says as much, or more, about how pointless much of the so-called 24/7 news cycle really is, as it does about the president himself.

Sure, people are real angry about AIG greed, but most Americans continue to express confidence in Obama and his policies. Following Tuesday's primetime presidential press conference -- and after a week of Obama getting hammered for being under attack and "overexposed" -- a national study among 1,375 Americans revealed that confidence levels increased among both Democrats and independents regarding the president's approach to the nation's critical issues like the economy, education, and the federal budget. Confidence levels decreased only among Republicans, a group likely to have a negative impression of Obama anyway.

What does this tell us?

That the 24/7 "news cycle" isn't really much of a news cycle, after all -- but instead more blab than news, mostly on TV and the Internet. It tells us that the chatter at any given moment may be loud, but volume doesn't equal substance. It also says that with the country in such a serious frame of mind in terms of the economy, unemployment and such, most people aren't willing to get too sudsed up in this "spin cycle."

Another way to look at this would be through the lens of today's online White House town hall, where even Washington Post blogger Dan Froomkin admits that questions Obama answered from the general public submitted via the Web "tended to take a longer view than those raised by reporters at Tuesday's press conference."

Let's be clear: most of the publishers and broadcasters spewing forth into the ether do so for one reason -- for profit. They put out so much blather to grab attention and to have something to wrap around their banner ads or commercials. (For the record: this publisher is not necessarily excluded from this particular phenomenon.)

Let's also be clear that, in and of itself, there is nothing wrong with that. A business is a business. But it's also true that most people of all political persuasions are smart enough to see all of the knee-jerk punditry and endless "breaking news alert" insta-coverage for what it is: sometimes entertaining, even occasionally informative -- but mostly just a lot of useless hot air.

Of the president, it says he understands fully this blab game -- and is nimble enough to play along to reach his ends. And at the end of the day, this ought to get the bloggers and talkers wondering who truly is more influential: them, or the guy on Pennsylvania Ave., who can knock american Idol off the air on Tuesday night to talk about the economy?

Watch more breaking news now on our video feed:



Bookmark http://onthehillblog.blogspot.com/ and drop back in for more news from the nation's capital.

Legislation Among Remedies Recommended Improve FedEx Labor Situation

New legislation is among the recommendations of a panel that examined the labor situation at express delivery titan Federal Express.

Panel members say that FedEx has systematically eroded the living standards of its employees to the point where its workers find themselves on the brink of falling out of the middle class, according to a statement released by the Teamsters union announcing the commission's findings.
The commissioners, Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.), Los Angeles City Councilman Bill Rosendahl and United Methodist Church Bishop Mary Ann Swenson heard testimony from economic experts, FedEx workers, clergy and community members at a hearing in Los Angeles in December 2008, the statement says.

"FedEx Corp. enjoys revenues surpassing $36 billion annually, with operating profits estimated to be $2.9 billion," says Sanchez. "Yet over the past several years, during times of enormous company profits and unbridled executive compensation, FedEx has threatened the economic stability of its employees, not only with stingy wages, frozen pensions, and inadequate health benefits, but also with aggressive anti-union tactics that intimidate workers and prevent them from organizing to improve their lot."

The commission issued several key findings, including evidence that FedEx has a history of repeated threats, intimidation, and other apparent violations of federal labor law. Its policies undermine the middle class status of employees, the panel's statement says.

"FedEx appears to have adopted, as a cost of doing business, a corporate philosophy of disdain for workers' rights and an acceptance of the occasional penalty for violating labor law," says Teamsters General President Jim Hoffa. "FedEx Ground's business model rests on misclassifying drivers as independent contractors, which places them outside the protection of most labor and employment laws."

FedEx also has made a practice of denying its workers the right to form a union, the report says. Many FedEx workers, which include aircraft maintenance technicians and numerous other classifications, are trying to form a union with the Teamsters, the union says.

"FedEx has a corporate union avoidance policy that includes an aggressive anti-union program that is practiced at the highest levels of the company," says Ken Hall, international vice president and Teamsters Package Division director. "Intimidation, threats and belittling of union supporters is standard-fare at FedEx. All of its workers are arbitrarily covered by the Railway Labor Act, regardless of whether they have any special training or licenses, or work in connection with FedEx's air operation."

Among the panel's recommendations is for Congress to pass the Express Carrier Employee Protection Amendment, part of the recently introduced Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) reauthorization bill. The amendment would provide FedEx Express workers the right to form a union on the same basis as workers performing similar work for other package delivery companies, the Teamsters say in a statement.

The panel also recommends that Congress pass the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA). The panel also calls on FedEx to adopt a policy of neutrality regarding workers' efforts to form a union, and to stop misclassifying workers as independent contractors.

EFCA would apply more broadly than FedEx, allowing workers to more easily unionize. Business interests bitterly oppose the legislation. Its future is in serious doubt now that this week Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), reversed course and now opposes moviung forward with the bill.

EFCA was the top Capitol Hill priority for organized labor this year.

Watch more breaking news now on our video feed:



Bookmark http://onthehillblog.blogspot.com/ and drop back in for more news from the nation's capital.

$19B Stimulus Infusion Good Start, But Researchers Warn Steep Climb Ahead to Get Hospitals To Go Digital

Only a tiny fraction of U.S. hospitals use health information technology systems, and the billions that President Obama is steering toward digital healthcare will be a mere downpayment on a broader national effort, experts say.

A survey of nearly 3,000 hospitals shows that less than 2 percent use comprehensive electronic health records (EHRs), and about 8 percent use a basic EHR in at least one care unit that includes physician or nurse notes. The findings are the first reliable estimates of the prevalence of HIT adoption in U.S. hospitals, and come amid concerted efforts by Congress and the Obama administration to stimulate wider use of EHRs in the health care sector.

A recent study of the issue was published in the online edition of the New England Journal of Medicine.

"HIT adoption levels are abysmally low in American hospitals. We have a long way to go to achieve a health care system that is fully electronic," says lead author Dr. Ashish Jha, MD, associate professor at the Harvard School of Public Health. "The $19 billion in federal help is a great start but it is only a down payment. This is a big mountain to climb," he adds.

Obama is pushing wider adoption of HIT to make U.S. healthcare delivery more efficient, thereby lowering costs, as well as to reduce medical errors.

The study, which is based on data collected in 2008, shows that larger, urban teaching institutions are somewhat more likely to have EHRs than other hospitals, partly because they may have more financial resources at their disposal. Inadequate capital and high maintenance costs were the major barriers cited among non-adopters.

Jha conducted the study with researchers at the Institute for Health Policy and the Biostatistics Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, The Brigham and Women's Hospital, the VA Boston Healthcare System, and the Department of Health Policy at George Washington University. The study was funded by The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) and the federal government's Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology.

The survey follows one released in 2008 by the same group of authors that showed that only 17 percent of doctors are using EHRs, and only 4 percent use full EHRs. "Despite the promise that HIT holds for better health, the accumulating evidence shows that many of those who deliver care have yet to be convinced," says Dr. David Blumenthal, MD, director of the Institute for Health Policy and senior author of this study. "This survey continues to make the case for why the federal government needs to step in and exercise its fiscal and policy muscle to spur adoption," adds Blumenthal.

The largest barrier to HIT adoption among hospitals still remains the cost. HIT systems are expensive and can cost between $20 million and $100 million, depending on the size of the hospital and the complexity of the system. To make matters worse, many of the financial benefits of HIT systems may not accrue to the hospital that makes the investment. If hospitals become more efficient, they could potentially even lose money in terms of lower reimbursement for insurance companies. This makes the business case for HIT far more difficult.

