Here’s a roundup of this morning’s must-read budget and economic stories:

President Obama laid out a new jobs plan in a speech to Congress last night. The Hill, Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, Politico, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post and The Washington Times all have the details.

The Washington Post reports that two-dozen senators met secretly this week to try to come up with a deficit reduction plan.

Meanwhile, The Wall Street Journal reports that last night the Senate passed a measure to increase the debt ceiling by $500 billion.

The New York Times and Politico look specifically at the payroll tax cut that the President proposed be extended. The Wall Street Journal looks at the tax credits.

Politico looks at how members of the debt super-committee reacted to the President’s speech while The Wall Street Journal says the President’s plan puts added pressure on the committee.

According to The Hill and The Wall Street Journal, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), a member of the debt super-committee, doesn’t want to cut defense spending. The Hill and Reuters look at the super-committee’s proceedings yesterday.

The New York Times examines the state of the debate over entitlement reform.

Reuters - A bill to overhaul the U.S. patent system, making it more efficient and reducing litigation, won final congressional approval on Thursday, clearing the way for President Barack Obama to sign it into law.

Daily Caller - Louisiana Republican Sen. David Vitter’s plans to host a football-watching party have been ruined by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Vice President Joe Biden, NY Times
I FIRST visited China in 1979, a few months after our countries normalized relations. China was just beginning to remake its economy, and I was in the first Senate delegation to witness this evolution. Traveling through the country last month, I could see how much China had changed in 32 years — and yet the debate about its remarkable rise remains familiar.Then, as now, there were concerns about what a growing China meant to America and the world. Some here and in the region see China’s growth as a threat, entertaining visions of a cold-war-style rivalry or great-power...

As President Obama prepares to offer a modest jobs program to a joint session of a Congress with unpopularity rivaling the disapproval numbers for Casey Anthony, the prospect of a progressive populist patriotic revival is emerging in Massachusetts.

I refer to Elizabeth Warren, one of the most brilliantly qualified candidates in modern history to be passed over for an important post, who appears poised to run for the Senate seat once held by the man we miss so much, the late Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.).

While many of the so-called Tea Party politicians are apologists for financial abuses and would have better named themselves after the mercantilist cronies of King George III in 1776, Warren is the true heir to those who threw the tea into Boston Harbor.

Warren would be one of the strongest and most exciting candidates in 2012. Her candidacy, pardon the overused expression, would be a transforming political event. Her victory, which I believe is likely, might save control of the Senate for the Democrats.

Warren is a hero to American progressives. She offers the powerful voice of a principled and courageous woman in a political era I have called the beginning of a female century, in which women bid for leadership in every field of American life and world affairs.

Warren's candidacy will shatter one of the great myths of modern politics, a myth propagated by conservative Republicans, repeated ad nauseam by many pundits and believed by too-clever White House aides who all fail to understand that the message of progressive patriotic populists is the majority view of political independents.

In a nation where some are waging a war against workers, Warren will be a powerful voice for Made in America jobs, at fair wages, with good working conditions, and with great respect for the hardworking Americans of every race and background who want nothing more than a fair deal.

Massachusetts voters with credit cards will listen carefully and respectfully to Warren's call for common sense and simple fairness in credit and an end to abuses and rip-offs that hurt Americans every day, and keep the American economy down.

Massachusetts homeowners will listen carefully and respectfully to Warren's call for common sense and simple integrity in their relationships with banks and an end to the rip-offs and abuses that plague them.

Massachusetts veterans and military families will know that Warren is a fighter for their being treated in business like the heroes they are, and that it was Warren, working with their ultimate champion, Holly Petraeus, who placed the interests of military families at the heart of the consumer protection bureau many Republicans despise.

Men and women who run small businesses in Massachusetts will listen carefully and respectfully when Warren talks of championing their need to find capital on fair terms, paying fair interest, to grow their business and expand their workforce.

Massachusetts police, firefighters and teachers will know that Warren would be their voice in the Senate against those Republicans who attack their jobs, their benefits and their right to organize and who appear to treat them as enemies of the state, in state after state, when Republicans seize control.

Warren will be the real Democratic answer to the Tea Party right with her calm and principled voice that speaks with common sense and common courtesy about common interests of real Americans in a hard economy.

In Washington, Warren has the best enemies in town: those who profit from the rip-offs that Warren opposes. An armada of dirty money and dirty tactics will be arrayed against her.

