Schumer optimistic about immigration bill

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Sunday that an immigration-reform bill has “a very decent chance of getting done” this Congress.

Schumer is working with a group of senators on a bipartisan framework, and said President Obama has given them “the space we need” to hammer out a deal. He said he was "hopeful" about producing a bill in March.

But Schumer acknowledged talks could be complicated by a White House draft immigration bill leaked Saturday, as first reported by USA Today.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) called the reported plan “dead on arrival.”

Rubio and Schumer comprise two members of the bipartisan Senate “Gang of Eight," who unveiled their immigration blueprint last month.

The group’s framework for a bill includes creating a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants, strengthened border security and efforts to increase high-skilled immigration and employee verification.

Rubio said the reported administration plan,though, would leave the U.S. “with unsecured borders and a broken legal immigration system for years to come.”

A White House spokesman would not confirm the details of the report, but told CNN that it intends to let Congress lead the immigration push.

Schumer said Rubio was “upset with this leak.” He said he talked to the Florida Republican, who is “fully on board with our process.”

Schumer also said he understood the leaked White House proposal, which he had not seen, “wasn’t their final or complete bill.”

The White House draft would establish a “Lawful Prospective Immigrant” visa that permits people to work and travel after paying fees and passing a criminal background check. After eight years under the visa, immigrants could apply for permanent residency status with a green card. The draft also boosts Border Patrol spending, adds federal immigration judges and expands the use of E-Verify.

Regardless of who leads the charge, any bill that creates an avenue for citizenship for illegal immigrants is likely to run into GOP opposition in the House. Many Republicans see such measures as amnesty.

View Comments

View the original article here

USA Today On Keystone XL Rally: ‘Tens Of Thousands Demand Action On Climate Change’

So that was a heck of a rally. I welcome readers who attended to share their thoughts and pics.

If you missed it, you can get details from USA Today‘s story “Tens of thousands demand action on climate change.” Or from the Sierra Club news release, “More Than 35,000 Strong March on Washington for Climate Action.”

And then there’s always the Climate Progress twitter feed — my first mass tweeting from an iPhone.

I loved the combination of passion and knowledge that was driving the day. I had the chance to talk to a bunch of the speakers and was impressed by the strength of their commitment on climate in general and Keystone XL in particular.

Van Jones made clear that all of President Obama’s other accomplishments would be wiped away if he approves Keystone, since future generations are going to judge all of us on the basis of the actions we take on climate.

I was very impressed with the celebrities who came, that they had substance to go with the style. How great to have Rosario Dawson explain that it is called “tar sands” and not “oil sands.” And in chatting with her afterwards, it’s clear she also understands the spectrum of clean energy solutions.

And Evangeline Lilly (aka Kate Austen from Lost) was there as a Canadian to apologize to all the Americans in the audience for her country’s ceaseless efforts to send the dirtiest of fuels our way. I have seen every episode of Lost but lost my nerve to tell her how much I enjoyed her show except for the last five minutes, that is. It’s not like she was one of the writers…. But I digress.

I had a long talk with Tom Steyer, the billionaire hedge-fund manager who helped lead the “No on Prop 23? campaign to save California’s climate law in 2010. He is also on the board of CAP. He is full throttle that we have to act — and act now — if we are to avert catastrophe. He said to the crowd that he has spent a lot of time reviewing investments and Keystone is a bad investment for this country.

It is good to see a movement with passion from the top all the way down to the roots.

jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery('#comment_submit').click(function(){if(jQuery('#comment_check:checked').length

View the original article here

Open Thread Plus Toles Cartoon Of The Week

Sorry, I could not read the content fromt this page.

View the original article here

Green groups rally on climate, urge Obama to reject Keystone project

Environmental groups gathered on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. Sunday and marched on the White House for a climate change rally largely aimed at pressuring President Obama to reject the Keystone XL oil sands pipeline.

Organizers said 35,000 activists attended the rally, where speakers portrayed the battle over the pipeline as a struggle between grassroots green groups and deep-pocketed special interests.