Another hurdle to overcome is interoperability -– or allowing for easy exchange of patient care information between hospitals or from hospitals to physicians' offices. Right now, the market is very fragmented with different standards and different vendors. The lack of ease with which information can be shared "reduces the potential value of these systems and may have a dampening effect on adoption," says the study. Until there is more clarity in the marketplace and until these systems become far more interoperable, many hospitals will resist adopting EHRs, the authors warn.

The government can take steps to address this problem. Rewarding hospitals - especially those with the least access to capital - for using HIT can help stimulate the diffusion of EHRs. Other approaches that could help: creating incentives for the support and training of more IT support staff, harmonizing interoperability standards, and creating disincentives for not using HIT.

The Veterans Health Administration has had EHRs in place for more than a decade and has produced dramatic improvements in health care quality. The United Kingdom and the Netherlands also have successfully spurred HIT adoption, though, like in the United States, most of their progress has been in ambulatory care. "Few countries have yet to make substantial progress in the inpatient setting," the authors say.

Although HIT adoption rates are pretty low, Jha is worried that the economic recession could make things worse, at least in the short term. This hasn't been a good year for hospitals to make capital investments, he says, so it's doubtful that much change will occur in 2009. Nevertheless, he and his co-authors say that since many institutions have parts of EHRs in place, policy interventions and financial help could increase their prevalence in hospitals over the long term.

"Modernizing health care systems with electronic health records is a critical piece of any health reform effort," adds Dr. John Lumpkin, MD, senior vice president of the Health Care Group at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. "While the adopted rates are discouraging, this report helps us understand the key barriers we need to overcome to achieve higher rates of HIT adoption and better health and health care for all Americans."

Watch more breaking news now on our video feed:



Bookmark http://onthehillblog.blogspot.com/ and drop back in for more news from the nation's capital.

NEWS ANALYSIS: Fighting For Re-election In Blue State Pa., Specter Goes Bright Red

By suddenly opposing a top legislative priority for oranized labor, Arlen Specter is taking an odd path to threading the needle toward what is likely to be his toughest re-election next year in three decades as a Republican senator from the increasingly bright-blue Pennsylvania.

At issue is Specter's speech on the Senate floor in which the five-term lawmaker reversed himself by stating his opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA). Specter had offered the lone GOP Senate vote in favor of EFCA, also known as "card check," just in 2007 when it failed to get the needed votes to move to passage.

EFCA would make it easier for unions to organize, and is a measure bitterly opposed by business.

With an expanded majority of perhaps 59 senators this year, Democrats were looking at Specter to cast the deciding 60th vote to end a GOP filibuster and move the bill to President Obama to sign into law.

Specter, a former Democrat who has earned a reputation as a moderate, recently broke with his party to support Obama's massive economic stimulus bill. Specter was just one of three Capitol Hill Republicans to do so, and the head of the Republican Party threatened to support primary challenges against those three legislators.

Indeed, Specter faces a likely GOP primary rematch next year against former Rep. Pat Toomey, who fiercely opposes EFCA and nearly unseated Specter in 2004.

However, while flip-flopping to oppose EFCA may take pressure off in a battle against Toomey, the move may come back to hurt Specter in the general election as Pennsylvania becomes more solidly Democratic. Democrats today hold a 1.2 million voter registration advantage over Republicans -- reportedly double what it was just two years ago.

In fact, had he continued to support card check, Specter would have robbed Democrats of their biggest issue to defeat him.

EFCA has been perhaps the highest policy priority this year for organized labor. Labor leaders have reportedly said that if Specter delivered a critical vote for EFCA, labor would throw its support to Specter over a Democrat. "Labor isn't automatically Democrat," says Bill George, head of the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO.

Pennsylvania unions count some 850,000 members in the state -- a powerful bloc that would have lined up for Specter but now look to stand against him.

It's not even clear how much his newfound dislike of card check will do for Specter among Republicans in the primary, considering a published poll that 66 say it is time for someone new -- just 26 say Specter deserves to be re-elected.

Just last week, Specter closed the possibly of switching parties to once more become a Democrat. No less than Vice President Joe Biden had tried to convert Specter to the other side.

It seems an odd political calculus for Specter to reverse himself to please those who probably won't support him, and turn his back on a labor constituency that would bend over backwards to deliver for him in the fall.

Perhaps Specter will survive a primary. It will be interesting to see where he zigs and zags after that.

Watch more breaking news now on our video feed:



Bookmark http://onthehillblog.blogspot.com/ and drop back in for more news from the nation's capital.

Expert: Starting Out Reaganesque, Obama 'Doing Well So Far'

Proceeding with an ambitious agenda, President Obama is "doing well so far" in starting his administration much as Ronald Reagan started his more than two decades ago, according to an expert at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank.

"He has a 60 [percent] approval rating, while congressional Republicans at down at 38 [percent]," says Darrell West, vice president and director of Governance Studies at Brookings. "He has passed major legislation to help the economy, education, health care, and energy. He is what we need right now, which is someone who is optimistic about the future and communicates clearly with voters."

Obama's largest accomplishment in his young administration is the massive economic stimulus package he signed last month, West says.

"Not only will this bill jump-start the economy by later this year, it seeks to reposition the United States for the 21st century. The bill makes needed investments in health, education, and energy," he says.

Obama has started his presidency much as the way Republican Reagan did in 1981, West says.

"Both men faced enormous economic and foreign policy challenges," he says. "Reagan scored a big win early in his administration with passage of his tax and spending proposals. Obama has done the same thing with the economic stimulus. Both individuals were successful in part because they benefitted from a grass roots movement and were outstanding communicators."

As sweeping as his agenda is, however, Obama will find aspects will be stymied, West says.

West made his remarks as part of an online chat sponsored by Brookings.

"What Obama will find, of course, is that when his proposals get into Congress, some will move while others will stagnate. So it still is going to months if not years to address these problems," he says.

The president's biggest stumble has been the slow pace of presidential appointments, West says.

"Every president needs his own team in place. Due to its high ethics standards, the administration has had difficulty recruiting the people it wanted into high-level positions," West says. "The president has adopted Mother Theresa standards in a city that has few saints. The resulting mismatch has hindered the ability of several departments (notably Treasury) to play with a full team on the field and address the major policy challenges we have today."

Despite the controversies, Obama is actually having a good honeymoon period, according to West.

"The president's honeymoon with voters has gone very well. He has outstanding poll numbers. People like him personally and appreciate his hard work in addressing complex problems," West says. "Obama's honeymoon with the media has been much trickier. He already has gotten beaten up a few times by reporters. But he needs to keep his eye on government performance and the economy. Ultimately, those things will determine whether he is a successful president."

Watch more breaking news now on our video feed:



Bookmark http://onthehillblog.blogspot.com/ and drop back in for more news from the nation's capital.

NEWSWEEK Cover: The Thinking Man's Guide to Populist Rage

At its core, populism in the United States remains what it has always been: a protest by ordinary people who want the system to live up to its stated ideals - fair and honest treatment in the marketplace and a government tilted in favor of the unwealthy masses, writes Michael Kazin in an essay in the current issue of Newsweek. "The best way for big men, and big women, to respond to such protests is to try to do what is moral, as well as popular -- and treat Americans as partners in the grand enterprise of governance."