Those who favor big change will support her in Massachusetts. Enlightened donors with big money will support her directly or earmark large donations through Majority PAC to answer attacks in an epic battle that has only just begun.

This column was originally published at The Hill.

The Week - The first out-of-the-closet lesbian elected to Congress is now running for one of Wisconsin's Senate seats

WASHINGTON -- It may have been mostly for show, but the Senate Banking Committee on Tuesday held its nomination hearing for Richard Cordray, President Barack Obama's embattled pick to run the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Nearly all Senate Republicans have vowed to block Cordray, or any nominee to the post, until Democrats agree to make structural changes to the new consumer watchdog agency. In May, 44 Senate Republicans sent a letter to Obama saying the current structure of CFPB "violates basic principles of accountability and our democratic values."

Specifically, in exchange for considering Cordray, Republicans are demanding three changes to CFPB: create a board of directors, subject the bureau to the annual appropriations process and establish "a safety-and-soundness check" to give other regulators more authority over bureau regulations. And those obstacles loomed large in Tuesday's hearing.

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), the committee's ranking member, opened the hearing by reiterating his and other Republicans' opposition to standing up the CFPB without those changes.

"I don't think it will surprise anyone to hear that we believe that today's hearing is quite premature," Shelby said.

He called it "regrettable" that Obama went ahead and tapped Cordray for the post in July "rather than work with us" to make changes to CFPB first.

"It may be good politics for them, but it is certainly bad policy for the American people," Shelby said.

But Democrats countered that the independent bureau, which opened its doors on July 21, is already accountable to Congress and that its structure was already negotiated by both parties in the 2010 debate on the Dodd-Frank financial oversight bill. What's really going on, they said, are GOP delay tactics meant to weaken the agency altogether.

"This notion of 'let's wait until we get it perfect before we appoint somebody' would have delayed, I think, the election of George Washington for many decades," said Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.). "We've got to move forward."

Other Democrats on the committee accused their GOP counterparts of being sore losers over passage of last year's sweeping financial reform legislation. The measure passed with bipartisan support, but it drew strong resistance from Republicans who said the consumer watchdog bureau amounted to regulatory overreach. Formed in response to the housing crisis, CFPB is charged with regulating the mortgage, credit card and payday lending industries that dragged the economy into a recession.

"Some of our colleagues want to reopen last year's debate," said Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.). "Because they couldn't win it through the ordinary legislative process, they have promised to block this nomination or any nomination until they get their way. It is hijacking the legislative process."

For now, Cordray, who currently heads up enforcement for CFPB and who has yet to draw criticisms from either party on his own merits, remains caught in the crossfire of a larger fight about the role of the agency. On Tuesday, the former Ohio attorney general steered clear of political questions from Republicans about the need for more checks and balances at CFPB.

"I have not sought to inject myself in legislative discussions that may be between the Congress and the president," he told the committee. "Our role there is to take the laws that Congress has enacted, whatever they may be, and to enforce them to the letter. And that's what we're trying to do."

Cordray told Democrats he had "good, cordial meetings" with Republicans on the committee in advance of the hearing. He said none told him "they have problems with my qualifications."

Senators on the committee have until Friday to submit questions to Cordray, at which point he will submit responses and the committee will reconvene at a later date to vote on his nomination. The bottom line, however, is that he will only advance if the administration and Republicans can agree to some kind of compromise on how the CFPB operates.

Harvard Law School professor Elizabeth Warren, the architect of CFPB, was originally considered the top candidate to run the bureau. But Republicans signaled they would firmly oppose her nomination, in part because they said she was too liberal and too critical of the banking industry to fairly regulate it. She has recently resurfaced as a possible Democratic challenger to Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.).

By Diane Bartz

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Legislation designed to curb the growth of patent litigation advanced on Tuesday when the Senate voted to take up a bill passed by the House of Representatives.

Senate voted 93-5 to set aside its bill and begin debate on a measure that passed the House in June and also contains provisions to help the patent office clear a years-long backlog of applications.

The Senate is expected to pass the bill this week given that it approved a similar bill by an overwhelming margin in March. President Barack Obama is expected to sign it.

The Senate bill, which is being set aside, is marginally stronger in terms of patent office funding but there are very few other notable differences.

The bill would allow the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to set its own fees, to do the hiring and technical upgrades needed to beef up its review of patent applications.

