McConnell Goes Out On Limb on Revenue, Only For His Caucus To Start Sawing It Off

The Senate's top Republican took a hard stand against raising tax revenue of any kind as part of a final deal on the federal budget, but members of his GOP caucus appear to have other ideas.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell has repeatedly taken tried to take off the table any tax policy changes which would raise new revenue for the federal government. This includes the elimination of tax breaks for hedge-fund managers, corporate jets, and others which President Obama and other Democrats are seeking as part of a final agreement on federal spending ahead of a looming Aug. 2 deadline by which the federal debt ceiling must be raised, otherwise the U.S. government is expected to begin defaulting on its obligations.

Other Republicans have expressed a willingness to eliminate federal subsidies as part of a budget deal, however.

Sen. John Cornyn says that rollbacks of special tax breaks "would be a fruitful area for discussion," according to a story published Tuesday in CQ Today.

Speaking on the NBC news program Meet The Press earlier this month, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) remarked, “No one on the Republican side is going to vote to raise taxes, but I think many of us would look at flattening the tax code, doing away with deductions and exemptions and take that revenue and help pay off the debt. One way to do this is to do away ethanol subsidy and a bunch of other subsides that go to a few people, take that money back into the federal Treasury and pay off the debt.”

According to The Hill, a Washington newspaper, Sen. Dan Coats (R-Ind.) says “it’s entirely appropriate to end niche tax subsidies, or what he calls tax expenditures, to reduce the deficit. He said the thinking has changed since the 2010 election. Before then, he said, the assumption was that money saved from ending tax breaks would be spent on other federal programs.”

Sen. Mike Johanns (R-N.D.), a former agriculture secretary in the Bush administration, also is apparently open to new revenues. He was quoted by Politico as saying, "Trying to figure out what to do with the budget has caused us all to come to grips with some things we’ve supported in the past, all of us."

Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, the second-highest ranking Republican in the Senate, most directly contradicts McConnell. He says that “revenues have never been off the table.”



Bookmark The Washington Current and drop back in for more news from the nation's capital.

Democrats Seek Federal Probe Into Restrictive State Voter ID Laws

Led by Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), a number of Senate Democrats are seeking a federal Justice Department investigation into new voter identification requirements that are under consideration or recently signed into law in several states that the lawmakers and others say could potentially disenfranchise thousands of eligible voters.

These voter ID laws, in Wisconsin, Kansas, Texas and elsewhere, have come under increasing scrutiny. Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne recently alleged that these laws are being engineered by Republicans in the states to to prevent key parts of President Obama's political coalition -- including African-Americans, Latinos and young people -- from being able to vote next year.

In a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, Bennet—along with Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, and Sens. Dick Durbin of Illinois, Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, Jeff Merkley and Ron Wyden of Oregon, Mark Begich of Alaska, Ben Cardin of Maryland, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Patty Murray of Washington State, Tom Harkin of Iowa, Herb Kohl of Wisconsin and Tom Udall of New Mexico—expressed serious concerns about voter identification laws, which could disenfranchise American voters.

“These measures have the potential to block millions of eligible American voters without addressing any problem commensurate with this kind of restriction on voting rights. Voting is the foundation of our democracy, and we urge you to protect the voting rights of Americans by using the full power of the Department of Justice to review these voter identification laws and scrutinize their implementation,” the senators write in their letter sent Wednesday.

Since January, voter ID laws have been passed in Wisconsin, South Carolina, Alabama, Texas, Kansas and Tennessee; Ohio, Pennsylvania and New Hampshire are also considering proposals.

These laws have the potential to disenfranchise thousands of eligible voters and disproportionately affect particular populations, the senators note. Studies have shown that as high as 11 percent of eligible voters nationwide do not have a government-issued ID. This percentage is higher among seniors, racial minorities, low-income voters and students.

As Dionne pointed out in his column published earlier this month, research has turned up few cases of the kind of voter fraud photo ID laws would prevent. Voter impersonation already is punishable by up to five years in prison and $10,000 in fines under federal law, the senators say.

Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, the federal Justice Department is granted significant authority to review laws before they are implemented in covered jurisdictions. Covered jurisdictions have the burden of proof to establish that changes in their laws will not have a discriminatory impact on minority voters. In states not covered by Section 5, Justice can exercise vigilance in overseeing whether these laws are implemented in a way that discriminates against protected classes in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Federal law enforcement also has authority under the Voting Rights Act to require that all individual’s qualified to vote in a jurisdiction be held to the same standards, practices and procedures.



Bookmark The Washington Current and drop back in for more news from the nation's capital.

Creating Demand and Jobs by Reducing Student Debt Burdens

This article was published by the Center for American Progress.

By Jordan Eizenga

Our goal in this series is to offer job creation ideas that can fit squarely within the fiscal bounds of the political climate today in Washington. Some of our ideas will require additional federal spending, but all of our proposals are well within the financial means of the federal government. Others don’t cost anything. All would create jobs.

And jobs are sorely needed. The U.S. economy has gained more than 1.1 million jobs since the labor market hit bottom in September 2010. Yet, we still have almost 7 million jobs fewer than when the recession started in December 2007. In 2009, we laid out a set of initiatives that would generate strong job creation. But after taking aggressive action in 2009 to end the Great Recession and start the economy growing anew, policymakers in Washington today are unwilling to embrace major job creation initiatives.

This week, Center for American Progress Economic Policy Analyst Jordan Eizenga presents an idea to stimulate the economy and create jobs by relieving student debt burdens—an idea we believe could be achievable in Washington.

What if I told you Congress could reduce student debt burdens, inject billions of dollars into the economy, create jobs, and do so without it costing a fortune to the federal Treasury? Well, Congress can do just that by expanding and modifying the Department of Education’s existing student loan rebate program.

Currently, 65 percent of all college students take out some form of debt for education-related expenses. The average debt level of students at the time of graduation is over $24,000. This amounts to average monthly loan payments of approximately $250 over 10 years. Clearly, these households are in a lot of debt, which is constraining spending and holding back our economic recovery.

The Department of Education offers an interest rebate program for borrowers who make their first 12 monthly payments on time to help reduce student debt burdens and promote on-time repayment. Currently, the program is only eligible for borrowers in the federal direct loan program and not for the millions of individuals who borrowed through other federal student loan programs. What’s more, its effect is relatively meaningless to borrowers because the rebate is applied over the life of the loan and not all at once, reducing monthly payments by less than $3 on average.[1]

Congress can provide an average increase of approximately $345 in disposable income for student debtors if it temporarily expands eligibility for the rebate program to nondirect student loans that it guaranteed and converts the rebate to an upfront, lump sum payment. And Congress could offer student debt holders who previously lost out on the rebate a second chance to receive it given the havoc the financial crisis wreaked on millions of Americans over the past four years.

The rebate will not be a free lunch, however. Borrowers that fail to make their payments on time will see the rebate added back on to their monthly payments. For this reason, the rebate should also help induce on-time payment. This saves the federal government money by helping reduce default rates.

There are also additional steps Congress can take to create demand by reducing student debt burdens. For instance, Congress can extend the grace period during which recent graduates are not required to make payments from the current standard of 6 months to 12 months. Interest will still be capitalized on loans during this time, but the extended grace period will give students more time to find work without having to worry about making student loan payments. An extended grace period seems all the more reasonable with unemployment at an all-time high for recent college graduates.

This proposal’s central benefit is that it will create jobs by creating demand. The rebate and the extended grace period will increase the disposable income and spending power of student debt holders, thereby boosting economic activity and employment growth. We estimate that the rebate alone will inject $2.4 billion into the economy and the extended grace period should free up $5.5 billion that would ordinarily go toward student loan payments. Both of these mean increased demand and more income for businesses that they can use to make investments and hire employees.[2]

To be sure, the proposed changes will not alone create enough jobs to generate full employment. But it can be part of a series of initiatives that aim to achieve that end. And given that the bulk of this proposal does not involve new spending, we estimate the 10-year cost of the proposed changes to be less than $2 billion and would be offset by increased receipts from lower default rates. Clearly, this proposal is well within Washington’s means.

So look no further than the tens of millions of Americans with student loans if you’re searching for a sensible and simple way to help provide fuel to the economy and create additional jobs. After all, they could certainly use some help.