Kazin, an author and professor of history at Georgetown University, writes that as Congress and President Obama rush to balance solidarity with a new wave of populist anger alongside the need for smart policy during a crisis, "they might reflect on how well previous politicians fared at the task. History does not repeat itself. But sometimes it does hum a familiar tune." Kazin's essay is one of several that make up the March 30 cover package "The Thinking Man's Guide to Populist Rage." The package examines how populist rage, while it can be cathartic, can also lead to bad decisions. But it can also present opportunity.

In the cover package:

Author Rick Perlstein writes that populist anger in America is the anger of dispossession. "That's how most Americans are thinking now about the bonuses paid to feckless financial engineers," Perlstein writes, adding that we "do not like to reward those who do not produce." He writes that the meltdown is complex as is the decision making. But if it happens only in "antiseptic back rooms, government experts negotiating with corporate experts, proud to tune out the public's righteously simplifying indignation, those policies will fail... Take away taxpayers' sense of ownership stake in an issue (especially, as with AIG, when taxpayers literally own the company) and their rage will not go away. It festers ... And that's when the 'bad' kind of populism -- the hateful kind; the violent kind; the demagogic kind -- can flourish."

Newsweek Contributing Editor Robert J. Samuelson writes that great reform waves often proceed from scandals and hard times and that the outcome of the present populist backlash may not be benign. "The parade of big companies to Washington for rescues, as well as the high-profile examples of unvarnished greed, has spawned understandable anger that could veer into a vindictive retribution... If companies need to be rescued from 'the market,' then why shouldn't Washington permanently run the market? That is a dangerous mindset. It justifies punitive taxes, widespread corporate mandates, selective subsidies and more meddling in companies' everyday operations."

Author Robert H. Frank writes that anger over the AIG bonuses is spilling onto a broader range of targets. "And unless we're careful, we'll shoot ourselves in the foot. Even before AIG's moment in the spotlight, angry populists had begun calling for executive pay caps at 20 to 25 times the average American worker's salary. If applied to the financial-industry executives who steered the economy into the ditch, such caps would be defensible." There are also many executives in other industries whose pay, at least in hindsight, was vastly greater than any reasonable measure of their value added. "Yet any broader effort to cap executive salaries would do more harm than good."

Chapman University presidential fellow Joel Kotkin writes that populism is far from dead and "represents a force that could shape our political future in unpredictable ways... The critical issue facing the new administration is finding useful ways to channel this disenchantment." He writes that populist rage creates the political support for taking far bolder steps against Wall Street. "A good first step would be to allow the TARP - backed giant banks to come under some sort of federal control, or bankruptcy process, effectively wiping out the holdings of the financial malefactors and decimating any hopes for future bonuses."

Former governor of New York Eliot Spitzer writes that "anger-fed populism now is no better a policy compass than libertarianism masquerading as capitalism was during the Bush administration. This may become evident all too quickly as public rage -- generated by the catastrophic risk-taking of many Wall Street traders -- is fanned by Washington legislators desperate to make up for their own decade of neglect." He writes that the economic cataclysm we are living through now is the consequence of 30 years of intentional destruction of the rules needed to keep capitalism on track. "Just as democracy needs rules or it descends into anarchy, so capitalism needs rules to guide the behavior that becomes wealth creation. What we should be seeking, and what has not emerged from the cacophony of Washington, is a principled guide to the intersection between government and the market."

Watch more breaking news now on our video feed:



Bookmark http://onthehillblog.blogspot.com/ and drop back in for more news from the nation's capital.

Transportation Bill Would Use Revenue From Future Climate Cap-and-Trade Program

A bipartisan bill introduced in the Senate today would use funds from a future U.S. cap-and-trade program to control global warming to invest in transportation projects nationwide.

The legislation, put forward by Sens. Tom Carper (D-Del.) and Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), is the Senate version of the Clean, Low-Emission, Affordable, New Transportation Efficiency Act (CLEAN-TEA) bill that Reps. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.) and Steven LaTourette (R-Ohio) introduced in the House last week.

CLEAN-TEA would ensure that future state and metropolitan area transportation plans protect the climate and enhance energy security, according to a statement from Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), a well-known environmental group that supports the measure.

President Obama recently called for control of the carbon emissions that are blamed for global warming, and many lawmakers are backing a cap-and-trade program to accomplish that. A cap-and-trade program would set targets for carbon reductions, and companies would then trade carbon emissions under that cap for a price. The federal government would auction emissions permits, bringing in revenue for the government.

Other cap-and-trade systems have been used in the United States for decades, most notably to control the pollution blamed for "acid rain" in the Northeast.

Other lawmakers, including a member of the House Democratic leadership, are backing a carbon tax as an alternative means to achieve carbon reductions and manage climate change.

Senators, led by Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and then-Sen. John Warner (R-Va.) last year attempted to pass a cap-and-trade bill -- and came the closest ever to do so -- but were blocked by most Senate Republicans. Lawmakers in both chambers are gearing up to try again. The House Energy and Commerce Committee this week is holding the latest in a series of hearings on a cap-and-trade program. The hearing today will focus on protecting consumers under a cap-and-trade program.

The CLEAN-TEA measure proposes to take 10 percent of the revenue from a future cap-and-trade climate program and use it to fund a Low Greenhouse Gas Transportation Fund. The fund would finance planning and implementation of environmentally friendly transportation projects to cut congestion and increase travel options, the EDF statement says. For many years, transportation has been the second largest and among the fastest-growing contributors to greenhouse gas emissions in America, the statement adds.

"We salute these congressional leaders for understanding that -- unless we link our efforts to protect the climate with efforts to cut congestion -- we will not solve either problem," says Michael Replogle, a U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) adviser and transportation director at EDF. "This legislation reverses a long-term trend of transportation policies that encouraged growth in greenhouse gas emissions. Transportation should contribute proportionately to other sectors in solving the climate change crisis."

The Low Greenhouse Gas Transportation Fund created by the bill would provide money to state, regional, and local governments, favoring investments in programs that produce higher per capita emission reductions. Potential projects that could be funded include transit, passenger and freight rail, biking and pedestrian improvements, vanpools, smart traffic management and congestion pricing, and land-use changes to make communities more pedestrian-friendly, EDF says.

Watch more breaking news now on our video feed:



Bookmark http://onthehillblog.blogspot.com/ and drop back in for more news from the nation's capital.

With Card Check Closer Than Ever Before, The Capitol Becomes 'Radioactive'

Democratic lawmakers unleashed a fury of advocacy and intense pressure on Capitol Hill today with the anticipated introduction of legislation long-sought by organized labor and bitterly opposed by business.

Interest groups on both sides of the issue ramped up their respective pressure campaigns as soon the the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) was introduced, as expected. Also known as card check, Democrats attempted to pass the bill in the last Congress but were blocked by Senate Republicans. President George W. Bush also would have vetoed the legislation.

Now, with a larger Senate majority and Barack Obama in the White House, Democrats and union officials have higher hopes. Obama indicated support for card check last year as a candidate for president.

“The right to organize and bargain collectively is essential if American workers are going to receive fair wages, decent hours, safe workplace conditions, and health coverage to protect them and their families," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says. "The Employee Free Choice Act protects every worker’s right to join a union if they wish to help ensure better pay and benefits.

“The House passed the same legislation and I look forward to the Senate’s consideration of the bill and to working with Congressman [George] Miller [D-Calif.], Senator [Edward] Kennedy [D-Mass.], and Senator [Tom] Harkin [D-Iowa] to send this pro-worker legislation to President Obama’s desk as soon as possible,” Pelosi says.

