TPM Election Central

How Scalia Helped Obama Defend The Birth Control Rule

2012-02-10T11:01:00Z

The Obama administration is already facing lawsuits challenging its requirement that insurance plans cover birth control as a violation of religious freedom. Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) has flatly called the regulation unconstitutional. But although it's unclear how much traction the legal challenges will gain, the administration and its backers have one unlikely man to thank for helping their cause: Justice Antonin Scalia.

"One thing I think is crystal clear -- there is no First Amendment violation by this law," Adam Winkler, a constitutional law professor at UCLA, told TPM. "The Supreme Court was very clear in a case called Employment Division v. Smith, written by none other than Antonin Scalia, that religious believers and institutions are not entitled to an exemption from generally applicable laws."

The Reagan-appointed conservative justice authored the majority opinion in the 1990 decision Employment Division v. Smith, a critical precedent to the birth control case, decreeing that religious liberty is insufficient grounds for being exempt from laws. The Supreme Court said Oregon may deny unemployment benefits to people who were fired for smoking peyote as part of a religious tradition, seeing as the drug was illegal in the state.

"To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself," wrote Scalia, an avowed Catholic and social conservative, in an opinion that was cosigned by four other justices.

Thanks to this decision more than any other, Winkler said there's no reason to believe the constitutional argument against the rule has any legs. And while the high court later ruled to create a ministerial exception in anti-discrimination laws (to shield the Church from liability in forbidding women to become priests), it has not altered the Smith precedent insofar as it applies to the birth control rule. "So it would seem extremely difficult" for the courts to overturn it on that basis, Winkler posited. "I don't think there's any real argument."

Critics have posited that the application of drugs in Smith was a motivating factor in the decisions of Scalia and the other conservative justices. "Sure, I think there's something to that argument," Winkler said. But 'stare decisis' (court-speak for judicial precedent) applies all the same. And it wouldn't even be the first time Scalia has handed down a decision that the Obama White House can use against conservatives.

Sadly for liberals, though, the legal basis for a challenge doesn't end there. Apart from the First Amendment option, there's another, more substantial judicial route that opponents of the birth control rule can take. After Smith was handed down, Congress passed a law to push back on the ruling, which Winkler said "attempts to provide more protection for religion than the Supreme Court was willing to give."

The 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act said any law that burdens religious freedom must satisfy strict scrutiny. The Supreme Court later said it cannot apply to states (which is why the 28 states that already have the birth control rule the White House wants to take nationwide are in the clear), but held that those requirements shall apply to federal laws. First, the law may not be a "substantial burden" and can only be an "incidental burden" on religious practices; second, it must be justified by "compelling government interest"; third, it must be narrowly tailored to pursue that interest.

And it's an open question whether the birth control requirement passes that level of scrutiny, Winkler said, arguing that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is opponents' best hope to reverse the rule through the courts. "I could see arguments go both ways," he said.

White House allies aren't feeling overconfident, either. "I think the lower courts will support the [contraception] rule, based on the precedent," said Jessica Arons of the liberal Center for American Progress. "But if it makes it to the Supreme Court, I don't know how it will play out given the Court's current makeup."

All of which is to say opponents of the birth control requirement still have a chance to reverse it through the courts, should Republicans fail to do so legislatively. But one of their two possible routes to achieving that goal has had a huge impediment thrown in its path by none other than Antonin Scalia.

Presented By:

2012-02-10T11:01:00Z

Dems Slam Romney For Inconsistencies On Birth Control

2012-02-09T22:17:07Z

In his 2006 Massachusetts health care law, Mitt Romney embraced a virtually identical contraception coverage mandate as President Obama recently has, experts say, and as a result expanded access to birth control for hundreds of thousands of women. And Democrats really want you to know that.

"They are practically mirror images or each other," John McDonough, a professor of public health at Harvard, said on a conference call organized by the Democratic National Committee. "They completely reflect each other."

Romney has embraced the shocked, shocked tone of leading Republicans on this issue in recent days, and Democrats have acted swiftly to flag up inconsistencies in his position.

McDonough said the only distinction between the two is that Massachusetts' exemption includes some Church-controlled primary schools -- but not religious universities or hospitals. He added that while Romney's law did impose a short-term moratorium on new mandated insurance benefits, Romney broke that moratorium 4 months after enactment by issuing a mandate unrelated to contraception.

Romney's campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment, and for now he's keeping the focus on Obama. He predicted Thursday that the President will be forced to "retreat" from his regulation or "suffer enormous consequence."