Jordan Eizenga is a Policy Analyst at American Progress.

See also:

■Job Creation Strategies That Work by Heather Boushey

Endnotes

[1] Based on author’s calculations using data from finaid.org.

[2] Based on author’s calculations using data from finaid.org.




Bookmark The Washington Current and drop back in for more news from the nation's capital.

Nuke Plant Inspections Find Flaws in Disaster Readiness

by John Sullivan, Special to ProPublica

A special inspection of U.S. nuclear plants after the Fukushima disaster in Japan revealed problems with emergency equipment and disaster procedures that are far more pervasive than publicly described by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, a review of inspection reports by ProPublica shows.

While the deficiencies don't pose an immediate risk and are relatively easy to fix, critics say they could complicate the response to a major disaster and point to a weakness in NRC oversight.

The NRC ordered the inspection in response to the March earthquake and tsunami that crippled Fukushima's reactors. The purpose was to conduct a fast check on the equipment and procedures that U.S. plants are required to have in place in the event of a catastrophic natural disaster or a terrorist attack.

Agency officials unveiled the results in May, stating in a news release that "out of 65 operating reactor sites, 12 had issues with one or more of the requirements during the inspections."

But ProPublica's examination of the reports found that 60 plant sites had deficiencies that ranged from broken machinery, missing equipment and poor training to things like blocked drains or a lack of preventive maintenance. Some of the more serious findings include:

• At the Arkansas Nuclear One plant outside Russellville, several portable pumps dedicated to flood control didn't work.



• At the Clinton plant outside Bloomington, Ill., a fire pump broke down during a test.



• At the Sequoyah plant outside Chattanooga, Tenn., inspectors couldn't find drain valves needed for flood control.



• At the Diablo Canyon plant in California, a fence blocked the path for a hose to pump emergency water.

Plant officials said they have moved to fix those problems and that none would have prevented them from responding in an emergency. The NRC told ProPublica that all the issues raised by inspectors "fell well short of being imminent safety concerns" and were being addressed.

In a summary attached to the inspection findings, however, the NRC expressed some concern.

"While individually, none of these observations posed a significant safety issue, they indicate a potential industry trend of failure to maintain equipment and strategies required to mitigate some design and beyond design-basis events," the summary says.

The NRC reported fewer problems at the plants than ProPublica because it only counted those in which a plant had a problem demonstrating how its emergency preparedness plan would work. The agency said that, despite these questions, all the plants could protect their reactors.

The special inspection covered equipment and procedures for use in disasters that are beyond the scope of the plant's design -- major earthquakes, tornadoes, floods, hurricanes and terrorist attacks.

Many of the items covered in the special inspection are supposed to be checked by NRC inspectors on a regular basis. Items that were required after the 9/11 attacks to respond to large explosions and fires -- like extra pumps, hoses and generators -- are supposed to be reviewed as part of regular triennial fire protection inspections.

David Lochbaum, a nuclear engineer with the Union of Concerned Scientists, says the large number of problems uncovered in the special inspection shows that NRC must strengthen oversight.

"I think they need to look at the inspections," said Lochbaum, whose group monitors safety matters. "Why did they find so much in these inspections? Shouldn't these have been found sooner?"

Nuclear plants conduct emergency drills every two years, and Lochbaum said that one possible improvement would be for inspectors to check the condition of the emergency response equipment then.

Mary Lampert, executive director of the advocacy group Pilgrim Watch in Massachusetts, said many of the deficiencies uncovered by the NRC may seem minor but could quickly turn into bigger problems in an emergency situation.

"They all add up. They cannot wait for a disaster to start looking around for a screwdriver that is required to open a valve because time is typically of the essence," she said.

Lampert said it is important for the NRC to keep an eye on the problems they found and not simply assume the nuclear companies will fix everything.

The Fukushima accident has focused the NRC's attention on the risk that a natural disaster or attack could knock out a plant's safety systems for an extended period and lead to a radiation release.

Although all plants are designed to withstand natural disasters, U.S. nuclear facilities are aging. Recent studies have shown that earthquake risks are now higher than they were predicted when some plants were built, although the NRC says reactors can still withstand the highest expected quake. Now historic flooding on the Missouri River is testing design limits at two Nebraska plants.

Flood waters are expected to come within a few feet of levels the Fort Calhoun and Cooper nuclear plants were built to withstand. At Fort Calhoun, a special berm providing backup protection collapsed Sunday after being damaged. Operators briefly turned on emergency diesel power but said there was no risk to reactor cooling systems. The plant has been shut down for refueling since early April.

On April 1, the NRC launched a task force of senior agency managers to examine the ability of plants to respond to events that might overwhelm existing safety systems and procedures. The panel is concentrating on disaster preparedness and the ability to survive a lengthy blackout, as at Fukushima.

The six-member group is scheduled to report its findings to the commission on July 19, and the NRC has held two briefings on the subject so far. Until the task force reports back, the NRC said it would not comment on what, if any, changes the agency might propose.

The Union of Concerned Scientists and other watchdog groups have said that Fukushima points to the need for some obvious improvements, such as adding backup generators and moving used nuclear fuel out of cooling pools and into safer storage locations.

The nuclear industry's main trade group, the Nuclear Energy Institute, is teaming up with the Institute for Nuclear Power Operations and the research organization the Electric Power Research Institute to develop disaster preparedness guidelines [23] for nuclear companies, said Thomas Kauffman, a spokesman for NEI.

Kauffman said U.S. nuclear plants have survived hurricanes, tornadoes and extended power outages without damage to their reactors, but the industry is looking hard at Fukushima nevertheless. "We want to take the lessons learned and make sure they are applied across the industry," he said.

Chairman Gregory Jaczko raised the issue of emergency preparedness this month at an International Atomic Energy Agency conference in Vienna. According to a copy of his speech, he brought up the post-Fukushima inspection results.

"While I see nothing that calls into question the safety of our plants, I see areas where performance was not as good as would be preferred," Jaczko said. Changes are likely, he added, "although it is too early to say right now precisely what those changes might be."

Jaczko visited the Nebraska plants this week and declared that, while flood conditions were likely to continue for some time, the plants are safe.

"Water levels are at a place where the plant [workers] can deal with them," Jaczko said at Fort Calhoun on Monday, according to the Iowa Independent. "The risk is really very low that something could go wrong."

ProPublica intern Ariel Wittenberg contributed to this story.

Bookmark The Washington Current and drop back in for more news from the nation's capital.

Republican Leaders Clueless On The Consequences Of Default

Two top Republicans are proclaiming that there is no way to know the consequences of a failure to raise the federal debt limit. While they may be at a loss to explain the consequences of a failure to raise the debt limit to avoid a potential U.S. default, many business leaders and fellow Republicans know the dire consequences of a failure to raise the debt limit.

Former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty, a candidate for the 2012 GOP nomination for president; and Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Preibus each made similar comments about the debt ceiling debate Tuesday while appearing on Joe Scarborough's MSNBC morning news program (VIDEO).

President Obama and senior members of his administration have been conducting high-stakes negotiations for weeks with congressional Republicans, who have demanded extraordinarily deep cuts to a swath of federal spending in exchange for a vote on the debt ceiling. If the two sides don't come to an agreement by early August, the federal government likely will begin defaulting on its current debts.

Scarborough, a former Republican congressman from Florida, asked Pawlenty what he thought about Obama's handling of the debt issue.

Pawlenty responded: "We don’t know. The real test is coming up as the deadline approaches. Right now, as judged by outcomes, the answer is we haven’t done anything yet. The debt ceiling is going to be a fork in the road. My view is that the Republicans shouldn’t raise it. If they do, they need to get something permanent and structural and meaningful, the constitutional amendment, spending caps, and changes in the near term."


'Splat'


Scarborough followed up by asking Pawlenty about what the impact would be if the debt limit is not raised.

"Well, we don’t know that," the candidate answered.

Scarborough replied, "Well, I don’t know what’s going to happen to me if I jump off a cliff. But I think I’ll go splat."

Scarborough asked Preibus about whether he thought the U.S. economy "will just keep chugging along normally" if the government were to default, whether it would cause a financial crisis.

"You know, I don’t know, because we’ve never been there before, Joe," was the response from the head of the Republican Party.