That Democratic optimism helps explain why opposition to EFCA came fast and furious today. Card check would make it easier for workers to unionize.

"Congress is stunningly out of touch with reality if they think the American people will support this destructive, job-killing bill. It is a deliberate attempt by big labor bosses to undermine one of our most fundamental first principles - the right to vote freely without coercion," says Saul Anuzis, chairman of American Solutions' Save American Jobs Project. "These 100,000 Americans are the first of many more we will recruit on a state-by-state basis to bring constituent pressure to bear on their elected officials to defeat Card Check."

American Solutions was founded by former Republican Speaker Newt Gingrich.

Meanwhile, a group called the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace (CDW) charges that Democratic support for card check is wavering.

"Despite all the rhetoric coming from Big Labor, it's clear that effectively eliminating secret ballots for workers in union organizing elections has become too politically radioactive for members of Congress to support," CDW says in a statement. "The number of EFCA co-sponsors actually decreased this year, even with increased Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress."

Unions and their allies also are gearing up to support card check, as well, however, including those in the longtime union state of Pennsylvania.

"We thank the House of Representatives and the Senate for introducing the Employee Free Choice Act, which will restore workers' freedom to bargain for fair wages, job security, better health care, and secure pensions. We are confident the Employee Free Choice Act is going to become the law of the land. Contrary to the false information from the Chamber of Commerce the secret ballot is still preserved in the law," says Pennsylvania AFL-CIO President Bill George.

The Keystone State labor group says instead of declining support, card check is favored by wide swaths of the public, including many moderate Republicans.

Watch more breaking news now on our video feed:



Bookmark http://onthehillblog.blogspot.com/ and drop back in for more news from the nation's capital.

On Dalai Lama's Anniversary, Speaker Pelosi Hails 'Brave Tibetans' Who Fight For Freedom

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi marked today's 50th anniversary the Dalai Lama's flight from Tibet and arrival into exile by calling for Tibetan freedom.

A half-century ago, the Dalai Lama fled Chinese-occupied Tibet and arrived in India. Chinese forces had taken the Buddhist nation, which had been an independent nation for centuries, by force.

"Today we remember that day and honor the many brave Tibetans who have sacrificed so dearly in their fight for freedom," Pelosi says. "Chief among them is His Holiness the Dalai Lama, who was forced into exile in India."

Today, India is home to many Tibetans who flee Chinese rule, which has been repressive to the the point of genocide over the decades. Chinese forces have tortured Tibetans and destroyed ancient monestaries.

"The welcoming by India of the Tibetan refugee community is a testament to the close ties between the Indian and Tibetan people," Pelosi adds. "It is a friendship rooted in a mutual admiration for the philosophy of non-violence as practiced by Mahatma Gandhi and the Dalai Lama."

Pelosi, Buddhist actor Richard Gere, and Lobsang Nyandak, representative of the Dalai Lama, spoke at a reception on Capitol Hill.

The House speaker notes that last year, she led a congressional delegation to India where U.S. lawmakers were able to meet with the Dalai Lama. in Dharamsala, India.

"This visit -- by coincidence or karma -- occurred after the protests that swept across the Tibetan plateau and the subsequent crackdown by Chinese authorities," the California Democrat says. "When our delegation arrived, the roads were lined with thousands of Tibetan monks, nuns, and children waving American and Tibetan flags. We heard firsthand accounts from former prisoners describing the harsh conditions they endured for only demanding the right to express themselves freely.

"We said at the time that the situation in Tibet challenges the conscience of the world. If freedom-loving people do not speak out for human rights in China and Tibet, then we lose the moral authority to talk about it in any other place in the world," Pelosi says.

For the last year, Tibet has been under martial law and the human rights situation continues to worsen, Pelosi says.

"Last week, the U.S. State Department issued its Annual Country Report on Human Rights stating that 'the [Chinese] government's human rights record in Tibetan areas of China deteriorated severely during the year,'" she says.

The Chinese have refused to negotiate on the issue of Tibetan freedom, going so far as to brand the Dalai Lama as a criminal.

"It is clear that the Chinese government has not won the hearts and minds of the Tibetan people. Rather, the Tibetan people have accumulated legitimate grievances from decades of repressive policies," Pelosi says. "They have been economically marginalized in their own land, imprisoned for peacefully expressing their views, and barred from practicing their religion without government interference.

"It is long past time for Beijing to make progress on a solution that respects the human rights of every Tibetan," she adds.

Watch more breaking news now on our video feed:



Bookmark http://onthehillblog.blogspot.com/ and drop back in for more news from the nation's capital.

Taxpayers Should Profit From Federally Funded Stem Cell Research, Organization Proposes

While much of the reaction regarding President Obama's decision to lift restrictions on stem cell research focus on arguments supporting or opposing the move, one organization is urging further changes allow taxpayers to share in any profits from research they have funded.

Obama today signed an executive order lifting restrictions on federal funding on stem cell research that possibly could lead to treatment or cures for Parkinson's Disease, spinal cord injuries, and other serious afflictions. The restrictions were put into place by President George W. Bush eight years ago. Opponents of the research consider the use of stem cells from embryos to be tantamount to abortion. Bush's restrictions effect that research paid for with federal funds.

"Today, with the Executive Order I am about to sign, we will bring the change that so many scientists and researchers; doctors and innovators; patients and loved ones have hoped for, and fought for, these past eight years: we will lift the ban on federal funding for promising embryonic stem cell research," Obama says. "We will vigorously support scientists who pursue this research. And we will aim for America to lead the world in the discoveries it one day may yield."

The nonprofit organization, Consumer Watchdog, says it wants American taxpayers to profit from such advances.

In a letter to Obama, the nonpartisan nonprofit Consumer Watchdog says policies developed by the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), which runs that state's $6 billion stem cell research program, could be a model for federal policy.

"Your action will undoubtedly spur new gains in this vital area of medical research," writes John Simpson, Consumer Watchdog's Stem Cell Project director. "Celebrating the change in policy is not enough, however. It is now necessary, more than ever, to examine the regulations governing the way federal funds are distributed to researchers. A change in those rules is needed and we call on you to work with Congress to implement reform of the Bayh-Dole Act."

Most of the federal funding for biomedical research is funneled through the National Institutes of Health. Basic scientific research is usually done at universities and non-profit research institutions, most of it with federal funds. Under the Bayh-Dole Act discoveries that are made at these institutions can be patented by them. They then license the patents to industry. The royalties go only to the universities and research institutions. Nothing is returned to the taxpaying public who funded the research, Consumer Watchdog says.

"Under Bayh-Dole, the public pays twice for medical discoveries," says Simpson, "First we fund the research; then we are faced with high drug prices protected by the monopoly that the patent guarantees."

The CIRM was created by the voters of California under Proposition 71 to partially fill the void created when Bush imposed his stem cell funding restrictions. Its $6 billion program makes it the world's largest funder of stem cell research, Consumer Watchdog says.

Key elements of its intellectual property policy regulations are provisions for a payback to the state. For example, if there is revenue to a research institution as the result of publicly funded research, 25 percent goes back to the state's general fund. The policy also has provisions to help ensure affordability and access by uninsured people to cures and treatments that were developed with public money, Consumer's Watchdog says.

"When venture capitalists provide money to companies they require clearly spelled out conditions and expectations," says Simpson. "There is no reason it should be any different when taxpayers put their hard-earned dollars on the line to fund research."

Watch more breaking news now on our video feed:



Bookmark http://onthehillblog.blogspot.com/ and drop back in for more news from the nation's capital.