“They’ve got the lobbyists. They’ve got the super-PACs. They made the campaign contributions. They’ve got this town in their pockets — they have got the situation under control. And then you show up. And then we show up. And we change the game,” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) told the crowd not long before it marched on the White House.

Obama will decide whether the project goes forward because it crosses national boundaries.

More from The Hill:
• States join battle over drone flights
• Privacy advocates: Cybersecurity bill faces tough odds
• Press corps: 'Frustration' over lack of access to Obama
• Graham: Hagel disavowed remark on Israel, State Dept.
• Defense industry focuses on minimizing sequester damage
• Dems hold fire on climate change votes

The pipeline would bring fossil fuels from Canadian tar sands fields to the Gulf Coast. Environmentalists are painting Obama’s upcoming decision as the litmus test for whether he plans to make good on recent comments about tackling climate change.

Activists at Sunday’s rally said approving the pipeline would taint Obama’s record on climate change. They said they hoped the demonstration would give the president the will to nix Keystone, even when a majority of both the House and the Senate want it built.

“His heart is there. The question is can we change the politics enough so he can do what he knows is right. And I believe that he will,” Van Jones, a former Obama adviser, told The Hill.

Courtesy of Shadia Fayne Wood | Project Survival Media | 350.org

The politics surrounding the project are formidable.

Blocking Keystone would play into Republican assertions that the president is scuttling a project that could enhance energy security and create thousands of jobs to appease environmental supporters. They have pressed the White House to green-light the pipeline.

Oil-and-gas groups, such as the American Petroleum Institute, have helped lead a lobbying effort to get Keystone built.

Canada also has tried to sway the administration into approving the pipeline, as it would benefit that nation's oil sands industry.

Obama also has his own base to consider, as several union groups are eager for the jobs Keystone would bring to their members. The AFL-CIO’s building and construction trades division has endorsed the pipeline, and that department’s leader expects the full labor federation to lend its support.

But there is no time to delay when it comes to climate change, Susan Casey-Lefkowitz, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s (NRDC) international program, told The Hill.

“There is no deal to be done,” she said. “We need to do everything we can on every front.”

That is why NRDC and other green groups also want Obama to pursue more stringent carbon emissions standards.

The environmental community is pushing the White House to set emissions standards for existing power plants to build on proposed rules in Obama's first term that effectively barred construction of new coal-fired power plants.

Courtesy of Joshua Lopez | Project Survival Media | 350.org

Greens also want Obama to forge ahead with clean-energy research and deployment on federal lands, measures to boost energy efficiency in homes, buildings and manufacturing and efforts to make coastal towns and cities more storm resilient.

The green groups are focusing their pressure on Obama because of gloomy prospects for passing climate bills this Congress. Republicans will not accept fees on carbon emissions — the same goes for some conservative Democrats.

In an interview with The Hill, Whitehouse said killing Keystone and pushing ahead with stronger regulations could jolt polluting industries into working on climate legislation.

“That’s what’s going to bring them to the table very quickly,” Whitehouse said. “And as soon as the polluters want it, then obviously the Republicans are right there with them.”

View Comments

View the original article here

Sens. Graham, Paul split over harm from sequestration cuts

GOP Sens. Lindsey Graham (S.C) and Rand Paul (Ky.) on Sunday highlighted the split within the Republican party on the effect of the looming $85 billion in sequester spending cuts slated to take effect on March 1. 

In interviews on "Fox News Sunday" Defense hawk Graham said the cuts would devastate the military, while Tea Party conservative Paul argued that the sequester is not really a cut at all in government spending.

Graham said President Obama was shirking his duty as commander in chief by allowing the cuts to come into effect.

"On his watch we are going to unravel the greatest military in the world,” he said. “Iran is watching us...we are allowing people to be slaughtered in Syria.”

Graham said that the Senate Democratic proposal to replace the sequester with more tailored defense cuts, farm program cuts and tax increases was laughable. 

“Let's put Obamacare on the table,” he proposed.

Paul, however, was far more comfortable with allowing sequestration.

He said that while the across-the-board nature of the cuts is not ideal, the cuts are needed. 

“Ideally we would have done the right thing and passed appropriation bills... the sequester is sort of a hammer,” said Paul. 