Despite the protests otherwise from Pawlenty and Preibus, a number of other Republicans and financial experts have already weighed in on the consequences of default, which they say could cause catastrophe.

JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon says default on the federal debt would be “catastrophic.”

Larry Kudlow, the conservative financial television commentator, also says it would be “catastrophe” if the debt ceiling were not raised.

“Kudlow said it would be a ‘catastrophe’ if we failed to raise the debt ceiling — and noted that he was ‘very worried’ about it," according to a news account in the Daily Caller. "When I noted that some don’t think failing to raise the debt ceiling would be a big deal, he said: ‘Those people would be wrong. I just want to tell you; the idea that we can’t sell bonds to pay the interest on our debt is an utter disaster, Matt. Trust me on this, my friend. This is much different than the government shutdown. The government shutdown you know, we go on until tomorrow. We furlough unessential workers, but the social security checks get paid, right? If you can’t sell more bonds after the ceiling is reached, the social security checks do not get paid, okay — nothing gets paid.’”

Further, the chairman of the Federal Reserve also has warned of big problems. Ben Bernanke, first appointed his post by President George W. Bush, warns that failure to raise the debt limit “could cause severe disruptions in financial markets.”

In a speech this month, Bernanke remarked, “Failing to raise the debt ceiling in a timely way would be self-defeating if the objective is to chart a course toward a better fiscal situation for our nation. The current level of the debt and near-term borrowing needs reflect spending and revenue choices that have already been approved by the current and previous Congresses and administrations of both political parties. Failing to raise the debt limit would require the federal government to delay or renege on payments for obligations already entered into.

“In particular, even a short suspension of payments on principal or interest on the Treasury’s debt obligations could cause severe disruptions in financial markets and the payments system, induce ratings downgrades of U.S. government debt, create fundamental doubts about the creditworthiness of the United States, and damage the special role of the dollar and Treasury securities in global markets in the longer term. Interest rates would likely rise, slowing the recovery and, perversely, worsening the deficit problem by increasing required interest payments on the debt for what might well be a protracted period,” he adds.

Other experts have noted that failure to raise the debt limit could cost 640,000 jobs at a time of already high unemployment, and would slow economic growth by at least 1 percent when the economy already is at risk of stalling out.



Bookmark The Washington Current and drop back in for more news from the nation's capital.

Preserving the American Dream: Storymap Shares Americans’ Experiences with Social Mobility Programs

This article was published by the Center for American Progress.

By Natalia Mercado Violand

One of the most prevalent ties that holds Americans together is the American Dream, the belief that life should be better for everyone, according to achievement and regardless of fortuitous circumstances of birth or social position.

Now, the American Dream is in danger.

The steep budget cuts proposed in Congress place our dream at risk. Successful federally funded social programs that aid low-income families are at risk of being severely curtailed. Programs such as WIC, SNAP/food stamps, housing vouchers, and Head Start have helped many Americans overcome adversity and get their life on track.

More than 43.5 million Americans live below the poverty line, approximately $22,000 for a family of four. With the employment rates as high as they are, 7.6 percent for white non-Hispanics, 16 percent for African Americans, and 11.9 percent for Latinos, cutting these federal programs out would be devastating.

Congress needs to hear the voices of the everyday Americans who strive to hold on to their American Dream with the help of these programs. In order to get these voices heard, Half in Ten, a national campaign to cut poverty in half in 10 years, and the Coalition on Human Needs have launched The Road to Shared Prosperity. This interactive storymap is a resource for the public as well as for advocates, press, and policymakers interested in hearing the voices of low-income Americans and other vulnerable groups as the budget debate proceeds.

This initiative allows Americans such as Maurice Randle to tell their story. Randle grew up in a low-income neighborhood in Columbus, Ohio with a drug addicted mother and an alcoholic father. He fathered a child in high school and started selling drugs to provide a household income. When Randle turned 21, he joined Youthbuild, a youth and community development program that addresses a variety of issues facing low-income communities such as homelessness and unemployment. The program allows low-income young people to work toward their GEDs and learn job skills so that they may be able to better serve their communities.

Through Youthbuild, Randle became sober and clean, acquired an education, and gained a different perception of life. Randle now lives in Pickerington, Ohio with his family. It was his access to this human needs and job-training program that allowed him to improve his living conditions. The extent of this impact, however, does not end with him. Programs like Youthbuild allow our future generations to await a brighter future. Maurice Randle attests to this, “Because of Youthbuild the generations that come from me will be different.”

Youthbuild, as well as the Special Supplemental Nutritional Program for Women, Infants and Children, or WIC, a cost-effective federal program that provides nutritious foods to low-income pregnant women, new moms, babies, and children under five who have been identified as nutritionally at risk, is on the budget chopping block. Margaret Saunders, director of WIC Services at CEDA, the Community and Economic Development Association, is also a contributor to the storymap. She has personally witnessed the wide impact of the WIC program in the Chicago metropolitan area. Her agency assists more than 46,000 clients a month with social service programs such as WIC.

The typical client at Saunders’s agency is a recently unemployed young mother who has never sought federal assistance. “Traditionally, it’s the mother of young children that calls [to inquire about WIC] and the family income has stopped, or she’s been laid off, whether her partner or spouse has been laid off and the family is in panic,” said Saunders. “WIC is a program that is often the first entry into the whole network of social family support.”

The House of Representatives recently passed legislation to decrease the budget for the Special Supplemental Nutritional Program by more than $650 million in FY 2012, the equivalent of kicking between 200,000 and 350,000 women, infants, and children off the program. The majority of Americans see the injustice of the proposed Republican budget plan. Nearly two-thirds, 64 percent, fear the Republicans’ deficit plan will take away needed protections for the poor and will “protect the rich at the expense of everyone else.”

The truth is that these programs level the playing field. They give those who were dealt the short end of the stick a chance to excel and become a better version of themselves. It allows them to have a shot at the American Dream.

This project relies on individuals to speak up and tell their story. If you or someone you know has a story, please SHARE YOUR STORY and make your voice heard.

Natalia Mercado Violand is an intern at American Progress.



Bookmark The Washington Current and drop back in for more news from the nation's capital.

List of State Immigration Laws Blocked in Federal Court Grows Longer

by Marian Wang, ProPublica

Last week, we noted that several states' tough, new immigration laws have been challenged in court. Arizona and Utah both recently had key parts of their laws blocked by federal judges.

Now, add Georgia and Indiana to the list.

Yesterday, a federal judge in Georgia blocked the most contentious provisions of the state’s new immigration law. The judge ruled that requiring police to check the immigration status of suspects who cannot produce identification amounted to “an end-run” around federal law. Another broadly written provision making it a crime to harbor or transport an undocumented immigrant was also blocked. U.S. District Judge Tom Trash ruled that had the provision been allowed to go into effect, it would be illegal to give a ride to a friend who is undocumented: “This is a good reason to require supervision of any attempts by Georgia to enforce illegal immigration law,” he wrote.

The ruling follows another decision by another federal judge on Friday to temporarily block key parts of Indiana’s new immigration law. According to that judge, the state’s attempt to enact an immigration law without infringing on federal authority was “seriously flawed and generally unsuccessful.”

But in both cases, the judges upheld provisions that expanded the use of E-Verify, a federal program that allows employers to check the eligibility of prospective employees. Critics have said its error rates render it ineffective. According to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the program “accurately detects the status of unauthorized workers almost half of the time.”

Nonetheless, Georgia’s law makes E-Verify mandatory for all employers. That appears to have put a strain on the state’s agricultural industry, which has had to scramble for workers as undocumented workers have fled to avoid the crackdown. Indiana’s law requires state and local government contractors to use E-Verify and gives any employer using E-Verify a break from some new penalties if they’re caught employing an undocumented worker, the Indianapolis Star noted. Both those provisions are slated to go into effect on Friday.

South Carolina and Alabama will likely be next in line for court challenges. South Carolina’s governor signed a law yesterday requiring employers to use E-Verify and requiring police to check the immigration status of anyone they’ve stopped and suspect is undocumented. Alabama enacted its law earlier this month and, according to USA Today, supporters of the law are actually looking forward to a challenge:

Michael Hethmon of the Immigration Reform Law Institute, which has been helping state lawmakers draft Arizona-like laws around the country, said Alabama legislators were hoping for a legal challenge when they passed their law, thinking they could get a different ruling than the one issued in Phoenix by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton, who blocked the Arizona law last year.