NEWSWEEK Cover: Enough! A Conservative's Case Against Rush Limbaugh

Conservative David Frum writes in the current Newsweek that radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh is a seriously unpopular figure among the voters that conservatives and Republicans need to reach. Some 41 percent of independents have an unfavorable opinion of him, according to the new Newsweek Poll.

"Limbaugh is especially off-putting to women: his audience is 72 percent male, according to Pew Research. Limbaugh himself acknowledges his unpopularity among women. On his Feb. 24 broadcast, he said with a chuckle: 'Thirty-one-point gender gaps don't come along all that often ... Given this massive gender gap in my personal approval numbers ... it seems reasonable for me to convene a summit'."

Limbaugh was kidding about the summit. But his quip acknowledged something that eludes many of those who would make him the arbiter of Republican authenticity: from a political point of view, Limbaugh is kryptonite, weakening the GOP nationally," Frum writes in the March 16 Newsweek cover, "Enough! A Conservative's Case Against Limbaugh."

Frum, the editor of NewMajority.com and a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, writes, "No Republican official will say that; Limbaugh demands absolute deference from the conservative world, and he generally gets it. When offended, he can extract apologies from Republican members of Congress, even the chairman of the Republican National Committee. And Rush is very easily offended."

Above all, Frum, writes, "We need to take governing seriously again. Voters have long associated Democrats with corrupt urban machines, Republicans with personal integrity and fiscal responsibility."

He continues, "Every day, Rush Limbaugh reassures millions of core Republican voters that no change is needed: if people don't appreciate what we are saying, then say it louder. Isn't that what happened in 1994? Certainly this is a good approach for Rush himself. He claims 20 million listeners per week, and that suffices to make him a very wealthy man. And if another 100 million people cannot stand him, what does he care? What can they do to him other than ... not listen? It's not as if they can vote against him. But they can vote against Republican candidates for Congress. They can vote against Republican nominees for president. And if we allow ourselves to be overidentified with somebody who earns his fortune by giving offense, they will vote against us. Two months into 2009, President Obama and the Democratic Congress have already enacted into law the most ambitious liberal program since the mid-1960s. More, much more is to come. Through this burst of activism, the Republican Party has been flat on its back."

Frum writes that decisions that will haunt American taxpayers for generations have been made with hardly a debate: paying more for Medicaid, expanding the SCHIP health insurance program for young children, borrowing trillions of dollars to expand the national debt to levels unseen since World War II.

"To stem this onrush of disastrous improvisations, conservatives need every resource of mind and heart, every good argument, every creative alternative and every compassionate sympathy for the distress that is pushing Americans in the wrong direction. Instead we are accepting the leadership of a man with an ego-driven agenda of his own, who looms largest when his causes fare worst."

"In the days since I stumbled into this controversy, I've received a great deal of e-mail. (Most of it on days when (radio host Mark) Levin or (Sean) Hannity or Hugh Hewitt or Limbaugh have had something especially disobliging to say about me.) Most of these e-mails say some version of the same thing: if you don't agree with Rush, quit calling yourself a conservative and get out of the Republican Party. There's the perfect culmination of the outlook Rush Limbaugh has taught his fans and followers: we want to transform the party of Lincoln, Eisenhower and Reagan into a party of unanimous dittoheads -- and we don't care how small the party has to shrink to do it. That's not the language of politics. It's the language of cult."

As part of the cover package, Newsweek spoke with four GOP leaders about how to reinvent the GOP: former House Speaker Newt Gingrich; Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia; Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin and Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina.

Watch more breaking news now on our video feed:



Bookmark http://onthehillblog.blogspot.com/ and drop back in for more news from the nation's capital.

Capitol Idea: Enough. Give Campaigning A Rest

By Scott Nance

I've got to start this column with a big shout-out and thank you to an Internet user who goes by the name, "CwV," because CwV woke me up to a feeling I've had for some time but a feeling that up until now I thought I had suffered with alone.

In commenting on a story we posted on the Democrats' new campaign to link conservtive radio host Rush Limbaugh as the head of the Republican Party, CwV said, "We get no advantage from this kind of hyper-partisan campaign when it's branded as Democrats stirring up the brew-haha. Bothering to notice Limpbaugh gives him more energy, attacking him strengthens his alliances. If it was a separate 527 or PAC, yeah great. But the 24/7/365 campaign has to end."

"The 24/7/365 campaign has to end." That's the point here, and indeed, it does.

I receive many emails from a variety of political organizations and interest groups, all calling out for urgent attention, which often get reported on here at On The Hill.

Look, I get it: the nation is in crisis and the massive programs and reforms that President Obama and others are pushing right now offer intense opportunity for change, and all of these groups want their seat at the table and their positions carried forward into policy. That naturally creates a sense of urgency and excitement.

But also, I've been in Washington long enough to know what's really going on, on another level as well. All of these political organizations and advocacy groups may be non-profit, but that doesn't mean they don't need money. They need revenue coming in to keep their lights on and pay their staffers. The advocacy game, whether on the left or the right, has become a massive industry in-and-of itself.

Unfortunately, for too long, the tried-and-true method for that fundraising is to create a sense of outrage among supporters. It has potentially corrosive effects. Case in point is one of those emails I was talking about. The particular message in question comes from Progressive Democrats of America (PDA). The subject line of the email, "Whose side are they on?", is directed at the Obama administration and the message complains that no advocates of single-payer healthcare were invited to this week's White House healthcare summit.

That subject line, "Whose side are they on?", seems to be impugning Obama and his motives. Okay, so he doesn't support single-payer. Agree or disagree with that, but given the fairly progressive record accumulated in a little more than a month in office, do we really want to start regarding him with some sort of enemy status?

Further, the text of the email goes on to say that “Progressive" healthcare reformers "need to decide which side they are on..." The quotes around the word progressive there is PDA's usage -- not mine, and that's my point. Apparently, it's not just Obama, but any progressive who doesn't march in lock-step on single-payer isn't a true progressive, at least that seems to be implied by by the use of the quote marks.

Those are the sort of position litmus tests to which conservatives and Republicans are subjecting each other right at the moment. Are progressives going to follow that same road? I hope not.

My point is not to single out PDA, because its email is only symptomatic of a wider issue. Other groups do the same thing, too.

One of the qualities I admire most in our new president is his even-temper and the fact he seems to succumb rarely to anger, name-calling, or such. We all need to rachet down the anger and outrage -- both real and manufactured.

Yes, this is a crucial and exciting time for change. But maybe we need also to change ourselves, and the way we approach debate. Can we advocate our positions -- and fundraise for our interest groups -- without constantly throwing elbows?

That would be change I can believe in.

The publisher of On The Hill and its sister sites, Life, The Universe ... and Politics Live, Scott Nance has covered government and Washington for more than a decade. Capitol Idea is his regular column from Washington.

Watch more breaking news now on our video feed:



Bookmark http://onthehillblog.blogspot.com/ and drop back in for more news from the nation's capital.

Environmental Advocates Praise Carbon Tax Bill; Larson's Leadership Could Boost It

Environmental groups and carbon pricing advocates lauded Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.), who today re-introduced America's Energy Security Trust Fund Act of 2009, proposing a carbon tax to reduce carbon emissions and fight global warming.

Larson introduced the bill during the previous Congress, but this year Larson joined the House leadership as chairman of the majority Democratic Caucus.