But he added that the sequester and 8 years of similar cuts slated to take effect still leave spending on an upward path. 

“The sequester is really a reduction in the rate of growth of spending, it is not a real cut in spending,” he said. “Even with the sequester, spending will still rise overall.”

Paul denounced Obama for listing new programs in his State of the Union address. and proposing to pay for them with tax increases. He added that attempts by Obama to paint the GOP as the party of protecting tax breaks for the wealthy were false.

“It is our job to explain to the public big government doesn't help the poor,” he said. “His massive debt causes prices to rise.”

Paul also told "Fox News Sunday" that he would only run for president in 2016 if he can win and that he will not decide on a possible bid until next year. 

View Comments

View the original article here

Republicans Try To Intimidate Nonpartisan Accounting Office For Debunking Their Economic Theory

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-MI)

Last September, the non-partisan Congressional Research Service released a report showing that tax cuts for the rich — contrary to GOP orthodoxy — have minimal effect on economic growth or job creation. Instead, they simply increase income inequality. Republicans pressured the CRS to pull the report down; it was eventually re-posted with the same conclusions.

Last month, another non-partisan agency, the Congressional Budget Office, released an analysis showing that one of the GOP’s favorite corporate tax ideas would end up pushing jobs overseas. Again, instead of reexamining their ideas, Republicans are attacking the messenger:

The Congressional Budget Office is defending a recent report on how U.S. multinational corporations are taxed, after a top Republican criticized the analysis as biased. [...] “This report purports to provide an even-handed review of different policy issues related to the taxation of foreign source income,” [House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave] Camp (R-MI) wrote to [CBO Director Doug] Elmendorf last month.

“However, a closer analysis of the report reveals that it is heavily slanted and biased in favor of one specific approach to the taxation of foreign source income – and relies heavily on sources that tend to support that conclusion while ignoring sources that support a different conclusion,” he added.

Elmendorf defended the report, saying it “presents the key issues fairly and objectively and that its findings are well grounded in economic theory and are consistent with empirical studies in this area.”

The GOP’s idea — known as a “territorial” tax system — would permanently exempt U.S. corporations from paying taxes on profits they make overseas. CBO found such a system would result in “increasing incentives to shift business operations and reported income to countries with lower tax rates.”

View the original article here

Obama orders top aide McDonough to stop biking to work

President Obama has ordered his top aide to stop biking to the White House for work.

The president, a fitness maven and staunch environmentalist, appears to have made the call for security reasons.

New Chief of Staff Denis McDonough had been bicycling to work regularly when he was still Obama's deputy national security adviser. He lives north of the White House in Takoma Park, Maryland. 

Now that he has ascended to Cabinet-rank the days of dodging commuter buses on the morning ride through downtown Washington, DC. are over.

"I have stopped biking to work," McDonough told NBC's Meet the Press, acknowledging that it was Obama's order.

Host David Gregory joked that you have to listen to the boss.

"Absolutely," McDonough said.

Last month, the League of American Bicyclists called on Obama to "free the McDonough ten-speed" and allow him to stay in the bike lane.

View Comments

View the original article here

5 Qualifications For The Next Pope

Our guest blogger is Jack Jenkins, Writer and Researcher for the Center for American Progress Faith and Progressive Policy Initiative.

Since Pope Benedict XVI announced he will resign from the Pontificate at the end of February, speculation has already begun as to who his replacement will be.

The process of electing a new Pope, however, is somewhat complicated – both politically and theologically. Technically speaking, for example, political positioning and specific personal attributes don’t make someone more or less “qualified” to be the Pope – according to Catholic tradition, the Pope is selected through the will of God, not because of any particular trait.

Still, recent Papal elections have exhibited some noticeable trends about who ends up in the Vatican’s Big Chair – attributes that aren’t necessarily required, but that show up more often than not among Popes. Here are a few:

1. The Pope can be almost any Catholic male, but is usually a cardinal. While the Pope does seem to have to be male, Canon law isn’t all that specific about other qualifications. The Pope can actually be a cardinal, a bishop, priest, or even a layman, although any non-cardinal would have to immediately receive an “episcopal consecration” from the Dean of the College of Cardinals before becoming Pope. There is certainly some precedent for non-cardinal Popes (see Pope Urban VI), and there is even speculation that a non-Catholic could hypothetically be elected Pope – provided he converts to Catholicism upon assuming the pontificate, of course. Most of the time, however, Popes are former cardinals – probably because cardinals are the ones who actually get to vote on the new Pope in the first place.