The Alabama legislators "looked at Judge Bolton's reasoning and said, 'We're not on the left coast here, we're in the 11th Circuit, and we think we're going to get a different interpretation by a different judge,'" Hethmon said.

So far, politics haven’t appeared to play a significant role. Judges in four separate circuit courts—both Democrat and Republican appointees—have moved to block what they’ve said are overreaching immigration laws.

Bookmark The Washington Current and drop back in for more news from the nation's capital.

Armed With Good Poll Numbers, Senate Dems Say They Can Compete Broadly

Although Democrats face a daunting task to hold the Senate next year, they've sketched out a plan to compete in more than two dozen states in the 2012.

Further, Senate Democrats on Tuesday released polls in several states, including Utah, which show them to be competitive heading into next year's elections.

Senate Democrats next year must defend 23 seats year, more than twice as many as Republicans. A net loss of just four seats would hand control back to the GOP.

Despite what appears to be an uphill climb, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) included polling results from four states in a fundraising email. The DSCC is the group tasked with electing Democrats to the Senate.

Those polls show Democrats ahead in Nevada, Pennsylvania and Ohio, and, perhaps most remarkably, tied in Utah.

Freshman incumbents, Sens. Bob Casey and Sherrod Brown, will be seeking second terms in Pennsylvania and Ohio, respectively. According to DSCC polling, Casey would win 47 percent to 32 percent. Brown, a leading progressive who was thought to be potentially vulnerable in a swing state like Ohio, leads 51 percent to 33 percent.

In Nevada, Democratic Rep. Shelley Berkley will be taking on GOP Sen. Dean Heller, who was appointed to his seat just weeks ago following the resignation of scandal-tarred Republican Sen. John Ensign. Ensign stepped aside due to ethics issues that stem from payoffs designed to hide an extramarital affair the senator had been carrying on with an aide.

Most notably, DSCC polling has the 2012 Utah race tied at 47 percent. A deeply conservative state, six-term incumbent Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch is seeking re-election. Hatch could well face a challenge for the nomination from the right, however. That's what happened in Utah in 2010, when incumbent Republican Sen. Robert Bennett fell to tea party favorite Mike Lee. Lee went on to win the general election, and is now the state's junior senator.

Republican Rep. Jason Chaffetz is most often talked about as a potential Republican challenger to Hatch for the GOP senatorial nomination. Rep. Jim Matheson, the lone Democrat in Utah's congressional delegation could decide to try for Senate next year.

"GOP efforts to sabotage the economy for political gain are not paying off -– yet. But Republicans are reading the same polls and writing big checks. Karl Rove’s group just made a $20 million ad buy in crucial swing states (including Nevada)," says Jason Rosenbaum, DSCC director of online communications, referring to the former Bush White House aide's deep-pocketed conservative American Crossroads groups, which spent tens of millions to defeat Democrats in 2010. "We have no margin for error in 2012. If they flip just 4 Democratic seats, we lose the Senate."

Besides the polling, the DSCC sent out an earlier email which outlined potential Democratic 2012 battle plans.

As the DSCC is working feverishly this week to meet an end-of-month fundraising goal, it's not surprising that the organization broke those plans down under the headings, "Fully funded plan" and "Limited resources plan."

As of Tuesday morning, the DSCC was still trying to bring in $201,000 in online contributions.

The fully funded plan would target a wide swath of some 27 states, including races in traditionally red states like Indiana, Tennessee and Texas. The limited plan would reach just a dozen or so states, mostly those with potentially vulnerable incumbents, such as Sen. Jon Tester of Montana and Clare McCaskill of Missouri.

"The map on the right means Republican candidates go unchallenged," DSCC executive director Guy Cecil says, referring to the limited plan. "It means we hand the GOP victories, and it means we give them the majority. But if we reach our budget projections, we get the map on the left [the fully funded plan]."

Interestingly, however, even under the limited plan, the DSCC would still seek to defeat Republican Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts and support Berkeley's challenge in Nevada.



Bookmark The Washington Current and drop back in for more news from the nation's capital.

Capitol Idea: Three Cheers for the New York State Senate

By Scott Nance

New York is set to become the seventh state to allow same-sex marriage.

Because the Empire State is so populous, the new law will roughly double the number of Americans who have access to gay marriage.

But, as momentous a victory as this represents for marriage equality, the vote late Friday night by the New York state senate reverberates far beyond the single issue of gay marriage.

Because its state senate is controlled by Republicans, New York is the first state to allow gay marriage where the legislature is not dominated by Democrats.

At a time of deep partisan division and gridlock nationally, this news out of New York represents a welcome breath of bipartisan cooperation.

And federal politicians in Washington ought to take note.

Although the New York Senate is controlled by the GOP, most of the Republican senators actually oppose same-sex marriage. But instead of obstructing the measure by keeping it bottled up in committee, Republican leaders of the state Senate actually allowed the legislation to be brought up for a vote anyway. Same-sex marriage prevailed because most of the chamber's Democrats lined up behind it, with a small handful of Republicans helping to push it over the finish line. The result was truly bipartisan.

Sadly, it's hard to picture a similar feat coming to pass in Congress, whether on the matter of gay marriage, or any other issue. Congressional Republicans routinely stand in the way of nearly any Democratic initiative.

Imagine, though, if the Washington GOP behaved more like their colleagues from the Empire State. Most of the Republicans in the state Senate didn't help Democrats pass gay marriage, but they didn't stand in the way, either. They let the Democrats do the heavy lifting to round up the support to get it passed. Those New York Republicans should be applauded, because that's exactly how Republicans in Washington ought to behave. If Democrats in Congress can muster the votes on a given issue, they ought to be able to prevail, just as the Democrats in Albany did. Republicans shouldn't obstruct just for the sake of obstruction. The lesson from New York, though, isn't only for Republicans, President Obama should pay attention, too.

New York lawmakers tried to pass gay marriage about 18 months ago, and failed. Gay marriage didn't get the push from the governor's office in 2009 that it got this year. A big reason for the different result this time was the leadership of Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo, who came into office this year.

Cuomo, the New York Times says, "used the force of his personality and relentlessly strategic mind to persuade conflicted lawmakers to take a historic leap."

As president, Obama could, no should, provide the same level of leadership that Cuomo is showing in New York, to fight for Democratic priorities. I don't just mean on gay marriage, but on any issue important to Democrats.

For those of us in Washington who have grown accustomed to the notion that divided government must equal gridlock, our friends in the Empire State proved another outcome is entirely possible.

Scott Nance has covered Congress and the federal government for more than a decade. Capitol Idea is his regular column from Washington. This article was first published as Three Cheers for the New York State Senate on Blogcritics.

Bookmark The Washington Current and drop back in for more news from the nation's capital.

CBO’s Dire Debt Outlook Is Mainly Due to Lower Revenues

This article was published by the Center for American Progress.

By Michael Linden

We have a serious revenue problem. And the recent Congressional Budget Office report on the country’s long-term fiscal outlook makes this crystal clear. If we continue our current policies, debt will soar, approaching 200 percent of gross domestic product by 2036. On the other hand, if we follow current law, debt will never crack 90 percent. And the biggest difference by far between these two alternatives is revenue. In fact, reduced revenue is responsible for fully three-quarters of the higher debt level in the current policy scenario compared to just one-quarter from increased spending.

The CBO makes its budget projections under two different sets of assumptions. In the first—the “baseline” scenario—the CBO assumes that future budgets will follow current law, meaning the Bush tax cuts expire as scheduled, the alternative minimum tax grows, the new health care law is implemented, and payments to Medicare doctors are cut.

In this future our debt burden is very manageable. It rises from just under 70 percent of GDP this year to 85 percent by 2036 and 87 percent by 2040. But from there it stabilizes and actually begins to decline.

But under the other set of assumptions—the “alternative” scenario—the debt quickly explodes into disastrous levels. The alternative scenario roughly mirrors current policies, rather than current law. This scenario assumes that the Bush tax cuts are extended, the AMT is indexed to inflation, the formula requiring big cuts to Medicare doctors is overridden, and the reforms of the Affordable Care Act aren’t implemented. These assumptions mean that this scenario has both more spending and less revenue than the baseline.