The birth control issue has become the subject of a Catholic community firestorm, fueled by Republicans, over the Obama administration's requirement that employers providing health insurance (with the exception of Churches) include birth control coverage. Congressional Republicans have threatened to reverse the rule through legislation -- which could make things awkward for Romney.

The same mandate existed in Massachusetts before Romney became governor, and he did not widen the existing coverage requirements. But McDonough said that contrary to Romney's claims, he made no effort to roll back the contraception part during his four years at the helm, whether in his original proposal or during the debate. Ultimately, the professor said, Romney emboldened it by expanding insurance coverage subject to the rule.

"I think that is demonstrably true," McDonough told reporters on the Thursday call. "The uninsured individuals [in Massachusetts] who got access to insurance because of the health care law... all got access to contraceptive coverage because of that law."

Phil Johnston, a former Democratic health secretary in Massachusetts, added that roughly 400,000 Massachusetts residents now have health insurance thanks to Romney's law, and each one of them has access to birth control.

Earlier this week after Romney joined the GOP chorus and attacked Obama's mandate, the White House pointed to the ex-governor's own prior support for a similar provision, to which Romney said he had "fought to remove" the contraception requirement.

"The record does not match a lot of the claims that are being made on it," McDonough said.

Rubio Bill Lets ANY Employer Deny Birth Control Coverage

2012-02-09T20:25:41Z

Legislation introduced by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) to reverse the Obama administration's birth control rule would effectively permit any employer to deny contraception coverage in their employee health plans, critics note.

"Any employer could deny birth control coverage under Rubio's bill and all the employer would have to do is say it's for a religious reason," said Jessica Arons, Director of the Women's Health and Rights Program at the liberal Center for American Progress. "There is no test to prove eligibility. It's a loophole you could drive a truck through."

The Rubio bill, The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, comes in response to a Catholic firestorm over the fact that the administration's exemption on its birth control rule does not include religious hospitals and universities along with churches. But this bill appears to go far beyond that, permitting any employer to claim the religious exemption without a criteria.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) told reporters Thursday the measure would grant the exemption to "not just Catholic employers -- to all employers."

Rubio's spokesman did not respond to a request for comment. His bill has 26 GOP cosponsors and the support of Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin (WV).

The relevant section of the bill, under the title "Conscience Protections," is below.

`(1) IN GENERAL- No guideline or regulation issued pursuant to subsection (a)(4), or any other provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act, or the amendments made by that Act (Public Law 110-148), shall--
`(A) require any individual or entity to offer, provide, or purchase coverage for a contraceptive or sterilization service, or related education or counseling, to which that individual or entity is opposed on the basis of religious belief; or

`(B) require any individual or entity opposed by reason of religious belief to provide coverage of a contraceptive or sterilization service or to engage in government-mandated speech regarding such a service.

Poll: Random People In A Phonebook Would Do Better Than Current Congress

2012-02-09T11:16:00Z

What's a phone book, you ask? Before smart phones and high-speed internet access, people had to consult a massive book to look up phone numbers. And according to a recent Rasmussen poll, a plurality of voters think the random people inside it would do a better job than the current Congress.

Forty-three percent of respondents said a group of random people selected from the phone book would do a better job addressing the nation's problems than their current representatives. Thirty-eight percent of respondents disagreed and 19 percent weren't sure.

"We have a situation in which the American people don't think Congress or anybody in Washington is listening to them," Scott Rasmussen, founder of Rasmussen Reporters, told TPM. The numbers also represent a "deeper cynicism" toward Congress, Rasmussen said.

Yep, Congress is pretty bad. And according to the poll, voters agree that both Democrats and Republicans aren't helping. In fact, a phone book could probably fit in the gap between Congress' approval and disapproval ratings in TPM's Poll Average:

Speaking of, why use the phone book analogy? "That's been a line that people have brought up over the years," Rasmussen said. "It's a fun way to test just how fed up people are."

See the full poll results here.

Why Planned Parenthood Had To Fight Back So Hard

2012-02-09T11:04:00Z

The Komen Foundation seemed to be caught off guard by the strong response to its decision to defund Planned Parenthood. The former executive Karen Handel told Fox News upon her resignation that Planned Parenthood had made the matter "political." Meanwhile, an anonymous Komen source told the Huffington Post they'd been caught off-guard by Planned Parenthood's "incredibly sophisticated" operation.