Fees collected by the agency would go into a special fund for the patent office and Congress would have to formally appropriate the money each year. The Senate version did not require the appropriations process.

Supporters of the legislation said they hope the funds will help the patent office clear out a backlog of just under 700,000 applications that are awaiting approval or rejection.

The measure would also create a post-grant review process to allow challenges to bad patents before they are used in litigation.

It would also grant patents to the first inventors to file, rather than requiring inventors to show they were the first to develop an innovation. This is to make the process easier for companies applying for patents in a variety of countries.

The patent reform effort began more than five years ago at the urging of the tech industry, which had been bedeviled by large and growing numbers of patent infringement lawsuits.

There were 2,296 patent lawsuits in 2000 in U.S. district courts. That number rose 23 percent to 2,833 in 2010 and is on track to hit 3,000 this year unless the economy softens further, according to Joshua Walker, head of Lex Machina, which tracks patent litigation.

In addition, the number of defendants per lawsuit has risen -- from an average of two in 2000 to three in 2010.

Some tech industry experts believe that a better-financed, better-run patent office, which issues fewer bad patents, would eliminate some of these lawsuits. Half of the patents challenged in court now are invalidated, which means they never should have been issued, says Daniel Ravicher, who teaches at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law.

(Reporting by Diane Bartz; Editing by Tim Dobbyn)

AP - The new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has too much unfettered power and President Barack Obama's choice to lead it will be blocked until the agency is made more accountable, Senate Republicans said Tuesday.

AP - Wisconsin Rep. Tammy Baldwin's entrance into the Senate race Tuesday kick-started a campaign that could be key to the future makeup of Congress. But her announcement quickly raised questions about whether she is too liberal for a state that swung heavily toward the GOP just a year ago.

Politico - The Google exec and ranking member of the Senate antitrust committee are set to huddle.

Reuters - Two days before President Barack Obama unveils a new job-creation initiative, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell on Tuesday signaled it will face tough opposition from his party.

The U.S. Postal Service was established in the eighteenth century. And it is now trying to figure out how to survive in the twenty-first. The postmaster general took his dire case to a Senate committee Tuesday. He said if Congress doesn't act fast, the Postal Service won't be able to keep paying its bills. Robert Siegel talks to NPR's Tamara Keith.

» E-Mail This     » Add to Del.icio.us

Review of In My Time: A Personal and Political Memoir. By Dick Cheney with Liz Cheney. Threshold Editions. 565 pp. $35.

After September 11, 2001, leaders in the House of Representatives and the United States Senate were evacuated from Washington, D.C. When Senator Don Nickles of Oklahoma asked why the executive branch should decide when members of Congress could return to the nation's capital, Vice President Dick Cheney replied, "Because we've got the helicopters."

He wasn't really joking. The Darth Vader of the Bush Administration, Cheney wielded more power -- and was more dismissive of Congressional prerogatives -- than any vice president in American history.

With In My Time, Cheney, who had a left ventricle assist device implanted in his heart in 2010, enters the legacy business. He remains very much in character. Demonstrating that he has forgotten nothing and learned nothing, Cheney delivers a polemical, take-no-prisoners defense of every single position he took as vice president.

The memoir is awash in unsubstantiated assertion, distortion and omission. The Bush Administration, Cheney notes, in a two paragraph analysis, was "committed to keeping spending down." This task, he indicates, vaguely (and ungrammatically), was "sometimes performed better than others." A budget review panel, which he chaired, Cheney boasts, worked so well that it "did not have to meet very often, particularly after one cabinet member made an appeal that resulted in her budget numbers being lowered." Although he identifies himself as a fiscal conservative, Cheney does not mention the devastating impact on the federal deficit of two unfunded wars, an unfunded prescription drug plan, and two rounds of tax cuts (whose benefits flowed to the wealthiest Americans).

Even with "the benefit of hindsight," Cheney continues to insist that "there was no place more likely to be a nexus of terrorism and WMD capability than Saddam Hussein's Iraq." He relies, as he has for almost a decade, on phrases from CIA reports about "contacts" between terrorists and Iraqi officials, the discredited information, cited by President Bush in his 2003 State of the Union Address, that Saddam Hussein sought to purchase uranium from Niger to build a nuclear bomb, and the discovery of what David Kay, chair of the Iraq Survey Group, called "WMD related program activities."