The result is much larger deficits and much more debt. By 2036, debt under the alternative scenario would be 195 percent of GDP. The CBO doesn’t even project the debt past that year because it would exceed 200 percent.

So which one is right? That depends on what you think will happen with those key policies. Most budget and political analysts focus their attention and worry on the alternative scenario. After all, they point out, the Bush tax cuts were set to expire last year, and Congress extended them for two more years. Won’t they do the same in 2012? And Congress has always been diligent about making sure that Medicare doctors don’t suffer huge pay cuts. Why would the future be any different from the past?

These are good points, and it is certainly true that we cannot afford to continue current policies. But by comparing the differences between the baseline scenario—in which debt is manageable—and the more realistic alternative scenario—in which debt is out of control—we can see exactly which side of the ledger is really driving the high debt.

It turns out that the alternative scenario’s much lower levels of revenue are the main problem. In the alternative scenario, debt as a share of GDP in 2036 is 110 points above the debt level in the baseline scenario. That’s about $52 trillion in additional debt. Of that amount, nearly 75 percent—or $39 trillion—is the direct result of lower levels of revenue. Higher spending is responsible for the other quarter.

These two scenarios highlight the fact that, under current policies, we do have a serious revenue problem. The huge debt levels embedded in the alternative fiscal scenario are mainly the result of dramatically reduced revenue. The baseline, on the other hand, has much more stable levels of debt because of its higher levels of revenue. Of course, few think the baseline scenario is likely, and the alternative is much more frightening. But it’s important to understand that the reason that scenario is so dire is because of a serious lack of adequate revenue, not huge spending hikes.

Michael Linden is the Associate Director for Tax and Budget Policy at American Progress.

Bookmark The Washington Current and drop back in for more news from the nation's capital.

EPA Fracking Study to Focus on Five States—But Not Wyoming

by Abrahm Lustgarten, ProPublica

The Environmental Protection Agency will focus its national study of hydraulic fracturing on seven areas in five states but will exclude the two Wyoming gas fields where agency researchers have already collected some of the most in-depth data on drilling's environmental impacts.

The study—which was announced last March, without specifics on research sites—will investigate alleged water contamination from drilling in five areas in Texas, Colorado, North Dakota and Pennsylvania. It also will encompass cradle-to-grave research projects in Pennsylvania and Louisiana, where the agency will track drilling's effects on water quality from before the drill bit hits the ground to after hydraulic fracturing has been performed.

"This is about using the best possible science to do what the American people expect the EPA to do—ensure that the health of their communities and families are protected," said Paul Anastas, assistant administrator for EPA's Office of Research and Development, in a statement.

Conspicuously absent from the list are sites in Sublette County and Pavillion, Wyo., where EPA scientists began testing water and collecting data three years ago in response to allegations of drilling-related contamination. In Sublette County, one of the most active drilling fields in the country, researchers discovered benzene in 88 water wells in 2008 and have been testing ever since. In Pavillion, the EPA found metals, methane, hydrocarbons and traces of compounds related to fracking chemicals in residential water wells in 2009.

Research in both areas is ongoing and may still inform the EPA's work, but it will not play a central role in the nationwide investigation into whether hydraulic fracturing is safe or presents a risk to drinking water. The EPA did not immediately respond to questions about the role of the Wyoming research.

Fracturing is a process used to extract trapped oil and gas from thousands of feet below ground by injecting a mixture of water, sand and chemicals under enough force to shatter the rock and allow the oil and gas to flow out. Advancements in the technology have made large, deeply buried natural gas deposits in the Marcellus Shale and elsewhere accessible for the first time. But the process is exempt from federal regulation, and there is little research showing where the chemicals wind up after they are pumped underground or how they can be safely disposed of after the drilling is finished.

A series of articles by ProPublica beginning in 2008 found a pattern of groundwater water pollution across states where fracturing is used to tap natural gas. Residents in these areas complained they could light their faucets on fire and had suffered health effects they worried were caused by the drilling processes.

Now Congress is weighing bills that would lead to regulation of fracturing, and the EPA is undertaking the first national study to evaluate the effects of fracturing on drinking water.

On Thursday, the EPA said it had narrowed down more than 40 prospective research sites to seven based on factors ranging from the size of the population and the proximity of drinking water supplies to drilling, to health complaints and the extent of alleged contamination.

Five research projects will take a forensic approach, retroactively investigating places where drilling has already occurred and where contamination has been alleged. The sites for these projects are:

● Kildeer and Dunn Counties in North Dakota's Bakken Shale

● Wise and Denton Counties in Texas' Barnett Shale

● Bradford and Susquehanna Counties in Pennsylvania's Marcellus Shale

● Washington County, also in Pennsylvania's Marcellus Shale

● Las Animas County in Colorado's Raton Basin

At two additional sites—in DeSoto Parish, La., in the Haynesville Shale and a separate site in Washington County, Pa.—the EPA will attempt to observe and measure the changes drilling brings to an area as it happens.

These prospective studies could prove the most interesting and the most challenging. To gain access to drilling sites, EPA researchers have partnered with two companies that have agreed to allow agency scientists to be present before a drill pad is cleared, as it is drilled and as it is hydraulically fractured. In a public conference call Thursday, EPA officials mentioned Chesapeake Energy and Range Resources as possible partners but did not confirm these were the companies it had begun working with. Chesapeake is the predominant drilling company in the Haynesville Shale, and Range is active in central and western Pennsylvania.

The lifecycle study will allow the EPA to test water quality near the drilling sites before any activity takes place and then monitor for changes as the companies drill their wells. It also will allow the EPA to collect and test fracturing fluids and other waste that flows back out of the well, providing an exact chemical portrait that can be compared to water contaminants if they are discovered. According to an EPA official, the agency is considering "tagging" the hydraulic fracturing fluids with a benign tracer, a technique that could finally make it possible to see exactly where the injected fracturing fluids wind up.

Bookmark The Washington Current and drop back in for more news from the nation's capital.

Coalition Urges White House, Congress to Reduce Deficit Without Increasing Poverty

The leaders of prominent national religious, civil rights, charitable, economic research, and low-income advocacy organizations are calling on White House and congressional leadership to honor the precedent set by previous deficit reduction negotiations that have reduced the deficit without increasing poverty.

Their urging comes at a critical juncture in the deficit reduction talks, as President Obama is to meet personally on Monday with congressional leaders to restart talks on federal deficit reduction that bogged down last week when Republicans walked away from a series of earlier talks led by Vice President Biden.

Congressional Republicans have insisted in trillions of dollars in cuts to the federal deficit in exchange for a vote to raise the government's debt limit, needed to avoid a potential federal default in the coming weeks. Much of those cuts would come at the expense of an array of federal programs upon which low-income and middle class Americans rely.

In a letter to policymakers involved in deficit reduction talks, the groups note the precedent of bipartisan budgets that reduce both poverty and the deficit, stating:

"…all deficit reduction packages enacted in the 1990s reduced poverty and helped the disadvantaged even as they shrank deficits. In addition, every automatic budget cut mechanism of the past quarter-century has exempted core low-income assistance programs from any automatic across-the-board cuts triggered when budget targets or fiscal restraint rules were missed or violated. The 1985 and 1987 Gramm-Rudman-Hollings laws, the 1990 Budget Enforcement Act, the 1993 deficit reduction package, the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, and the 2010 pay-as-you-go law all exempted core low-income programs from automatic cuts."

The letter, sent to Obama, Biden, and congressional leaders of both parties, is signed by such leaders as Marian Wright Edelman, president of the Children's Defense Fund; Nancy Duff Campbell, co-president, National Women's Law Center; and Robert Greenstein, president of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

"Unless programs for low-income people are protected in the budget negotiations, women and their families will bear the brunt of deficit reduction," says Campbell. "Women are more likely than men to be poor because they still face discrimination on the job and take on more of the responsibility for unpaid caregiving. So women disproportionately rely on Medicaid, SNAP (Food Stamps) and other safety net programs to meet their own and their children's basic needs – and on programs like child care assistance and Pell grants for a chance to get ahead and give their children a better life. Maintaining supports for low-income women and their families isn't just fair – it's a smart investment in our common future."