RELATED: Ex-Komen Official: We Aren't Political, But Planned Parenthood Is

It should not have come as a shock. Planned Parenthood is no stranger to such controversies. TPM spoke with two former Planned Parenthood presidents about why the women's health group had chosen to fight back, and to fight hard.

Both former presidents drew important parallels between the Komen situation today and a similar incident over 20 years ago with AT&T. In 1990, AT&T announced its charitable foundation would end a 25 year-old tradition of giving Planned Parenthood $50,000 annually, which funded teen pregnancy prevention programs. Still, AT&T wanted to distance itself from the association with abortion and end the pressure it was receiving from pro-life activists.

With AT&T's decision to cut off funding, Planned Parenthood faced a set of problems beyond an immediate loss in funding. First, the fact that the company pulled the funding sent an encouraging signal to anti-abortion groups that their pressure tactics were working. Second, AT&T's decision provided cover to other companies feeling similar heat from activists. The Komen incident today raises those same concerns.

When AT&T decided to cut its funding, Planned Parenthood's president, Faye Wattleton, asked them to simply do so quietly. "I requested that they do so in a manner that would not encourage other corporations to back down," Wattleton told TPM, "that would not empower the anti-choice organizations." Instead, AT&T went public, and as Wattleton had warned AT&T over the phone, Planned Parenthood retaliated.

The women's health group launched a national campaign, running ads in major newspapers with the headline "Caving to extremists, AT&T hangs up on Planned Parenthood." Planned Parenthood received an outpouring of support and AT&T had to battle a public relations crisis similar to what the Komen Foundation faces now.

Talking Points Memo on Facebook

"I'm stunned by the similarities 20 years later with the two incidents in terms of the high profile withdraw of funding and the public response," said Wattleton, who served as president from 1978-1992.

For all the turmoil created, however, the funding never returned. Wattleton said they were extremely close to getting AT&T's shareholders to vote on the issue, but the incident came at the end of her tenure as president and pressure on AT&T eventually subsided. The AT&T incident is not unique; as Wattleton stresses, it was one of many events during her time at Planned Parenthood. Feldt says she saw corporate funding decline during her tenure.

Even though Komen now says it will re-consider Planned Parenthood for future grants, it's possible that money never will return. The AT&T fallout shows why Planned Parenthood pushed back, and likely will continue to.

"If you go to kill the king, the king must die," says Gloria Feldt, who served as president of Planned Parenthood from 1996-2005, on the impact of the AT&T decision, "because if he doesn't, you will." It's imperative for Planned Parenthood to show that it's either too strong to be touched or at least that it can only be abandoned with significant consequences. In reference to Komen, Feldt says, "Planned Parenthood has to play really hardball or else, I guarantee you, there will be no funding from Komen in a few years." Over the past week, Planned Parenthood has emerged strong. But as Feldt warns, "you may win a battle, but you can lose the war too."

GOP Ripe For Splits In Assault On Birth Control Rule

2012-02-08T22:58:58Z

Congressional Republicans' pledge to mount a legislative push against the Obama administration's requirement that health insurance plans cover birth control comes with a risk: Alienating their members who have previously pushed or voted to mandate contraception coverage.

Back in 2001, six Republican senators sponsored legislation decreeing that health insurance plans may not "exclude or restrict benefits for prescription contraceptive drugs or devices approved by the Food and Drug Administration." In other words, they would be required to provide birth control. The bill never made it out of committee, but that wasn't for a lack of effort from the GOP.

The measure's lead sponsor was Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and cosponsors included Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME); the other four have since left Congress. Counterpart legislation in the House was introduced by former Rep. James Greenwood (R-PA) and cosponsored by 14 others Republicans including incumbent Rep. Todd Platts (PA) and now-Sen. Mark Kirk (IL).

Spokespersons for Snowe and Collins did not respond to TPM's requests for comment by press time, and the two senators have not weighed in on the controversy thus far.

Republicans have fueled the religious firestorm over the administration's rule, and said Wednesday that they intend to act to roll it back legislatively if the White House does not reverse course. And while Democratic leaders have sought to downplay their own divisions and portray the GOP push as an attack on women's health, the controversy has split off some key allies of President Obama including Tim Kaine and fourth-ranking Dem Rep. John Larson (CT).

Behind the political haze is a new poll showing that a majority of the public -- including self-identified Catholics -- favors the birth control rule when told what it actually entails. It exempts churches and houses of worship that primarily employ persons of the same faith and grants religious nonprofits that employ and serve persons of different beliefs one additional year to begin complying.