The tax would take effect in 2009 and tax emissions at a rate of $15 per ton of carbon dioxide and increase by $10 each year, or by $15 each year if needed to keep emissions falling fast enough, according to a statement from the the Carbon Tax Center, a Washington advocacy organization that supports the legislation. It would be virtually revenue-neutral, with more than 95 percent of carbon tax revenues used to cut payroll taxes to help Americans with higher energy prices, the statement says.

"Congressman Larson has shown great leadership in introducing this bill and ramping up the debate on carbon pricing in this Congress," says Charles Komanoff, co-director of the Carbon Tax Center. "It's a debate we urgently need to have. President Obama took a big step forward in proposing carbon pricing in his budget. The strong consensus among economists is that a carbon tax is the quickest, most effective and most transparent approach. Now that we have a well-crafted carbon tax bill to work with (and more such bills in the pipeline), Congress will be able to compare the details of actual carbon tax and cap-and-trade bills, and debate them on the merits. As that debate unfolds, you'll see a groundswell of support and eventual consensus line up behind a carbon tax proposal like Rep. Larson's."

"Representative Larson is making an important contribution to the debate about how to reduce global warming pollution," said Brent Blackwelder, president of Friends of the Earth. "A key part of the solution will have to be a price on carbon. If passed, the bill introduced today by Representative Larson would establish this price, strengthening our economy and helping head off catastrophic climate change, while avoiding some of the pitfalls of previous bills that would have led to windfall profits for corporate polluters."

Larson's bill would seem to be at odds with the prevailing sentiment on Capitol Hill in terms of climate regulation where most lawmakers are supporting a cap-and-trade approach.

Unlike cap-and-trade proposals, the Larson bill calls for taxing carbon at the source, such as oil refineries and coal mines for domestic fuel, or shipping terminals for imported fuel, according to the Carbon Tax Center. A total of $100 billion over the first 10 years, equivalent to three percent of the revenue, would be dedicated to tax breaks for clean energy, while another $41 billion, equivalent to one percent of the revenue -- more in the initial years, less in later years -- would be used for transitional assistance for workers in industries directly impacted by the carbon tax, the center adds in its statement.

All of the remaining carbon tax revenue -- more than 95 percent - would be spent on cutting payroll taxes, offsetting increased energy prices for working families, and helping stimulate job growth, the statement says. This would amount to a tax shift rather than a tax increase. In fact, most working families will actually come out ahead if they conserve energy modestly, the statement adds.

As chair of the House Democratic Caucus, Larson is the fourth-ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives and sits on the Ways and Means Committee, which will have primary jurisdiction over a carbon tax.

Some lawmakers, particularly conservative members such as Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), have said a carbon tax would be a more straightforward approach to dealing with climate change than would cap-and-trade.

Some advocates of cap-and-trade, such as Kit Batten, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, have argued that approach would be more effective because it lays out the hard targets needed to avoid the worst effects of global warming.

Lawmakers who support cap-and-trade have said, both publicly and privately that cap-and-trade is an easier political sell than would be a new "tax." In fact, on its website, the the Carbon Tax Center acknowledges that "any proposal packaged as a 'tax' is flying into a stiff headwind," but that the organization wants to "openly confront the tax issue."

Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.), the longest-serving member of the House and then the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, first floated the idea of a "carbon fee," but then withdrew that because he said the slumping economy couldn't support it. Dingell now says he supports cap-and-trade.

At a hearing of the Committee held Feb. 25 to compare the effectiveness of a cap-and-trade scheme vs. a carbon tax, NASA chief climate scientist James Hansen said, "This [carbon] tax, and the knowledge that it would continue to increase in the future, would spur innovations in energy efficiency and carbon-free energy sources... Carbon emissions will plummet far faster than with alternative top-down regulations."

America's Energy Security Trust Fund Act of 2009 is supported by Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.) who has co-signed a "Dear Colleague" letter announcing it. Additional carbon tax measures are being drafted by other members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, including Rep. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.), according to the Carbon Tax Center.

Watch more breaking news now on our video feed:



Bookmark http://onthehillblog.blogspot.com/ and drop back in for more news from the nation's capital.

Foreclosure Bill Supporters Say Act Won't Excuse Bad Behavior, Urge Senate Action

Sweeping foreclosure legislation approved by the House today would not excuse homeowners from paying mortgages, but the bill would help many of the more than 6,000 Americans who are losing their homes weekly, advocates say. They also urge the Senate to quickly pass the legislation and send it to President Obama to become law.

Lawmakers approved HR 1106, the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act, by a vote of 234 to 191.

“Every 13 seconds, another American family loses their largest investment—their home—to foreclosure. That means that every 13 seconds a family is uprooted, children are forced to switch schools, and a home is boarded up, increasing blight and reducing property values," says House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

“The Helping Families Save Their Homes Act will prevent tragic home foreclosures, strengthen the housing market and our economy, and protect the American Dream of homeownership for America’s families. Americans all agree that homeowners bear personal responsibility for their actions and their debts, but lenders must also act in good faith, lend responsibly, and work with homeowners who are at-risk of foreclosure because that is in the interests of lenders, borrowers, neighborhoods, and our nation’s economy," Pelosi adds.

The legislation approved today will not excuse families from paying their mortgage, says bankruptcy attorney Carey Ebert of Fort Worth, Texas, also president of the 3,500-member National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys.

"It simply gives bankruptcy court judges the authority to modify loans and puts a floor on the downward spiral of home values in neighborhoods across the country," Ebert says. "At a time when an estimated 6,600 families a week are losing their homes, the U.S. House of Representatives and the Obama administration are now on record as the latest parties to recognize the fact that judicial modification must be part of the solution to today's worsening home mortgage foreclosure crisis."

The legislation also got a seal of approval from a top lending watchdog group, the Center for Responsible Lending (CRL), based in Washington.

"With another family facing foreclosure every 13 seconds, the need to put the economy before politics couldn't be clearer," says CRL President Michael Calhoun. "New numbers released today by the Mortgage Bankers Association underscore how quickly the housing situation continues to deteriorate: In 2008 more than a million families joined the ranks of borrowers in default on their mortgage, half of them in the last three months of the year.

"Too much time already has been lost: Since the hemorrhaging of foreclosures began over two years ago, hundreds of thousands of families have lost their homes unnecessarily, and tens of millions of neighboring families have watched the value of their homes plummet," he adds. "We urge the Senate to act quickly to approve this bill and put it on President Obama's desk for his signature."

Watch more breaking news now on our video feed:



Bookmark http://onthehillblog.blogspot.com/ and drop back in for more news from the nation's capital.

Riffing On Rush: DNC Wants Billboard, While DSCC Wants GOPers 'On Record'

Democrats in Washington are continuing their week-long campaign to tie the Republican Party to right-wing radio talker Rush Limbaugh, through the Democratic National Committee (DNC), as well as their Senate campaign operation.

The dominant Democrats are exploiting the intra-party warfare that emerged last weekend within Republican ranks after Limbaugh told a gathering of conservatives that he wants President Obama to fail. Following those remarks, the head of the Republican Party called the conservative radio host an “entertainer” and “incendiary,” only to quickly apologize to Limbaugh.

Democrats say that exchange proves that Limbaugh -- who is not popular among Democrats or independents -- is the new voice of the GOP.

The DNC has started a contest for supporters to come up with a message for Limbaugh. One of those messages of 10 words or less will be chosen to be placed on a billboard in Limbaugh's home town of West Palm Beach, Fla., according to an email from Jen O'Malley Dillon, the new DNC executive director.