A number of progressive lawmakers have called for tax increases on the wealthiest Americans to avoid the most painful cuts for low- and middle-income Americans and to create a sense of shared sacrifice, but Republicans have considered tax hikes as a nonstarter in the talks. Much of the current deficit is caused by tax cuts to the wealthiest taxpayers enacted during the Bush administration, and extended last year in a deal with congressional Republicans brokered by Obama.

"Forcing millions of low-income people to pay for deficit reduction by going without health care, food, and jobs is un-American and jeopardizes our economic future," says Deborah Weinstein, executive director of the Coalition on Human Needs, a signer of the letter to leaders in the budget talks.



Bookmark The Washington Current and drop back in for more news from the nation's capital.

Bank Errors Continue to Cause Wrongful Foreclosures

by Paul Kiel, ProPublica

Four years into the foreclosure crisis, banks say they've made major improvements in how they handle struggling homeowners. They've promised, for example, not to foreclose on homeowners who are being considered for mortgage modifications. But that's still happening.

Consider the cases of Laurie Pinkerton and Lisa Peterson. The two women, both Californians and Bank of America customers, had been assured by the bank that they wouldn't lose their homes before they'd been evaluated for a possible modification. Both had their homes sold last month.

Such cases are particularly senseless, because simply modifying the mortgage by reducing the monthly payment might be in the interest not only of the homeowner, but also of the investor who owns the mortgage. Both Pinkerton and Peterson said their homes were sold after foreclosure for far less than they're worth.

Regulators have done little to stop the practice, and the "problem appears to be getting worse," said Kevin Stein, associate director of the nonprofit California Reinvestment Coalition.

Last month, the coalition surveyed 55 foreclosure-avoidance counselors throughout the state. Collectively they serve thousands of borrowers every month. Almost all of the counselors, 94 percent, reported having worked with clients who'd lost their homes while under review for a modification. About half of the counselors reported this happened "often." This year's totals, which are due to be publicly released next week, are higher than those in the group's survey last year.

Regulators have acknowledged the problem but have so far stopped short of solving it, say borrower advocates. More than a year ago, ProPublica reported extensively on how the banks' inadequate systems were causing wrongful foreclosures.

This past April, the federal banking regulators released "consent orders" with 14 of the largest banks requiring various improvements in their handling of mortgages and foreclosures. Prior to the orders, the regulators had not had clear rules on how the banks should handle modification applications. Among the new requirements, banks will now be forbidden from actually selling a home before a final decision is made on a modification. Also, if a homeowner is approved for a modification, the foreclosure process is supposed to stop. The new requirements will go into effect later this summer.

While those are necessary requirements, regulators took a "huge step backward" by not explicitly forbidding banks from pursuing foreclosure at all until a final decision has been made on a mortgage modification application, said Alys Cohen of the National Consumer Law Center.

The administration's mortgage modification program, which offers incentives to encourage modifications, has that requirement [3]. But that program is voluntary for the banks and has been hobbled by lax oversight. What's more, over two-thirds of modifications occur outside of the program.

Federal regulators have the power to require all banks to make a decision on a modification application before moving to foreclose, but they've simply chosen not to.

Allowing the banks to pursue foreclosure while the modification process plays out hurts homeowners in multiple ways. First and foremost, there's the hazard of actually losing the home to foreclosure because of bank error. The two homeowners featured in this story show that this continues to be a real danger, especially in states like California where the bank doesn't need to go to court to foreclose. It's also just confusing and unnecessarily stressful for homeowners. Finally, in a foreclosure homeowners actually get billed for bank costs, such as paying for a bank's lawyers.

Instead of outright forbidding banks from pursuing foreclosure while they're considering homeowners for a modification, regulators have asked the banks to explore whether it's a problem. The orders ask the banks to "conduct a review to determine whether processes involving past due mortgage loans or foreclosures overlap in such a way that they may impair or impede a borrower's efforts to effectively pursue a loan modification."

The primary regulator for the biggest banks is the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which has been much criticized for failing to crack down [4] on banks' foreclosure failures. Bryan Hubbard, a spokesman for the OCC, said that the orders addressed the "situations that were most confusing to the borrower" and that the issue would be revisited at a later time when regulators draft new, comprehensive standards for the industry. When asked whether regulators were deferring to the banks on the issue, he said they were not deferring, because regulators would have to approve whatever conclusion the banks came to.

Two homeowners' tales

Although Pinkerton and Peterson live about 450 miles apart, they've had strikingly similar experiences with Bank of America.

Both contacted the bank before even missing a payment to see what steps to take, because they'd taken a hit to their income. Both say Bank of America employees told them they'd have to fall at least three months behind to be considered for a modification (advice that is both inaccurate and frequently given). Reluctantly, both did so.

As a result of missing payments, both soon found themselves facing foreclosure. But at least the modification process had begun, too.

Of course, it went slowly. Like millions of other homeowners, they waited months and months for an answer on their modification applications and sent in the same documents over and over again. Despite sending in those documents, both were told at one point that they'd been denied because they hadn't sent in the required documents (another extremely common problem).

Finally, last month, both had their homes sold at a foreclosure auction, despite the assurances of Bank of America employees that that wouldn't happen until they'd received a final answer on their application for a modification.

"The next thing I know, a guy is knocking on my door saying his boss is at the courthouse buying our house," said Peterson.

What makes foreclosure particularly unnecessary in both cases is that Pinkerton and Peterson had made a point of telling the bank they had the means to bring the loan current even if they didn't get a modification. And unlike many Californians, both had the option of selling the home to pay off the mortgage because their homes are worth more than they owe on their mortgage.

"I never received any letter saying you're denied," said Pinkerton. "If that would have been the case, I would have borrowed the money and went and paid it current." Her family had offered to help, she said.

Both errors are particularly hard to undo because Bank of America can't simply give the houses back: The bank sold both homes to others. In order to get the homes back, the bank would have to essentially convince the new owner to sell the home back. In a case we reported on last year, JPMorgan Chase paid about $20,000 above the purchase price to the buyer of a property the bank had mistakenly sold.

At this point in the two stories, the homeowners' paths diverge.

After complaining to everyone she could think of, Pinkerton was contacted by a Bank of America employee who said he worked in the bank's office of the president. He told her he'd work to get the sale reversed. Regardless, Pinkerton was evicted from her home last week.

"I've spent thousands of dollars moving that I didn't have," she said.

As recently as Wednesday, the Bank of America employee told her he's still working on her case.

Bank of America spokesman Rick Simon said the bank was researching whether a mistake had been made. "To the extent it is determined that mistakes in the process contributed to the mortgage reaching foreclosure, the bank will work with Ms. Pinkerton to explore viable and appropriate considerations, which may include rescission."

Simon also noted that Pinkerton had been sent letters in March and April saying that she'd canceled her application for a modification.

Pinkerton said she'd never asked to cancel her application, and when she called Bank of America to ask about the letters, she was told to disregard them. She did once reject a modification offer, but that was because it would have significantly raised her monthly payments. She says a Bank of America employee told her to appeal the offer because it had erroneously calculated her income at twice its actual level.

Peterson has been more successful. After the foreclosure sale, she made a number of frantic calls and finally got a bank employee to admit there'd been a mistake, she says. But nothing could be done about it, she was told.

After being contacted by various employees who said they'd been assigned to help resolve the matter, but who then couldn't be reached, she eventually hired an attorney.

Earlier this month, Bank of America rescinded the sale and returned the title to Peterson.

It's unclear whether the bank paid a premium to the buyer of Peterson's property in order to get it back. Bank of America's Simon said, "We continue to work on resolution of remaining third-party issues."

In general, Simon said such mistaken foreclosures "have been relatively rare, compared to the volume of defaults and foreclosure activity in today's economy." Across the country, about 4 million mortgages are currently more than three months delinquent.

"Any problem in this regard is of tremendous concern, and we have put additional checks and practices in place to further limit the possibilities," he added.

To Peterson, the lesson from her experience is clear. "This system is broken," she said. "You can't trust what the bank tells you."

Bookmark The Washington Current and drop back in for more news from the nation's capital.

Senate's No. 2 Dem Wants U.S. To Invest In Drawdown Dividend

When it comes to saving money from the withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan, the second-highest ranking Senate Democrat apparently wants to bridge presidential rhetoric with reality.