Senate GOP leaders took turns bashing the decision Wednesday. "It violates our First Amendment to the constitution," said Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH). "This is not a women's rights issue. This is a religious liberty issue." But Ayotte's state of New Hampshire already has the same mandate without a religious exemption, and she hasn't expressed concerns with it. Twenty-seven other states have the same requirement.

For now Republicans have stuck together without any divisions spilling out. But that could change if members are forced to take votes as GOP support for contraception mandates have even been backed by staunch conservatives in the past.

A Republican-led appropriations bill in 2001, passed by a GOP Congress and enacted by President Bush, included a mandate that federal employee health insurance plans include contraception and birth control coverage. The legislation cleared the Senate by a voice vote and passed the House 334-94, winning the votes of incumbent Republicans including House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (VA) as well as Sens. Rob Portman (OH), Lindsey Graham (SC), Roger Wicker (MS), Kirk and others.

"The Administration believes that all federal employees should have access to a wide range of health care insurance options, including access to prescription drugs such as contraceptives," the Bush White House said in a statement at the time, noting that it did not ask for the contraception mandate but wouldn't object to it either.

Federal employee health plans requirements are, of course, a different animal than mandates for religiously affiliated entities, but enactment of the bill goes to show strong prior GOP support for expanding access to birth control for women.

With the White House struggling to explain its decision and said to be weighing a compromise, Republicans could still gain from the issue in the short-run. But as pro-choice Republicans and GOP strategists warn, the public is becoming more socially liberal and stoking culture wars could ultimately be a bad move for the party.

Boehner Threatens Legislative Action If Obama Does Not Reverse Birth Control Rule

2012-02-08T17:13:33Z

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) gave a rare floor speech Wednesday threatening legislative action if the Obama administration does not reverse its rule requiring health insurance plans to cover birth control without copays.

"If the president does not reverse the Department's attack on religious freedom, then the Congress, acting on behalf of the American people and the Constitution we are sworn to uphold and defend, must," Boehner said. "This attack by the federal government on religious freedom in our country cannot stand, and will not stand."

The Speaker said the House would take matters into its own hands with committee hearings and legislative action to push back if the administration declines to act.

"In the days ahead, the House will approach this matter fairly and deliberately, through regular order and the appropriate legislative channels," Boehner said. He called on the Energy & Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over the issue, to take steps against the rule and "consider all possible options."

Boehner last week called the regulation unconstitutional. The White House is weighing options to appease religious concerns.

Watch Boehner's speech below:

GOP Looks Set To Block Dem Fix For Medicare Doctors

2012-02-08T15:00:00Z

House GOP leaders are set to shoot down a silver-bullet pay-for to fix Medicare physician payment rates, sources close to leadership tell TPM, even though the idea has strong support among Democrats and some key Republican lawmakers. The so-called "doc fix" is being negotiated as part of the payroll tax cut package and momentum to use war savings to eliminate the Medicare flaw has recently halted due to GOP divisions over the idea.

The idea of using unspent Overseas Contingency Operation (OCO) funds from troop withdrawals Iraq and Afghanistan has the support of top Democrats as well as influential Republicans like Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (AZ) and GOP Doctors Caucus chairman Rep. Phil Gingrey (GA). While President Obama and Dems want to tap into the $838 billion fund for infrastructure as well, GOP backers say it shouldn't be used for anything other than a doc fix.

But two former Republican staffers turned health industry lobbyists say House GOP leaders are now opposed to tapping into the money even for that.

One of the sources said he heard directly from House Republican leadership that the prospect of using OCO money for a "doc fix" is moot. The second source added that leaders have issues with it from a messaging and process standpoint. Both agreed the GOP caucus is divided on the idea and making things tough for leadership -- while also exacerbating headaches for physician and hospital groups that are relentlessly pushing for the offset.

"The provider community is still salivating about it as the silver bullet," one of the lobbyists said. "The desperation is palpable. In their view, this like passing up an opportunity to go to confession and start with a clean slate."

TPM reached out to multiple House GOP leadership aides, who would not confirm their position but declined an opportunity to deny or challenge what the sources said. Speaker John Boehner dodged a question about it at his press conference last Thursday.

The current Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) formula contains steep 27.4 percent reductions to physician reimbursements that take effect March 1, which could destabilize the health care system and which both sides overwhelmingly want to avoid. But many Republicans prefer to fix it with real spending cuts, and see the war savings fund as fake money that shouldn't be used as an offset because it wouldn't otherwise be spent anyway.