The evidence Cheney recycles falls woefully short of a slam-dunk case that the threat posed by Saddam to the national security of the United States was so substantial and imminent as to justify a preemptive war. Equally important, Cheney presents no evidence at all that Americans are safer because we deposed Saddam and occupied Iraq.

When he turns to warrantless wiretapping, the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, and "enhanced interrogation techniques," Cheney sticks to a shopworn script as well. He neglects to mention that the courts established by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 gave government officials great latitude to spy on suspected terrorists. Nonetheless, because parts of the program "remain classified," he asks us to accept on faith that the National Security Agency needed expanded authority, that the program was legal, that the objections of Attorney General John Ashcroft and Deputy Attorney General James Comey were unfounded, that the New York Times story about NSA surveillance put national security at risk, and that the surveillance initiative "saved lives and prevented attacks."

Cheney continues to believe that "detainees" of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars do not qualify for Geneva Convention protection. They are terrorists, he declares, who target civilians and have "committed horrific acts of savagery and welcomed a fight to the death." Unconcerned, apparently, that these prisoners have not been charged, let alone convicted, of anything, he shrugs off the critique of civil libertarians, judges, and informed citizens throughout the world, content that they be held "for the duration of the conflict" (even if it's only slightly shorter than forever).

Citing opinions from lawyers inside the Bush Administration, Cheney claims that "enhanced interrogation techniques" were legal. Even though he cannot "reveal much about it," he asserts, waterboarding was the only method that could work with Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. The views of the United States Senate (that the interrogations be conducted under the rules of the Army Field Manual) and the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Hamdan V. Rumsfeld does not give him pause. To date Cheney has declined to say whether it would be legitimate for other countries to subject Americans to waterboarding.

Now that Cheney no longer has helicopters, his arguments seem neither powerful nor persuasive. At odds with the recollections of George W. Bush, his "Dick, what do you think we ought to do?" account of the Oval Office meeting that preceded the air strike against Iraq, seems self-aggrandizing. His attacks on Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice seem gratuitous and mean-spirited.

Let's hope that Cheney's time has come and gone. And that we, the people for whom he has so little respect, will repair the damage and restore our democracy.

Congress hasn’t seen a pay increase since 2008 and in our current economic situation they don’t expect to see a new increase. However, some are asking whether Congress should take a pay cut.

From the Washington Post:

In the fall of 2001, the Senate pushed aside an effort to block lawmakers’ annual pay raise, just as the House had done a few months before. The move wasn’t surprising — both chambers regularly consented to getting an automatic salary bump with little controversy.

A lot has changed in a decade.

Congress hasn’t accepted a pay increase since 2008, leaving rank-and-file members’ salary at $174,000. And with the economy stalled, the unemployment rate high and public opinion of the legislative branch historically low, lawmakers probably won’t see an increase anytime soon.

But how far has the pendulum really swung? Beyond simply forgoing an annual raise, several members have proposed bills that actually would cut their paychecks. So far, leaders haven’t shown much interest in scheduling any of those bills for the floor.

If our lawmakers instituted a pay cut it would be a powerful symbol of how committed they are to getting our fiscal house in order. With unemployment holding at 9.1% and zero jobs created last month, Americans are feeling the pain more than ever. Congress would be wise to sympathize.

WASHINGTON -- Members of Congress spent August listening to constituents describe their economic struggles. This week, the lawmakers return to Washington to see whether there's enough bipartisanship left to make things better.

Republicans and Democrats agree that job creation is the first priority, but there's little indication so far that the two sides will come together.

President Barack Obama, who will address a joint session of Congress on Thursday, challenged Republicans in a Labor Day speech to put country ahead of party and work with Democrats on a jobs package. He said more than 1 million unemployed construction workers are ready to rebuild deteriorating roads and bridges.

Majority Republicans in the House, however, have been unwilling to spend money on new construction projects – a strong signal that they'll give Obama's address a cool reception.

Besides spending on public works, Obama said he wants pending trade deals passed to open new markets for U.S. goods. He also said he wants Republicans to prove they'll fight as hard to cut taxes for the middle class as they do for profitable oil companies and the wealthiest Americans.

The president is expected to call for continuing a payroll tax cut for workers and jobless benefits for the unemployed. Some Republicans oppose extending the payroll tax cut, calling it an unproven job creator that will only add to the nation's massive debt. The tax cut extension is set to expire Jan. 1.