When he announced his decision to pull some 10,000 U.S. troops from Afghanistan by the end of the year, President Obama remarked, "America, it is time to focus on nation building here at home."

In addition to the troops he intends to bring home this year, Obama promised to have withdrawn a total of 33,000 by next summer.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), a longtime Obama ally, seems to want to take the president at his word.

Durbin, assistant majority leader in the Senate, released a message Friday via the Twitter service which read, "With #Afghanistan #drawdown started, we should use some of $10b/mo spent on war effort #nationbuilding here—creating #jobs&reducing #deficit."

In his message, Durbin appears to be proposing to redirect at least some of the $10 billion the United States spends per month on its operations in Afghanistan towards jobs creation and reducing the federal budget deficit.

Jobs and the deficit are two key issues. The nation's unemployment rate remains stubbornly high over 9 percent, while Republicans have been vocal and strident in insisting that the federal budget deficit be tamed now.

Durbin's message appears to represent the highest-ranking proposal to explicitly re-purpose military spending toward domestic priorities, or a "drawdown dividend" of sorts.

In his speech from the White House this week, Obama laid out his path to wind down the long war in Afghanistan, which has been ongoing for a decade and has taken the lives of about 6,000 American service personnel.

A majority of Americans want to end the war now, according to recent opinion polls, and even many lawmakers in Obama's own Democratic Party want an even faster exit from Afghanistan.

In his Twitter message, Durbin also appears to be echoing the recent call made by U.S. mayors who, meeting in Baltimore, also say they want to end the war in Afghanistan and instead spend the funds on creating in the United States.

"We recognize the difficult decisions President Obama must make in balancing foreign affairs, national security, and domestic needs. We applaud his directive to withdraw 33,000 troops from Afghanistan by summer 2012. This is a strong step towards ending the war in Afghanistan and bringing our soldiers –- and the billions of dollars we spend each day –- home," says Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, president of the nonpartisan U.S. Conference of Mayors.

"We urge Congress to honor our soldiers by putting 'boots on the ground' in cities across the country to create jobs for our men and women in uniform to come home to," Villaraigosa adds. "Drawing down troop levels is step one. Increasing employment levels is step two. We need to use the billions of dollars we are currently spending in Afghanistan to rebuild our domestic economy. As President Obama rightly said, 'it is time to focus on nation-building here at home.'"



Bookmark The Washington Current and drop back in for more news from the nation's capital.

Lawsuit Targets Department of Energy for Withholding 'Water Energy Roadmap' Ordered by Congress

A report ordered by Congress in 2005 on the connection between U.S. energy production and demands on water supplies is the target of a Freedom of Information Action (FOIA) lawsuit filed by the Civil Society Institute (CSI) against the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and Energy Secretary Steven Chu, according to CSI, an environmentally-oriented think tank in Massachusetts.

CSI says its litigation was filed after DOE failed to respond to a FOIA request for a so-far-unreleased second portion of a report on the relationship between the nation's water supplies and energy needs.

CSI believes this portion of the report will address the water impacts of new electricity generation, including the potential impacts from additional nuclear reactors and from so-called "carbon capture and storage" (CCS) of carbon emitted from the combustion of coal.

According to CSI's complaint, the first part of the report was made public in 2006, but the second portion, titled the "National Energy-Water Roadmap" and drafted by experts at the Sandia National Laboratories, has been held up since July 2006. According to the complaint: "On information and belief, DOE has blocked the issuance of the Roadmap over the last four years because it shows energy policy has not given adequate consideration to the nation's limited water resources."

"This is a classic example of why documents like this should be made public and in a timely fashion," says Pam Solo, CSI founder and president, says. "In 2005, Congress mandated a water-energy blueprint as an essential piece of information for energy policy making. Without this roadmap, water availability and water quality issues remain unaddressed. As a result, Congress and the President are flying blind without a clear understanding of whether water is available for the proposed expansion of nuclear power plants and 'clean coal' plants under what is euphemistically being termed a 'Clean Energy Standard.' This is not a side issue, but a central and pivotal piece of data that should inform and guide energy decision making."

Solo adds, "We are deeply concerned by the appearance that the study was done and then buried (or is currently being watered down) because it raised major and legitimate concerns about the impact of new power generation on increasingly scarce U.S. water resources, particularly in chronically drought-afflicted portions of the nation. If this concern is not merited, then DOE should release the study and clear the air. If our concerns are well founded, we expect to learn more as we vigorously pursue the FOIA litigation."



Bookmark The Washington Current and drop back in for more news from the nation's capital.

Left Urges Dems Not Give Up On Tax Hikes, Cave To GOP Demands

With Republicans having walked away from their budget negotiations with the White House, key individuals and groups on the political left are urging President Obama not to cave in to GOP demands and pushing Democrats not to give up on tax hikes as part of any budget deal.

Congressional Republicans walked out of budget talks on Thursday over how to extend U.S. borrowing and avoid a looming debt default. Republicans have been demanding extraordinarily deep cuts in federal spending in exchange for allowing a needed increase in the federal debt limit.
Many progressive Democrats have insisted spending cuts be paired with some tax increases on the wealthiest Americans to create a sense of shared sacrifice. Republicans consistently balk at any tax hikes.

"The Republican walkout should not result in the president and vice president capitulating to Republican demands," Sen. Bernie Sanders, the left-leaning Vermont independent, says. "Poll after poll shows that the American people do not agree with the Republican approach, which suggests that the wealthiest people in the country and the largest corporations should be exempt from participating in deficit reduction.

"The American people do not believe, as the Republicans do, that the budget should be solely balanced on the backs of the middle class, the elderly, the sick, the children and the poor," Sanders adds. "The American people want shared sacrifice and President Obama must not yield one inch from that principle."

Meanwhile, 151 state and national groups on Thursday separately called on Congress to pass the Fairness in Taxation Act, sponsored by Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.). The bill would enact new tax rates for millionaires and billionaires as a way to build a strong middle class and preserve important programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, supporters say.

"Our nation is at a crossroads," their letter to Congress states. "Will we continue to squeeze working families and the middle class or will we provide security for our families and build a brighter future for our children? During the last 30 years, while incomes have stagnated for middle- and low-income people, wealth has been transferred from the middle class to the rich and income inequality is at its highest since 1928. If we do not restore tax fairness, the income gap will certainly widen and it will be impossible to continue to pay for the important programs that protect our families and build a strong, healthy, vibrant middle class."

USAction, one of the groups which led the letter campaign, is planning a number of activities this summer to protect Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security and to point out the need for new revenue, according to Alan Charney, USAction director of policy and strategic planning.

"Enough is enough," Charney says. "Our economy is in tatters and the middle class is disappearing. Yet some in Congress are at it again. They want to give even larger tax cuts to corporations and the super rich while destroying Medicare and Medicaid and other vital services that we depend on."



Bookmark The Washington Current and drop back in for more news from the nation's capital.

Think Again: Stewart and Wallace: Network on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown

This article was published by the Center for American Progress.

By Eric Alterman

Fox News is nothing if not impressive. No matter how harsh the criticism it endures, the network somehow always manages to prove itself even worse than we had previously imagined. In the wake of some devastating reporting on the internal operations of the outfit, discussed here, Chris Wallace of “Fox News Sunday” invited comedian/wise man Jon Stewart on the show this past Sunday.

Fox did not have the nerve to allow the interview to run in a coherent fashion. “Fox edited me to seem like a woman having a nervous breakdown,” Stewart said on “The Daily Show” Monday night following the broadcast.

To the degree that the show made news, it was in Wallace’s admission that Fox does not even try to be “fair,” much less balanced. “I believe that we're the counterweight,” Wallace explained in a part of the interview that Fox somehow forgot to air. “I think that they have a liberal agenda and I think we’re the other side of the story.” On Monday’s show, Stewart understandably parodied this simplistic manner of viewing reality:

We don't tell both sides of the story, we tell one side ... the other side, the one we perceive is never told. Because as you know, news only comes in two sides. And if the conservative side isn't being told, what's being told must be liberal. Fox News isn't fair and balanced. It's balancing the system, man. Don't you get it? The system's unfair and unbalanced. To balance the system, Fox has to be the purest form of right-wing resin. Because of how heavy left-wing America is. Hollywood, comedians, every single news organization, the Internet, facts, history, science, it's all just left-wing bullshit, man.