"If Republican leaders aren't willing to tell Rush, then we will. Americans want President Obama to succeed," she says in her email. "Our country's future depends on it. Rooting for the President's failure is rooting for our country to fail.To get America back on a path to prosperity, we'll need to leave behind the failed partisan attack politics of the past. Americans voted for a new direction in November. Choosing Rush Limbaugh to be the voice of their party -- as Republican leaders have done -- is not the answer."

Meanwhile, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) wants to pin down Republican senators over the Limbaugh remarks.

"From the day he entered office, President Obama has extended his hand to Republicans in a spirit of bipartisanship and asked them to work with him to solve America's problems," DSCC official JB Poersch says in a separate email. "Thus far, they have preferred to kowtow to extremists like Limbaugh rather than accept the good faith outreach of our president. The times are too serious for this nonsense to continue.

"That is why today I am asking you to join me in telling Senate Republicans to go on record and declare their independence from Rush Limbaugh," Poersch adds. "Your comments will be sent to Republican leaders."

Poersch is asking Democratic supporters to sign an online petition "demanding that Senate Republicans reject the disgraceful words of Rush Limbaugh and declare their independence from the divisive politics of the past."

Poersch notes that leading national Republicans have called Limbaugh "a great leader," "a great American," and "the number one voice for conservatism in our country."

That the DSCC is attempting to tie Republican senators to Limbaugh is interesting, too, because the same RNC chairman who argued with Limbaugh -- Michael Steele -- also appeared on television recently to say he would entertain primary challenges against three moderate GOP senators who crossed party lines to deliver key votes to pass Obama's massive economic stimulus program.

"Rush Limbaugh is free to say whatever he wants. But when people like Limbaugh start dictating the behavior of Senate Republicans and begin jeopardizing the future of America; it is time for an intervention," Poersch says.

Watch more breaking news now on our video feed:



Bookmark http://onthehillblog.blogspot.com/ and drop back in for more news from the nation's capital.

Pelosi Hails Deal For Rove, Miers To Testify

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is hailing an agreement struck today for former top Bush White House officials to testify under oath to Congress as a victory for the Constitution and rule of law.

Karl Rove and Harriet Miers, two top officials under President George W. Bush, will testify for members of the House Judiciary Committee, more than a year after the panel first compelled their testimony through subpoena.

"The agreement for Karl Rove and Harriet Miers to testify upholds a fundamental principle: no one is above the law and Congressional subpoenas must be complied with," Pelosi says. "As public officials, we take an oath of office to uphold the Constitution. It is the institutional duty of Congress -- as an independent branch -- to ensure against abuse of power through meaningful oversight over the Executive Branch. When there are credible allegations about the politicization of law enforcement, the need for Congressional oversight is at its greatest."

Rove and Miers particularly will be questioned about the firings of federal prosecutors during the Bush administration that appeared to be politically motivated. The firings were a key reason that forced the early resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

The House Judiciary Committee issued subpoenas for Rove and Miers more than a year ago, but Bush invoked executive privilege to keep the two from speaking. Rove and Miers lost that shield once President Obama was sworn into office. In her statement, Pelosi cited unspecified "assistance of the Obama administration" in securing the deal with Rove and Miers.

More than a year ago, congressional Democrats filed a lawsuit to enforce the subpoenas.

Rove and Miers will testify before the House Judiciary Committee in transcribed depositions under penalty of perjury, according to details of the deal. The committee has also reserved the right to have public testimony from Rove and Miers. It was agreed that invocations of official privileges would be significantly limited, the panel added in a statement.

In addition, if the committee uncovers information necessitating his testimony, the committee will also have the right to depose William Kelley, a former White House lawyer who played a role in the U.S. attorney firings.

"I have long said that I would see this matter through to the end and am encouraged that we have finally broken through the Bush administration’s claims of absolute immunity," says Rep. John Conyers, chairman of the judiciary panel. "This is a victory for the separation of powers and congressional oversight. It is also a vindication of the search for truth. I am determined to have it known whether U.S. attorneys in the Department of Justice were fired for political reasons, and if so, by whom."

Watch more breaking news now on our video feed:



Bookmark http://onthehillblog.blogspot.com/ and drop back in for more news from the nation's capital.

Conservative Author: "Rushification" Is Result of GOP Leaders' Incompetence

Broadcasters and commentators such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin, Glenn Beck and Michael Savage are seen as the de facto leaders of the Republican Party for a simple reason, according to a longtime conservative activist and author.

"It's because no one else is acting like a Republican leader," says Richard Viguerie, author of Conservatives Betrayed: How George W. Bush and Other Big Government Republicans Hijacked the Conservative Cause.

Viguerie's comments relate to a controversy that blew up last weekend between radio host Limbaugh and new Republican Party chief Michael Steele. In a speech to a Washington gathering of conservatives, Limbaugh said he wanted President Obama to fail. Steele appeared on television, calling Limbaugh an “entertainer” and “incendiary.” Steele subsequently relented and apologized to Limbaugh.

"The 'Rushification' of the GOP is the natural and inevitable result of the fact that those who are supposed to provide leadership – Republican elected officials and party officers – are doing little to bring the party back," says Viguerie, chairman of the website ConservativeHQ.com and a pioneer of direct mail fundraising for conservative causes. "Nature abhors a vacuum, and there is no vacuum in nature as empty as the leadership of the Republican Party today."

Democrats have seized on the Limbaugh/Steele imbroglio, casting the bombastic Limbaugh as the face of the modern GOP. Although Limbaugh is popular with the Republican base, he is not viewed favorably by most Democrats and independents, according to published polls.

Viguerie has frequently criticized GOP congressional leaders in recent years, and called for their resignations following Republican losses in the 2008 elections.

In contrast to GOP officials, "Limbaugh and Hannity and most all of their conservative colleagues have something to say," Viguerie says. "They actually believe in something. They have the confidence of their convictions. They don't cower in fear of the president's popularity. They know that his popularity is built on the sand of false promises and false premises. Like Ronald Reagan facing the Soviet Union, they know how this story ends."

Viguerie credits another TV personality, as well.

Jim Cramer of CNBC, who isn't a conservative, is providing "more honest and outspoken leadership than the 'loyal opposition' about how Obama's policies are destroying the life savings of Americans," Viguerie says in a statement.

"Americans are already beginning to realize that the new president is every bit as reckless and extreme as conservatives said he was," Viguerie says. "But the Republican Party can't get any traction, because the party leadership is as confused and clueless as the Obama administration."

Watch more breaking news now on our video feed:



Bookmark http://onthehillblog.blogspot.com/ and drop back in for more news from the nation's capital.

Waxman Thanked For Continuing Fight To Push FDA To Regulate Tobacco Products

A coalition of health advocacy groups is thanking a longtime tobacco industry foe for once again introducing a bill to require the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to regulate cigarettes and other tobacco products.

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) has long pushed for FDA regulation. He introduced a bill along with Republican Rep. Todd Platts of Pennsylvania. Waxman introduced similar legislation in the last Congress, as well. At that time, Waxman was working with then-Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.). Davis has since retired from Congress. Waxman is now working from a stronger perch on the issue, now that this year he took over as chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

In a joint statement, the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, American Heart Association, American Lung Association and Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids all call the new tobacco measure a "very strong bill."

"There are few steps Congress can take that will make a bigger difference for America's health than to finally regulate tobacco products, the number one cause of preventable death and disease in the United States," the joint statement says. "Enactment of this legislation this year will be a truly historic accomplishment that will end the special protection the tobacco industry has enjoyed for too long and protect our children and the nation's health instead."