2. Popes are often old, but they’re not that old. The papacy isn’t known for attracting especially youthful individuals, but the system does have a cap: Only cardinals under the age of 80 can vote on the next Pope, and – since most Popes come from this group – it’s unlikely that anyone over 80 will ascend to the Papacy.

3. Popes tend to share many of the same views as their predecessor. Cardinals select the new Pope based on their faith and their personal conscience, but who does the voting matters: Pope Benedict, for instance, has appointed 67 of the 181 Cardinals that will be electing the new Pope. This is a common practice among Popes (John Paul II has appointed two-thirds of the electing Cardinals by the time he passed away), and significantly increases the chances that a new Pope will share many of his predecessor’s views.

4. The Pope is usually fluent in several languages. Catholicism boasts 1.3 billion adherents spread across every country in the world. This means communication (read: translation) is a big challenge for Catholicism, and a big part of Church governance. Not surprisingly, many former Popes were known to be linguistic savants; Pope John Paul II, for instance, was fluent in at least 8 languages, and conversant in several more. By contrast, Cardinal Timothy Dolan – the so-called “American Pope” – appears to only be fluent in English and Italian, although he also claims to be conversational in Spanish.

5. The Pope is typically knowledgeable about – or influential within – places where the Catholic Church is growing. Although the Catholic Church isn’t exactly a model for rapid change, the tradition isn’t oblivious to shifting times: Pope John Paul the II, for instance, was the first non-Italian Pope in 455 years, and came to represent the global broadening of the Catholic tradition. The election of Pope Benedict XVI continued the new trend of non-Italian Popes (he’s German), and it stands to reason that – since the Catholic church is continuing to grow in Latin America and Africa – a new Pope could easily be pulled from one of those areas.

View the original article here

McDonough: ‘Grave concern’ over Hagel, Brennan delays

White House chief of staff Denis McDonough on Sunday urged lawmakers to quickly confirm former Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) and John Brennan to their posts in Obama’s national security team, expressing “grave concern” about the delays.

“We want to make sure that we have our -- those guys sitting in the chairs working, because I don't want there to have been something missed because of this hang-up here in Washington,” said McDonough in an interview on ABC’s “This Week.”

Senate Republicans blocked Hagel’s nomination for Defense secretary last week in a 58-40 vote. Hagel became the first ever Defense nominee filibustered, as GOP lawmakers raised objections to his policies toward Israel and Iran. 

Republicans including Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (S.C.) have also threatened to hold up Brennan’s nomination to be CIA Director, demanding more information from the White House over its drone strike program and response to the Sept. 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

McDonough, who was previously Obama’s deputy national security adviser, said he had worked with both men and praised their abilities. 

“If you look at Chuck Hagel, decorated war veteran himself, war hero.  Republican senator.  Somebody who over the course of the last many years, either as a Republican senator or as the chairman of the president's Intelligence Advisory Board, I've worked with very closely.  This guy has one thing in mind, how do we protect the country,” said McDonough. 

Republicans said last week after stalling Hagel’s confirmation that they need more time to clear the nomination and said they would consider a vote when the Senate returns later this month.

The White House and Senate Democrats have expressed confidence that Hagel will eventually be confirmed, but the delay has only highlighted the contentiousness of his selection. 

“I think it’s appropriate to wait until we come back,” said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said last week. “I think there’s plenty of time to have any further questions answered and I intend to vote for cloture then. … He’d certainly get mine and a number of others.” On Sunday, on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” McCain expressed confidence that Hagel would be confirmed eventually. 

The White House said last week that outgoing Defense secretary Leon Panetta would continue to serve until Hagel’s confirmation, with Panetta slated to attend a NATO summit later this month.

View Comments

View the original article here