On one side of the GOP divide are Kyl, Gingrey and other members who have close ties to the physician community and see OCO as their best opportunity to fix the problem for good -- they argue that both OCO and SGR are gimmicks so they can cancel each other out. But that view is opposed by staunch conservatives who see OCO as a sleight of hand and fear that it could open the door to letting Dems use the fund for additional stimulus measures. Some GOP lawmakers also want to use the "doc fix" as leverage to cut health care reform and Medicare, which House Republicans passed in their December payroll tax package.

Top Republicans say they want at least a two-year "doc fix" if not a permanent solution, although the lobbyists TPM spoke with fear the current polarized climate could lead to yet another short term patch of between two and six months, despite their hopes to the contrary.

The split on the war savings offset is one of many reasons negotiations over the payroll tax cut package have hit a brick wall this week. Senate Democrats have indicated that they intend to push forward with the OCO offset in the fallback plan they are developing to save face in case the negotiations fail. Dems have been quick to note that House Republicans counted OCO savings in the Paul Ryan budget they passed last year.

The idea is seen as dead in the payroll talks unless House GOP leaders sign off on it.

Ex-Komen Official: We Aren't Political, But Planned Parenthood Is

2012-02-07T22:53:30Z

Karen Handel, the controversial former Komen Foundation executive who resigned on Tuesday morning hit Fox News in the afternoon to defend Komen's cuts to Planned Parenthood.

If the cancer charity is hoping to draw a line under the firestorm, then it doesn't seem the manner of Handel's departure will necessarily help. Although she attracted intense media interest in the days following the decision, with many speculating that she played a large role in the move, her interview, much like her resignation letter, left many questions dangling for the charity.

Speaking with Fox News host Megyn Kelly, Handel said that Planned Parenthood had tried to turn Komen's decision into a political affair.

"The only group that made this political is Planned Parenthood," Handel said, claiming that no organization should face pressure over grant-making decisions. She then went on to explain that the Komen Foundation had been under pressure from pro-life groups over their association with Planned Parenthood, including pressure because of the Congressional investigation of Planned Parenthood. "It's no secret, Megyn, Komen and other organizations funding Planned Parenthood had been under pressure long before my time that had been going on, the pressure around the controversy...this organization had a right to make what it felt was the best decision for the mission."

As in her resignation letter, Handel argued that Komen had wanted for a long time to distance itself from "controversy" associated with Planned Parenthood. Handel referred specifically to the investigation launched by Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL) late last year, although that investigation started after Handel joined Komen in the spring of 2011.

Handel's position therefore seems to be attribute at least some of the decision to pressure from pro-life groups to dissociate with Planned Parenthood because they provide abortions: "There is this kind of controversy, Komen was doing its best to move to more central ground. I was asked to look at options. I looked at it and I did," she told Fox News.

Part of the argument between Komen and those attacking the charity comes down to how they are defining "political." Handel -- and Komen -- say their decision was not political because it was not based on ideology: they were just making a practical move to distance themselves from controversy. Conversely, Planned Parenthood's defenders argue that it is inherently political to give ground to a political movement in order, as Handel put it, to "move to more central ground."

Watch:

Presented By:

2012-02-07T22:53:30Z

Conservative Watchdog Group To Honor CBS News Reporter At CPAC

2012-02-07T22:27:26Z

In the past, the award has gone to conservative media stars like Andrew Breitbart, Tucker Carlson and Michelle Malkin. But this year, the conservative watchdog group Accuracy in Media's Reed Irvine Accuracy in Media Award will be presented to Sharyl Attkisson and Dana Loesch at this year's Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington. The decision to honor Loesch, the editor-in-chief of Breitbart's Big Journalism makes sense. But the decision to honor Attkisson, an Emmy-award winning investigative journalist at CBS News, turned some heads.

A spokesperson at CBS News told TPM that "CBS News journalists are regularly honored by a broad spectrum of organizations for their outstanding original reporting," but declined to comment further. At NBC News, a spokesperson said that awards generally go through several levels of vetting, including the NBC awards committee and standards department to consider any conflict of interest. ABC News did not respond to TPM's request for comment on network protocol for receiving such awards.

But the liberal media watchdog Media Matters on Tuesday attacked both Accuracy in Media (calling it a group with a long history of "promoting anti-gay views and conspiracy theories") and Attkisson's reporting (calling it "shoddy" and "irresponsible").