Each year in the United States, tobacco-related diseases kill more than 400,000 people and cost the nation $96 billion in health care bills, the health organizations say. Reducing tobacco use is critical to "preventing disease, improving health and reducing health care costs in our country," their statement adds.

"The legislation introduced today will help achieve these goals by reducing the many devastating and costly diseases caused by tobacco use, which include cancer, heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and others that harm virtually every organ in the human body," the statement says.

"Unbelievably, despite the harm they cause, tobacco products are exempt from basic health regulations that apply to other products, such as food, drugs, cosmetics and even dog food," the statement says. "The tobacco companies take advantage of this lack of regulation to market their deadly and addictive products to children, deceive consumers about the harm their products cause, make changes to their products without disclosing them (such as secretly increasing nicotine levels in cigarette smoke, as studies have shown), and resist any meaningful change to make their products less harmful. Until Congress grants the FDA authority over tobacco products, the tobacco companies will continue their harmful practices that addict children and make it difficult for smokers to quit."

Specific provisions that the coalition supports in the Waxman/Platts bill are those that would:

Restrict tobacco advertising and promotions, especially to children.

Stop illegal sales of tobacco products to children.

Require larger, more effective health warnings on tobacco packages and advertising.

Ban misleading health claims, such as "light" and "low-tar," and strictly regulate all health claims about tobacco products to ensure they are scientifically proven and do not discourage current tobacco users from quitting or encourage new users to start.

Require tobacco companies to disclose the contents of tobacco products, as well as changes in products and research about their health effects.

Empower the FDA to require changes in tobacco products, such as the removal or reduction of harmful ingredients or the reduction of nicotine levels.

Watch more breaking news now on our video feed:



Bookmark http://onthehillblog.blogspot.com/ and drop back in for more news from the nation's capital.

Experts Question Obama Plan to Consult Military on Gay Ban

Experts are questioning President Obama's effort to consult with military brass as he plans to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy on open homosexuals serving in the military.

Obama "has begun consulting his top defense advisers on how to lift a ban," according to an Associated Press report. But Nathaniel Frank, author of a new book on the policy, says, "Last time political leaders consulted with the military on this issue, the brass still claimed they had not been consulted, and the result was a disaster. Remember, [President Bill] Clinton insisted he was consulting on how, not whether, to lift the ban, and even so, we got 'don't ask, don't tell.'"

The U.S. military had operated under a total ban on gays in the military. Military officials would ask recruits if they were gay or not. Clinton moved to end that ban soon after he assumed the presidency in 1993. However, a number of conservatives and military leaders -- notably then-Gen. Colin Powell -- balked and threatened to write the gay ban into law.

The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" came about as a compromise, in which gays could serve as long as they kept their sexuality in the closet. Military officers could no longer ask subordinates about their sexuality.

Some 16 years later, Obama and many congressional Democrats are talking about repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and allowing gays to serve in the military without reservation.

Last month, a retired Marine Corps general questioned a similar Obama administration proposal to study "don't ask, don't tell," according to a statement about Frank's book. "There's been enough studying throughout the years," says Gen. Hugh Aitken. "Creating a new study will not change the facts."

Frank's new book presents never-reported evidence indicating that military officers who wrote the blueprint for "don't ask, don't tell" based the policy "on nothing" but their "own prejudices and fears," according to the statement about the book.

The book, Unfriendly Fire: How the Gay Ban Undermines the Military and Weakens America, which was released this week, contains the largest collection of evidence showing openly gay service does not undermine military effectiveness, the statement says. Frank is senior research fellow at the Palm Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Sexuality minorities in the military is a key research focus of the Palm Center.

Frank says that his book is based on a a decade of research and hundreds of interviews.

Retired Gen. John Shalikashvili, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, tops the list of prominent leaders who have endorsed Unfriendly Fire, saying it “should be mandatory reading for anyone with an interest in the state of our society or the readiness of our military.”

Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Pa.), a member of the House Armed Services Committee and the only Iraq war veteran in Congress, says Frank’s “timely book should put to rest any lingering doubt about whether ‘don't ask, don't tell’ is working—it's been a failure from day one and should finally be put behind us.”

The Palm Center has launched "Send UNFRIENDLY FIRE to Congress!" which is an online campaign to put a book into the hands of every member of Congress by this spring.

Watch more breaking news now on our video feed:


Bookmark http://onthehillblog.blogspot.com/ and drop back in for more news from the nation's capital.

Leahy's Bipartisan Patent Reform Will Fuel Job Growth, Software Industry Says

A group of bipartisan, bicameral lawmakers have introduced patent reform legislation that would aid U.S. job growth during the economic downturn, according to supporters of the bill that includes the software industry.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), a senior member and former chairman of the panel, and House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) and ranking Republican Lamar Smith of Texas, introduced the Patent Reform Act of 2009 today.

The measure would be the first major reforms to the U.S. patent system, the lawmakers say. The Senate and House bills are similar to bipartisan legislation introduced in the 110th Congress, they say. The House passed patent reform legislation (H.R. 1908) in the last Congress, and the Senate Judiciary Committee approved companion legislation in the Senate (S. 1145) although it was not approved by the full Senate.

The legislation would makes updates to the system that will improve patent quality and increase certainty among parties in litigation, the lawmakers say in a statement. Among other things, the legislation introduced Tuesday would move the U.S. patent system toward a “first-inventor-to-file system,” which would give priority to the first true inventor to file an application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). The legislation would also improve administrative reexamination procedures, and provide more clarity to all parties about their rights and potential liabilities earlier in the infringement litigation process, the lawmakers say.

“Patent reform is ultimately about economic development. It is about jobs, it is about innovation, and it is about consumers," Leahy says. "All benefit under a patent system that reduces unnecessary costs, removes inefficiencies, and holds true to the vision of our Founders that Congress should establish a national policy that promotes the progress of science and the useful arts. This bill will establish a more efficient and streamlined patent system that will improve patent quality and limit unnecessary and counterproductive litigation costs, while making sure no party’s access to court is denied.”

The Software & Information Industry Association (SIIA), a Washington trade association for the software and digital content industries, praised the patent legislation, echoing the job-creation theme.

"The legislation introduced today with strong bi-partisan, bi-cameral support comes at a key time as our nation struggles to save jobs and invest in our future," says SIIA Senior Vice President of Public Policy Mark Bohannon. "The breadth of support for the Patent Reform Act of 2009 -- ranging from technology companies to those in financial services, as well as agriculture and consumers -- indicates a strong desire to build on the years of work that has produced this legislation. SIIA urges prompt consideration by the Committees, and action by the Senate and House soon."

In particular, the association says it supports these aspects of the bill:

Clarifying the vague and uncertain rules for calculating damages. Awarding damages that fairly correspond to the value of the infringed patent.

Establishing fair standards for punitive damages. Awarding punitive, treble damages for "willful" patent infringement should be reserved for cases of egregious conduct that is truly willful, as required by the U.S. Supreme Court for virtually all other punitive damages.

Restricting forum shopping. Cases should be brought in courts with some reasonable connection to the case without "gaming the system" to find the court with the highest success rate.

Improving patent quality. The system should promote quality patents and reduce litigation by providing a meaningful second chance for the PTO to review potentially problematic patents in a timely manner, and should promote sharing of information with the PTO to improve the patent examination process and to ensure the issuance of valid patents.

Watch more breaking news now on our video feed:



Bookmark http://onthehillblog.blogspot.com/ and drop back in for more news from the nation's capital.