Republicans may go along with tax break proposals but won't be friendly to ideas to extend jobless benefits. They also cite huge federal budget deficits in expressing opposition to vast new spending on jobs programs.

House Republicans have prepared an autumn jobs agenda that centers on repealing what they say are job-destroying environmental and labor regulations. The first bill, slated for the week of Sept. 12, would prevent the National Labor Relations Board from restricting where an employer can locate in the United States. It grows out of a complaint issued by the NLRB that Boeing Co. was punishing union workers with plans to transfer an assembly line from Washington state to South Carolina.

The anti-regulation bills are likely to hit a dead end in the Democratic-controlled Senate. But the threat of them prompted Obama last week to scrap tougher Environmental Protection Agency regulations on ozone, a key ingredient of smog that causes asthma and other lung illnesses.

While talking jobs, lawmakers will have one eye on the initial meetings of the supercommittee established under legislation enacted in early August to increase the federal debt ceiling. The bipartisan committee has until Nov. 23 to come up with at least $1.2 trillion in deficit cuts. If it fails to do so or if Congress fails to approve its recommendations by Christmas, automatic spending cuts covering both defense and domestic programs would be triggered starting in 2013.

More immediately, Congress must stop itself from actually causing unemployment. Obama, in his address, is expected to urge lawmakers to act swiftly to renew aviation and surface transportation programs and avoid shutdowns that he said could put 1 million jobs at risk.

The Federal Aviation Administration has been operating on short-term extensions since 2007 because the House and Senate can't agree on a comprehensive plan for the future. Earlier this year, the FAA had to shut down for two weeks, resulting in tens of thousands of construction worker layoffs and $400 million in uncollected airline ticket taxes. The agency will shut down again on Sept. 16 unless Congress acts.

Similarly, the law that authorizes federal spending for highway and mass transit programs expires Sept. 30. A stalemate there could disrupt collection of the 18.4 cent-a-gallon federal gasoline tax and have a far more devastating effect on construction jobs.

Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., who is chairman of the House Transportation Committee, said at the end of August that he would agree to one more short-term extension, the eighth, as he negotiates with the Senate on a long-term bill. Mica has proposed a six-year, $230 billion bill financed entirely by gasoline and diesel taxes. The Senate is calling for a two-year, $109 billion bill that would rely on $12 billion appropriated by Congress in addition to the fuel tax revenues.

Not all is negative on the congressional job front.

On its first day back Tuesday, the Senate will vote to move forward on the most extensive revamping of the patent system in six decades. Senate passage of the measure, already approved by the House, would send it to Obama, who agrees with most members of Congress that the legislation will make it easier for inventors to get their products to market and thus encourage hiring.

There's also some optimism that Congress will soon sign off on free trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama that have been in limbo since the George W. Bush administration.

Before the August break, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said they had agreed on a path forward for renewing a program that helps workers affected by foreign competition and passing the trade bills, and House Speaker John Boehner also promised a vote on the worker aid bill which Obama says must be linked to the trade agreements.

The administration and supporters of the trade bills say they will generate tens of thousands of jobs. Some labor unions and other skeptics of free trade dispute that conclusion.

Also looming is the Sept. 30 end of the fiscal year, when Congress is supposed to have completed the 12 appropriation bills to fund federal agencies for 2012. So far the House has passed only half of those bills, and the Senate only one, and as in past years they will have to agree on temporary stopgap extensions to avoid a partial government shutdown.

Things are a little easier this year because the debt and budget pact sets the overall total for the 12 bills at $1.043 trillion, a $7 billion cut from current levels. Still, there will be heated debate as Democrats seek to restore cuts planned by Republicans to education, environment, foreign aid and other programs.

One such debate will be over funding the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which has less than $800 million in its disaster fund as it faces the Hurricane Irene recovery operation.

By Dave Clarke

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - On Tuesday, Richard Cordray will sit down with the Senate Banking Committee to interview for a job he is unlikely to get.

Cordray, a former attorney general in Ohio, has been nominated to be the first director of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Republicans have opposed the agency as a regulatory overreach since it was created as part of the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial oversight law.

Cordray's best chance of being confirmed by the Senate is if the administration and Republicans do something they have been unable to do in recent months: compromise.