Accuracy in Media spokesperson Logan Churchwell told TPM that Attkisson is the first "mainstream media" reporter to be given the award, named after AIM's founder. According to Churchwell, Attkisson shows that there is "still hope" for investigative journalism in the mainstream press. "It's more of a lifetime achievement award for her," Churchwell said of the award. He admitted that, in the past, the award has been given to rising conservative media stars, but he stressed that no one at AIM knows Attkisson's personal politics. "We have no idea where she is on the political map," he said.

AIM Chairman Don Irvine also celebrated Attkisson's career. "For much of her 30 year career as a news anchor and reporter, Sharyl Attkisson has offered a clear example of what an investigative journalist should be doing," he said in a statement. "She has flown in a B-52 on a combat mission over Kosovo, shed light on TARP, dared to report on Operation Fast and Furious and has recently exposed dubious green energy loans from the Obama Administration. We are honored to present her with the Investigative Journalism Award."

Attkisson's reporting on the ATF's "Fast and Furious" scandal has riled officials in the White House and Department of Justice, leading some conservative pundits to wonder if CBS News is "silencing" her reporting. Attkisson directed TPM's requests for comment to the network's press office.

But Churchwell told TPM that Attkisson has "confirmed and reconfirmed" her attendance at CPAC on Thursday, February 9.

Dems: GOP Bet On Bad Economy Creating Payroll Tax Cut Gridlock

2012-02-07T21:03:20Z

Democrats are emboldened enough by their political turn of fortune that party leaders are laying payroll tax cut contretemps at the feet of Republicans rooting for further economic strife.

"[W]e've seen improvement: The unemployment rate's going down; people are getting back to work; there's a more confident air in America," Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) told reporters Tuesday at a leadership briefing with reporters on Capitol Hill. "Let's make no mistake: There's some Republicans that don't think that really works with their strategy of defeating President Obama. These are some of the same voices that are opposing any bipartisan agreement to extend the payroll tax cuts."

Other top Democrats say the same.

"It appears that is true," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. "It appears that the numbers -- which certainly aren't good enough for any of us, but as Senator Durbin laid out are really pretty good; we need to do better, but we're doing quite well...what are [Republicans] going to talk about if the economy improves?"

Democrats laid the groundwork for this attack several months ago, when Republicans were eating their lunch politically, and in full control over the direction of national policy. Now, with the payroll tax cut in danger of expiring, and Republicans weakened, they're deploying it to hasten the GOP's retreat on the payroll tax cut -- or see them shoulder the blame if it lapses.

House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer issued the same rebuke. "There are some here, frankly, who are just as satisfied to have the economy not grow, not create jobs, not have GDP growth, so it can help their politics," he told reporters. "If you believe, as I do, that this policy was successful in helping us to spur the economy, then delay redounds to the benefit of Republicans who want this economy to stumble."

Republican elected officials and their aides bristle at this kind of accusation -- as you'd expect, and as Democrats have in the past when the political circumstances were reversed. But step outside the marble enclosures in DC, and you'll notice that Republican campaign consultants and strategists privately accept the underlying political dynamic. Conservative activists can be more blunt.

"I doubt any of [the GOP presidential hopefuls] can beat Barack Obama unless the economy gets worse," said Red State editor Erick Erickson, in his official non-endorsement cri de coeur, "and I don't want to be in a position of rooting for a bad economy."

Why The Payroll Tax Cut Is In Jeopardy

2012-02-07T18:26:49Z

Top Democrats are openly calling into doubt the chances that Congressional negotiators will reach an agreement to renew the payroll tax cut before it expires at the end of the month. The culprit, they say, is a deep schism within the Republican conference over whether the the tax holiday is a good policy or just a political gimmick to help President Obama win re-election.

The consequences of failure would result in a typical middle-class worker taking home about $1000 less this year, just as demand is starting to return to the U.S. economy and the unemployed are beginning to find work. Democrats, sensing political momentum from improving economic conditions, are warning Republicans that they'll be held to account for the consequences if the tax cut ultimately lapses.

"Time is wasting, so that I'm very concerned about it, and whether or not they can get to agreement is in doubt at this point in time," House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer told reporters at his weekly Capitol briefing Tuesday. "Democrats want to see the economy grow, and there are some here, frankly, who are just as satisfied to have the economy not grow, not create jobs, not have GDP growth, so it can help their politics."

Many prominent GOPers either oppose the extension, or support it reluctantly, and then only on the condition that Democrats pay some sort of political price for having won the upper hand. However, others in the party want to avoid a repeat of the bruising fight in December, which continues to haunt the GOP.