But watch the entire interview on the web and you see, again, that the problems with Fox are far more disturbing than even the great—and I say that unironically—Jon Stewart is willing (or able) to consider.

Let’s examine the full transcript in detail. Once Wallace manages to drop his strange obsession with getting Stewart to drink out of his Fox News mug—leading Stewart to wonder, naturally, if it was poison—Wallace asks if Stewart wishes to stand by his characterization of Fox as “a biased organization, relentlessly promoting an ideological agenda under the rubric of being a news organization,” and a “relentless agenda-driven, 24-hour news opinion propaganda delivery system."

Stewart, of course, does, and Wallace, who is apparently unaware of the way Fox is widely viewed outside the confines of Roger Ailes’s kingdom, wonders, “Where do you come up with this stuff?” Unfortunately, Stewart punts here; one of many times he does throughout the interview. Had he come prepared with any one of the thousands of examples of Fox deliberately twisting the news and sometimes even making it up in order to further its political agenda; examples he could have found here, here, here, here, and here.

In that case, Wallace might have had to respond. Instead, he went with the breezy, “It's actually quite easy when you feel it. You got to feel it in your soul, you know?”

Next, Wallace attempted to paint Stewart as a hypocrite because, in his view, the comedian should be “willing to say the same thing about the mainstream media, about ABC, CBS, NBC, Washington Post, New York Times … that they are, in your words, a propaganda delivery system relentlessly pushing a liberal agenda.”

Of course, this is ridiculous and Stewart refuses. He does not go into any detail, for instance, explaining that these same liberal conspiracies cooperated with the Bush administration in pretending that Iraq was manufacturing nuclear weapons or had participated in the 9/11 attacks. Or wonder why The Washington Post consistently published George Will’s dishonest climate denialism or Jennifer Rubin’s Likudnik propaganda. And what of The New York Times’s hiring of William Kristol (having lost Judith Miller)? Is NBC’s “Meet the Press” part of a liberal conspiracy when it’s most frequently invited guest in 2009 was Newt Gingrich—who held no office but has plenty of crazy, right-wing positions? (How else to explain a grown man who professes to believe that Obama’s political views can be understood “only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior”? And what about his insistence that the Obama administration leads a “secular-socialist machine” that represents as great a threat to America as Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union?)

Stewart tries to grant Wallace’s point with regard to MSNBC, saying, “They've looked at your business model and they have seen the success of it. And I think they're attempting to be a more activist organization.” This kind of thing has been Stewart’s prime weakness and a common one: the “both sides do it” dodge.

This is true in a trivial sense but false in a larger, far more important sense. MSNBC may have a bias in primetime, but its hosts do not purposely lie. (And if it does give a show, as was recently reported, to Chris Hayes, then it will already have more honest reporting in its program than in the entire history of Fox.) Meanwhile, MSNBC has 15 hours a week in the morning of programming hosted by conservative Republican Joe Scarborough. Both he and his co-host, Mika Brzezinski, are fans of Sarah Palin, constantly mock liberals, and think the world of Paul Ryan. Where, one has to ask Mr. Stewart, is the analogy to Fox News?

Wallace thinks he can prove his point about the alleged liberal media bias and in doing so presents the arguments that:

a) The Washington Post asked readers to help them go through Sarah Palin’s emails but not the health care bill.
b) Jon Stewart made fun of Sarah Palin’s propaganda film.
c) Jon Stewart also made fun of Herman Cain saying that all bills should be no longer than three pages.
d) Diane Sawyer gave a simplistic view of Arizona’s immigration enforcement laws.

The nuttiness of the above is self-evident. Stewart, however, makes two useful points here. First, that because a person like Wallace lives in an ideological world, he assumes everyone else does. “It reminds me of … ideological regimes. They can't understand that there is free media other places. Because they receive marching orders.” Second, he says “we should have more full context,” but rather than point to a bias, the problem is often “sensationalist and somewhat lazy.”

The interview had a lot of odd points in it that made one wonder if Wallace might not be on medication of some sort. First was the water thing. Then came a few scatological clips from shows on Comedy Central—as if that somehow bore on whether Fox was biased. Third was his insinuation regarding Stewart’s Cain joke that the comedian was exploiting racism. (Wallace: “You're planning a remake of ‘Amos ‘n’ Andy’?”)

Stewart was awfully generous to Wallace in granting that his show was somehow fundamentally different from the rest of what’s on Fox, though again, he failed to go into any detail on either one of his points above. He was also awfully sympathetic to complaints by conservatives that they are mistreated in the mainstream media, when, in fact, they are just as likely to be coddled and indulged owing to their successful 40-year strategy of “working the refs” to get their way.

The most controversial part of the broadcast came when Stewart demanded, “Who are the most consistently misinformed media viewers? The most consistently misinformed? Fox, Fox viewers, consistently, every poll.” Wallace did not dispute this. And writing in The Washington Monthly, Steve Benen provided some significant documentary support. In December, for instance, the University of Maryland’s Project on Public Attitudes, or PIPA, published a report entitled “Misinformation and the 2010 Election” and found Fox News viewers were “significantly more likely than those who never watched it to believe”:

• That most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses (12 points more likely)
• That most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit (31 points)
• That the economy is getting worse (26 points)
• That most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (30 points)
• That the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (14 points)
• That their own income taxes have gone up (14 points)
• That the auto bailout only occurred under Obama (13 points)
• That when TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it (12 points)
• That it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points)

The statement that Fox News viewers are the most uninformed has been disputed on PolitiFact, whose refutation appeared on Jim Romenesko’s site and will undoubtedly be used by Fox defenders to attempt to undermine Stewart’s criticism. Unfortunately, the author of the post does not know how to read his evidence. He seems to think that “knowledge” of office holders and personalities in politics is akin to correct “information” about issues and political questions. But whether a person knows the name of his or her representative or can name a few members of the Supreme Court has no bearing whatever on to what degree they believe the kinds of falsehoods that Fox regularly puts forth as news.

On matters of substance, as the above survey indicates, Fox viewers are almost always the victims of far more misinformation than other citizens. The fact that all the falsehoods above tend in one direction cannot be coincidence. Nor was it coincidence that, as Beren reports, “eight years ago, a similar PIPA survey found that Fox viewers were three times more likely than the next nearest network to hold all three misperceptions—about WMD in Iraq, Saddam Hussein was involved with 9/11, and foreign support for the U.S. position on the war in Iraq.” Nor the fact that Ben Armbruster noted, “An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll out [in 2009] found that Fox News viewers were overwhelmingly misinformed about health care reform proposals.” (Jane Hamsher does yeoman’s work on the misunderstandings perpetrated by PolitiFact’s sloppy reasoning here, and hey, give them credit, they noticed how off base the rest of the world found them to be here, though I fear the misleading Romenesko headline will live on in what should be imfamy).

The upshot of all of the above is that from the standpoint of a citizen seeking honest news, Fox News is so corrupt it is almost impossible to do just to its myriad manners of dishonesty. Jon Stewart focused on a few of these but gave others a pass. (Although he did respond with some fact checking of his own on his show Tuesday night.) PolitiFact further muddied the waters and ended up whitewashing the purposeful misinformation that passes for news at Fox. Finally, a big part of the reason one cannot tell the truth about Fox is because it’s impolite to call people liars to their face. Most of the media coverage of Stewart’s appearance has focused on the back and forth between him and Wallace, treating the question of Fox’s role in perverting the media ecosystem as unimportant. When I tried to urge media writers to stop treating Fox like it was just another news station at a recent awards luncheon, I was told that this was “out of place.”

More and more, it is simply the truth that is “out of place” in our policy debates. And that, more than anything, is why Chris Wallace, upon hearing it, however sugarcoated, sounded so surprised.

Eric Alterman is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress and a Distinguished Professor of English at Brooklyn College and the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism. He is also a columnist for The Nation, The Forward, and The Daily Beast. His newest book is Kabuki Democracy: The System vs. Barack Obama. This column won the 2011 Mirror Award for Best Digital Commentary.

Bookmark The Washington Current and drop back in for more news from the nation's capital.