Republicans have promised to block any nominee until the administration agrees to make three changes to the bureau's structure: Have it run by a board rather than a director; subject its budget to annual congressional approval; and give other regulators more authority over bureau regulations.

Democrats have balked at the demands, charging Republicans with using the nomination process as blackmail to weaken the agency.

Senators from both parties are expected to trade jabs over the agency at Tuesday's hearing.

The bureau, which opened its doors on July 21, is responsible for policing markets for products like credit cards and mortgages. Cordray is currently the agency's chief of enforcement.

Whether Cordray is the right man for the job has barely entered the discussion in the larger showdown between Republicans and Democrats. That fight is over whether the bureau is the answer to ending past lending abuses and will it be the regulatory straw that breaks the lending industry's back.

In Ohio, Cordray was a vocal critic of Wall Street and lending practices leading up to the 2007-2009 financial crisis, but Republicans have not made him or his record the focus of their opposition to his nomination as director.

On Tuesday he will at least get a chance to make his pitch for the job.

As attorney general, Cordray was not afraid to file legal challenges against banks, including Bank of America Corp. In testimony prepared for Tuesday's hearing, Cordray said he chose the litigation route in Ohio because it was among the only powers he had over banks and that as head of CFPB he could avoid such showdowns.

"The supervisory tool, in particular, offers the prospect of resolving compliance issues more quickly and effectively without resorting to litigation," he said.

With Republicans refusing to budge, the Obama administration will have to decide if the benefits of a political fight over the merits of the agency outweigh what it may have to give up to get Cordray confirmed.

There is no evidence such a deal is on the horizon, and consumer groups and liberal activists are urging the White House to stand firm.

"We're not going to settle for weakening the consumer bureau for establishing its full authority with a director," said Ed Mierzwinski, consumer program director of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group.

The bureau cannot exercise certain powers until it has a confirmed director in place. Chief among them is the ability to oversee nonbanks that engage in lending and other consumer financial products.

What has been lost in the debate over what the bureau cannot do without a director, said Travis Plunkett, legislative director of the Consumer Federation of America, are the significant powers the agency does have.

The bureau can now police financial products being offered by banks and write new rules to govern those markets.

"The consumer bureau has a lot of power to do a lot of good for consumers, and they need to use it," he said.

(Reporting by Dave Clarke; editing by Jeffrey Benkoe)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Senate Banking Committee on Friday said it will vote next week on the nominations of seven individuals for senior federal regulatory positions, including two Securities Exchange Commission members.

The committee plans an executive session on Thursday to vote on the nominations of Luis Aguilar, a Democrat who has been serving as a commissioner at the SEC since 2008, and Daniel Gallagher, a Republican, who is currently a partner at law firm Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr.

David Vitter, a Republican, had planned to block the SEC nominations due to concerns that the agency was not moving quickly enough on compensation for victims of Texas financier Allen Sanford's alleged Ponzi scheme.

But Vitter dropped his opposition in mid-June after the SEC decided that they should be compensated by a brokerage industry-backed fund.

The committee said it also plans to vote on the nominations of Gregory Karawan and Anthony Frank D'Agostino as directors at the Securities Investor Protection Corp, which helps investors recover funds if their brokerage fails.

The committee also plans to vote on the nominations of Thomas Curry to head the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency; Martin Gruenberg to head the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp; and Roy Woodall to be a member of the Financial Stability Oversight Council.

If the Senate Banking Committee votes in favor of all seven nominees, they still face a full Senate vote in order to be confirmed.

(Reporting by Andrea Shalal-Esa; editing by Carol Bishopric)

Politico - He criticizes Senate Republicans for refusing to consider Obama’s nominees to federal agencies.

M   E   M   O   R   A   N   D  U   M

To: Interested Parties

From: Gretchen Hamel, Executive Director, Public Notice

Date: September 1, 2011

Re: Congress’ Return

______________________________________________________________________

In November 2010, Republicans rode into Washington on a wave of discontent about the economy and Congress’ growing appetite for government spending. Since the election, federal lawmakers have passed two major pieces of legislation dealing with government spending – the fiscal year 2011 full-year continuing resolution (CR) and the Budget Control Act. Both policies claim to cut federal spending or at least slow the rate of its growth. But are voters satisfied? Hardly.