For now, the hardliners are winning. And the result is a growing public fight over how to pay for the nearly $200 billion package -- which would both renew the payroll tax cut, extend emergency unemployment benefits, and prevent an automatic cut to Medicare physician reimbursements. The battle comes as the GOP renews its demands of reforming the unemployment program to allow states to impose restrictions like drug testing on beneficiaries.

In private, House Republican conferees want to limit the negotiations over how to pay for the extenders to measures that have already passed at least one of the two Houses of Congress. This wipes measures like higher taxes on wealthy Americans, and war savings off the table, while preserving partisan GOP-backed payfors, including freezing federal worker pay, and increasing Medicare costs for some beneficiaries.

Talking Points Memo on Facebook

"The 'outside of scope of conference' argument they're trying to make is silly," says one Dem aide briefed on the discussions. "They can't say out of one side of their mouths that Dems don't have any proposals and then consider any we provide outside scope of conference. [Sen. Bob] Casey offered a 1% surcharge on millionaires and Dems offered to pay for [the Medicare doc fix] using [savings from winding down overseas military operations]."

This fight spilled into the open last week when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) first hinted Democrats will ignite an explosive political assault on the GOP if it looks like the payroll tax cut will lapse. On Monday, Reid said Republicans were "holding [middle class] money hostage to extort political payback." Dems, he said, "will prepare a fallback plan" and "will be prepared to act with or without Republican cooperation."

House Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor lamented the "lack of progress" in the negotiations Monday night, and called for refocusing the conversation on the offsets House Republicans passed in December, and ruled out "tax increases on small business job creators" -- an indication that their position hasn't softened since the December battle.

Most economists believe allowing the payroll cut and extended unemployment compensation to lapse will blunt economic momentum. Also taking effect March 1 under current law are steep 27.4 percent cuts to Medicare physician payments, which both parties overwhelmingly want to avoid.

Three weeks is an eternity in legislative brinksmanship. But if Democrats took one lesson from their last bout with the GOP it was that - on this issue - they don't need to preemptively concede to the GOP's policy and budgetary demands. The longer they hold out, the deeper the division within the House Republican conference will grow, and the likelier the negotiations are to fall apart completely.

Univision, Disney Reportedly In Talks To Launch News Network

2012-02-07T17:28:45Z

The spanish language network Univision and Disney are reportedly in talks to create a 24-hour English language cable-news network before the November election.

Discussions about the proposal have been underway for more than a year, the Wall Street Journal first reported Monday.

A Univision spokeswoman wouldn't comment on the talks, telling TPM the network doesn't "comment on rumors."

Univision is a massively successful network, long the most-watched Spnaish-language channel in the U.S. and fifth most-watched channel of any language in prime-time, as the Journal reports. If the deal goes through, Univision and Disney would appeal to a huge and growing Latino market. In the week of January 23 to January 29, Univision was the No. 2 network during primetime among adults ages 18-34, beating ABC, CBS and NBC in the demographic. Now, that's not necessarily news coverage, but it speaks to the vast reach of the Spanish-language network. What remains unclear is whether the same market exists for English-language news broadcasts from a the broadcaster.

"This would go head-to-head with CNN," a source with knowledge of the talks told the New York Times' Brian Stelter. Indeed, if the networks teamed up, established outlets like MSNBC and Fox News would be targets. The Journal reports that one possible option would put Disney in charge of both advertising sales and distribution. ABC News -- owned by Disney -- and Univision have teamed up on polling and some of their reporters contribute to both networks.

ABC News did not respond to TPM's requests for comment.

Controversial Komen Executive Resigns

2012-02-07T15:47:25Z

The Associated Press reports that Komen Foundation vice-President Karen Handel has quit the cancer charity.

As soon as news broke a week ago that the organization would cease to fund Planned Parenthood, media reports centered on the former politician as a potential source for the decision. Handel, who was hired in April of 2011 after an unsuccessful run for Governor of Georgia, had campaigned saying she would cut state money to Planned Parenthood. A report from the Huffington Post Monday cited sources within Susan G. Komen for the Cure naming Handel as the force behind the decision to cut funding to Planned Parenthood.