Recent polling numbers and focus groups prove voters’ discontent. According to a recent Gallup poll on the topic, only 13 percent of adults – including an astonishingly low nine percent of Independents – approve of the job Congress is doing. More than four in five Americans, 84 percent, disapprove of Congress’ job. Furthermore, according to Pew, only three percent of adults say they trust the government in Washington to do what is right “just about always.” Only 16 percent say they trust the government to do what is right most of the time while 72 percent of Americans say they trust the government to do what is right only sometimes.  Eight percent say they never trust the government to do what is right. Finally, a pollster with Public Opinion Strategies said that in focus groups over the last two weeks he has seen a “…change in tone in the wake of the debt ceiling negotiation.” “Historically … this type of deep voter anger, unease, and economic pessimism leads to unstable and unpredictable political outcomes,” the pollster said.

Considering all of this, it is no wonder Congress is feeling nervous – nervous about the economy and nervous about their own reelections. Several news stories this August indicated that members of Congress, while out of session, chose to deal with this discontent by avoiding their constituents this summer. According to a story from National Public Radio as many as 60 percent of members chose not to hold any town halls this in August. A Los Angeles Times headline screamed, “Members of Congress Avoid Town Hall Brawls This Recess.” This phenomenon doesn’t seem as if it’s confined to one party; both Republicans and Democrats appeared to avoid town halls. Clearly this indicates that neither party feels they have the higher ground when it comes to fiscal and economic issues.

Lawmakers may have gotten away with hiding over the last few weeks, but they won’t be able to duck the issues or the voters forever. They will have to work together to solve a problem they both created.

Representatives and senators returning to Washington have a lot of prove to voters concerned about spiraling deficits and mounting debt. And even though anxiety about the economy reigns, polling shows voters increasingly want lawmakers to continue to focus on getting control of the soaring budget deficit instead of spending more money in an effort to “stimulate” the economy.

According to Pew, when given two choices, only 42 percent of adults say they would put a higher priority on spending money to help the economy recover. Interestingly, this number is down from 46 percent nearly six months ago. More than half – 52 percent – would put a higher priority on reducing the budget deficit, up from 49 percent from about six months ago.

What can members of Congress do to satisfy a public hungry for continued spending cuts and economic reform? Certainly, the agenda starts with the spending bills that must be passed this fall during fiscal year 2012 appropriations process. Up to this point, the House has passed six appropriations bills while the Senate has just passed one.  Regarding the one bill both the House and the Senate have passed, the two chambers have not voted to reconcile the differences between the two versions – meaning none of their work for fiscal year 2012 appropriations has been completed even though the new fiscal year begins on October 1.

The fact that Congress is so far behind is not surprising considering recent appropriations history – the last time Congress passed all the appropriations bills individually was more than 15 years ago – but delays like this make it more likely Congress will have to make spending decisions at the last minute.

Immediately upon their return to Washington, lawmakers should buckle down get to work on passing fiscal year 2012 spending bills that cut federal spending. Included in this discussion should be a vigorous debate on how to cut defense spending, by far the largest piece of spending considered during the yearly appropriations process.

Next up for Congress this fall is the work of the 12-member Joint Committee on Deficit Reduction (the “supercommittee”). The supercommittee, established by the debt ceiling bill, is tasked with finding $1.5 trillion in spending cuts over 10 years. These cuts are in addition to the $917 billion in savings triggered by spending caps established in the debt ceiling bill. These caps, spread out over ten years, and beginning in fiscal year 2012, don’t really cut spending – they simply cut the growth rate of government spending.

Unlike those caps, which only addresses discretionary spending programs like education and defense, the supercommittee can consider modifications to entitlement spending, which lies is outside of the yearly appropriations process. Entitlement spending consumed 55 percent of all federal spending in 2010. If the supercommittee wants to get serious, it cannot ignore these, the largest federal government expenditures: Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Until Congress tackles these programs, we won’t be able to get control of our deficit problems.

Just like the Appropriations Committee should look for cuts in the fiscal year 2012 Defense Appropriations bill this fall, the supercommittee also should take a hard look at defense spending. There are certainly plenty of places to find savings in defense, starting with the defense contracting process. (As side note: Public Notice will be holding a debate on defense spending on September 13 in which we’ll ask panelists, including Larry Korb of the Center for American Progress and Christopher Preble from the CATO Institute, for their best ideas for reform.)