Handel's resignation came in a letter delivered to Komen officials Tuesday morning. In the letter, Handel defended the decision to cut funding to Planned Parenthood. Though she acknowledged she played a role in the decision, Handel's letter stresses that Planned Parenthood has been a point of concern to Komen officials for years and that the decision went through all the proper channels including being vetted by the organization's board:

Komen's decision to change its granting strategy and exit the controversy surrounding Planned Parenthood and its grants was fully vetted by every appropriate level within the organization. At the November Board meeting, the Board received a detailed review of the new model and related criteria. As you will recall, the Board specifically discussed various issues, including the need to protect our mission by ensuring we were not distracted or negatively affected by any other organization's real or perceived challenges. No objections were made to moving forward.
I am deeply disappointed by the gross mischaracterizations of the strategy, its rationale, and my involvement in it. I openly acknowledge my role in the matter and continue to believe our decision was the best one for Komen's future and the women we serve. However, the decision to update our granting model was made before I joined Komen, and the controversy related to Planned Parenthood has long been a concern to the organization.

Handel's letter, then, would seem to make it difficult for the organization to use her resignation to shut down the controversy or attribute it to one individual.

Florida GOP To Food Stamp Recipients: No Sweets For You

2012-02-07T10:48:00Z

Republicans in Florida are trying to prevent people on food stamps from buying items like candy, soda and chips with their state-funded assistance.

"You can't feed a family on potato chips and Mountain Dew, which is the goal: feeding hungry people," Florida State Sen. Ronda Storms (R), who introduced a bill to limit what food stamp recipients can buy, told TPM.

Storms said a number of grocery store cashiers told her that customers on food stamps would buy junk food, prime rib, lobster or other extravagant foods. This bill would introduce a little "fiscal responsibility" to the program, she said.

Storms' bill would also bar other welfare funds -- like the debit cards some welfare recipients receive as part of Temporary Assistance For Needy Families -- from being used at ATMs in casinos and strip clubs and anywhere out of state, as the Associated Press reports. But her evidence is largely anecdotal. It's very difficult, she said, to calculate how much state assistance money is spent on sweets and other items people would term junk foods.

Florida Rep. Mark Pafford (D) introduced an amendment to the House bill to make an exception if the funds were used to buy a cupcake or cake for a child's birthday. It was rejected, but Pafford told TPM that all hope is not lost. He said he is almost certain the food language will be stripped from the House bill, thanks to his more tea party-leaning Republican colleagues in the House. He said these Republicans are pushing back against government dictating what Floridians "can purchase and eat and consume."

Even if the legislation passes, it remains unlikely that the U.S. Department of Agriculture would approve the bill, a necessary step before the law could be implemented. The USDA has rejected earlier efforts by Minnesota and New York. In New York, the soft drink industry lobbied hard against the effort. "Once you start going into grocery carts, deciding what people can or cannot buy, where do you stop?" American Beverage Association Senior Vice President Kevin Keane asked the New York Times. In New York, officials estimate that $75 million to $135 million in food stamps are spent on sugary beverages every year.

Storms told TPM that Coca-Cola has lobbied against her bill, too. "I don't know the exact amount of money, but Coca-Cola isn't coming down here to oppose this bill for peanuts," she said.

"It's a political year, and people are trying political things," Pafford said.

It's not just tea partiers and sugar-sellers who are lining up against the bill. To some it recalls a recent Florida law slammed from both sides of the aisle as smacking of unnecessary government overreach. In October, a U.S. district judge ordered an injunction on a Florida law that requires welfare applicants to first pass a drug test before receiving state aid.

Gov. Rick Scott (R) defended the legislation by saying that taxpayer dollars cannot be used to fund anyone's drug habit. It turned out that only about 2 percent of those tested had drugs in their system, after the governor told CNN that welfare recipients use drugs at a higher level than the total population.

Like the welfare drug testing law, there seems to be little evidence suggesting a need for the food stamps bill. Ebony Yarbrough, a food and nutrition programs coordinator with the Florida Partnership to End Childhood Hunger, told TPM that people across all income levels have very similar shopping habits. In fact, if you examine it more closely, lower-income shoppers tend to make healthier choices, Yarbrough said. Instead of limiting what people can purchase with food stamps, increase the access to and availability of healthy foods, she added.

Florida State University Political Science Professor Carol Weissert told TPM that Florida won't be the last state to try to restrict the use of food stamps. "But the effort hasn't been very persuasive to federal officials (and food stamps is a federally funded program)," she said in an email. "While obesity is a major health problem in this country, this seems a rather invasive and paternalistic way to deal with it. Educational programs targeted at children have proven effective; this has not.

In an interview with TPM, Storms said the "tipping point" was coming -- at which time the USDA would no longer be able to turn down the calls for waivers. She expressed her dissatisfaction that the U.S. would cut defense programs but leave "no Twinkie behind."

But, of course, it's up to the USDA to determine what can and can't be purchased with food stamps. And so far, the department is not open to other ideas.