Finally, there is the issue of tax reform.  Certainly the supercommittee will have to tackle this question. Members will be under intense pressure to either pass full-scale tax reform that cuts overall rates but eliminates major deductions (true reform is certainly worth considering), or raise income tax rates.

Polling on the tax question is mixed. According to the Economist, 39 percent of adults believe it would not be possible to “make large reductions to the budget deficit” without increasing taxes. Still, about the same number – 40 percent – said it would be possible to cut the budget deficit without raising taxes. However, according to a recent Economist article, headlined “Don’t Look Down; the Poor Like Taxing the Rich Less than you Think,” shows that soaking the rich may not be as politically popular as some lawmakers assume.

On tax reform, voters clearly prefer a fairer system with lower rates. According to Gallup, 76 percent of adults are in favor of a bill to completely overhaul the current tax system. More than half – 51 percent – of Americans would like to see what the country pays in federal income taxes reduced.

The lack of clarity on polling tax questions reveals an underlying truth: Washington cannot cover all of its $14.7 trillion debt by simply raising, or even reforming, taxes. This is why voters are suspicious of tax increases and strongly support fiscal restraint.

Some members of Congress will be tempted to dodge the question of spending cuts by focusing on tax hikes instead. While members may have ducked tough constituent questions this August recess, they can’t run from the broader fiscal questions and problems that still face the nation. They’ll have to start putting economics before politics when they return this fall.

It’s time to get to work.

###

MEDIA CONTACTS
Kate Pomeroy
Media Relations Director
703.927.7111
kate@thepublicnotice.org

Victoria Coley
Media Relations Coordinator
443.758.6077
victoria@thepublicnotice.org

 

 

 

 

AP - A U.C. Berkeley law professor whose nomination to a federal appeals court was blocked by Senate Republicans was unanimously approved Wednesday for the California Supreme Court.

WASHINGTON -- Hours after President Barack Obama pressed Congress to extend surface transportation funding before it runs out next month, a key House Republican announced Wednesday that he's on board for a short-term fix one more time.

"As Chairman of the House Transportation Committee, I will agree to one additional highway program extension, this being the eighth of the overdue transportation reauthorization," said Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.) in a statement.

The current authorization, which provides funding for highway construction, bridge repair and mass transit systems, expires on Sept. 30. During a Rose Garden event, Obama said failure to pass "a clean extension" of the measure before then would mean more than 4,000 workers would immediately stop receiving paychecks. And if an extension were delayed even by 10 days, the government would lose nearly $1 billion in highway funding from uncollected tax revenue.

"That's inexcusable," Obama said. "It's inexcusable to put more jobs at risk in an industry that’s already been one of the hardest hit over the last decade."

Lawmakers keep passing short-term extensions as they struggle to reach a deal on a broader reauthorization of the program. The House and Senate still have some key differences to sort out: The House is considering a six-year, $230 billion bill funded entirely by current fuel taxes, while the Senate proposal would last only two years and cost $109 billion.

Democrats on and off the Hill say current spending levels must be maintained if the party is to be viewed as serious about jobs. A top Republican aide emphasized that Congress must get serious about a longer-term extension because it would give states and transit agencies "the predictability" they need to plan long-term projects.

During his Wednesday remarks, the president also called on Congress to pass a clean reauthorization of Federal Aviation Administration funding. Lawmakers failed to extend FAA funding earlier this month, a hiccup that resulted in a partial shutdown of the agency for 10 days until Congress passed a temporary fix that runs through Sept. 16. During those 10 days, about 74,000 FAA and construction workers went without pay and the government lost about $360 million in uncollected tax revenue.

"That’s why, when [lawmakers] come back next month, not only do they need to pass the transportation bill but they've also got to pass a clean extension of that FAA bill -- for longer this time -- and address back pay for the workers who were laid off during the last shutdown," Obama said.

But on the matter of the FAA, Mica signaled he wants to wait to meet with House GOP leaders before he agrees to a clean extension. He noted that Republicans have put forward "positive and financially responsible alternatives" to both the highway bill and the FAA bill, referring to versions that include GOP policy provisions opposed by Democrats.

“I am returning to Washington to also consult with our Republican leadership before granting the 22nd FAA extension," Mica said.

AP - A U.C. Berkeley law professor whose nomination to a federal appeals court was blocked by Senate Republicans is about to become a member of the California Supreme Court.