Photograph by Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg

President Barack Obama arrives to speak in the South Court Auditorium of the Eisenhower Executive Building next to the White House in Washington, on Feb. 19, 2013.

While President Barack Obama and congressional Republicans trade blame over who’s responsible for the budget stalemate gripping Washington, a new poll shows the president may have the upper hand in the eyes of most Americans.

A Bloomberg national poll released today puts his approval rating at 55 percent, the highest point in three years, while Republican popularity stands at the level since September 2009.

With sequestration set to begin taking effect March 1, House Democrats including Reps. Elijah Cummings and Chris Van Hollen, Maryland Democrats, hold a news conference on the impact for middle class families and small businesses with Marion Blakey, president of Aerospace Industries Association.

Officials with Aerospace giant Boeing Co. will present a redesign of the 787 Dreamliner’s battery to regulators that they believe will satisfy long-term safety concerns and allow the jet back into air within weeks, Bloomberg News reported, citing people with knowledge of proposal.

Also today, USDA releases its first forecast of acres to be planted for 2013 and the outlook for farm trade, with remarks from Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce holds an event on North American competitiveness and intellectual property. And Secretary of State John Kerry meets with Indian Foreign Secretary Ranjan Mathai at the State Department.

Original post is Washington Daybook: Sequestration by Political Capital.

Photograph by Jewel Samad/AFP via Getty Images

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney confers with advisers on board his campaign plane on Oct. 1, 2012.

Written with Kathleen Hunter

A tax-increase proposal inspired by Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s portfolio won’t be included in a plan by Senate Democrats to avert automatic spending cuts as of March 1, a Democratic aide said.

The proposal would impose limits on taxpayers’ ability to put more money in accounts such as 401(k) plans and individual retirement arrangements once balances in those tax-advantaged accounts reach $2 million.

Romney’s IRA was worth as much as $87.4 million, he said in public filings last year that didn’t explain how it reached that level despite annual contribution limits that are now $5,500 for most taxpayers.

Romney, a co-founder of private equity firm Bain Capital LLC, could have put low-valued stock in the account and then had it grow exponentially. If the proposal had been in place, it would have limited Romney’s ability to continue putting more assets in the IRA.

Democrats such as Representatives George Miller of California and Chris Van Hollen of Maryland called for such legislation during the campaign last year.

“Evasion of contribution limits on tax-preferred retirement plans is a
significant problem that should be addressed as Congress looks to close the
nearly $400 billion annual tax gap” between taxes owed and paid, they said in a statement last year.

That idea will have to wait.

Original post is Romney-Inspired Tax-Hike Idea Put on Back Burner by Political Capital.

Photograph by Joshua Roberts/Bloomberg

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in Washington.

A coalition of groups pressing for disclosure of corporate political contributions said today that it is heartened by the Securities and Exchange Commission’s decision to include plans for a proposed rule on its agenda.

“We congratulate the SEC for listening to investors and the public, in moving forward on a rule that would require publicly traded companies to disclose their political spending,” said Lisa Gilbert, director of Public Citizen’s Congress Watch, a Washington-based advocacy group that supports stronger campaign finance laws.

An SEC spokesman, John Nester, said the inclusion of the topic simply means “the staff is considering whether to recommend a proposal.”

Rep. Chris Van Hollen, a Maryland Democrat, introduced legislation last week that would require all groups spending at least $10,000 to disclose their expenditures and their donors. And Sen.John McCain, an Arizona Republican and co-author of the 2002 law banning corporate and union donations to political parties, said in an interview that he was talking with other lawmakers about increasing transparency.

“It may take another scandal, and there will be one,” he said.

At issue is the increasing amount of secret money spent on U.S. elections since the Supreme Court in its 2010 Citizens United decision relaxed curbs on corporate and union campaign spending.

Groups that do not disclose their contributors spent $318 million on the 2012 elections, 85 percent to support Republican candidates, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington-based research group that tracks campaign spending.

In 2008, non-disclosing groups spent $79 million. Such groups include the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; Crossroads GPS, founded with the help of Karl Rove; Americans for Prosperity, linked to energy billionaires Charles and David Koch, and the League of Conservation Voters.

“Sometimes we feel like we’re walking around in a fog,” said Rep. John Sarbanes, another Maryland Democrat, on a conference call with reporters today. “You can’t see clearly exactly what’s happening in these campaigns because the money is hidden and the source of the money is unknown. There are legislative responses but there is a lot we can do at the regulatory level.”

Original post is Political Disclosure on SEC Agenda by Political Capital.

Photograph by John Moore/Getty Images

Seniors attend a 'Medicare Monday' seminar at the Holly Creek retirement community in Centennial, Colorado.

It wasn’t that long ago that Republicans pilloried Democrats — on the campaign trail, over the airwaves, in countless news releases — for cutting $716 billion out of Medicare.

“The money you paid for your guaranteed health care is going to a massive new government program that’s not for you,” said one of Mitt Romney’s television ads. “The Romney-Ryan plan protects Medicare benefits for today’s seniors.”

The cuts, used by Democrats to offset the cost of the president’s health-care overhaul, mostly affected reimbursements to hospitals, nursing facilities and others providing services to Medicare beneficiaries.

It’s a history that some Democrats are gleefully recalling now that House Speaker John Boehner wants to raise Medicare’s retirement age, a proposal that could cut benefits by more than $100 billion.

“What were Republicans complaining about? That the president found too much savings in Medicare — $716 billion,” said Rep. Chris Van Hollen, the top Democrat on the Budget committee. “In the space of four weeks, we’ve gone from Republicans complaining the president found too much in Medicare savings to complaining that it’s not enough.”

Boehner spokesman Michael Steel rejected the criticism, saying Republicans were objecting to Democrats cutting Medicare to help finance their “unsustainable new entitlement, Obama-care.”

“The complaint shows a — probably deliberate — misunderstanding,” Steel said.

Original post is Remember that $716 Billion? by Political Capital.

Photograph by Brendan Hoffman/Getty Images

Rep. Chris Van Hollen the 2012 Fiscal Summit in Washington, DC.

Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies has itself to thank for a big win in court today.

A U.S. appeals court reinstated a Federal Election Commission rule that allows Crossroads and other nonprofit groups running “issue ads” during election season to keep their donors secret. The rule had been tossed out by a lower-court judge after Rep. Chris Van Hollen sued the FEC.

The winning appeal was brought by the Center for Individual Freedom and the Hispanic Leadership Fund, which argued that making donor names public hurts political speech.

It turns out Crossroads has given generously to the Center for Individual Freedom.

About half of the $5.6 million the center raised in 2010 came from Crossroads, according to Internal Revenue Service forms filed by both nonprofits. (Crossroads’ fiscal year spanned June 2010 to June  2011, while the center’s was October 2010 to October 2011.)

All told, Crossroads spent $42.3 million in 2010, about 36 percent of which it identified as direct political activity. Under the commonly used interpretation of IRS rules, it can keep its nonprofit status — and therefore its donors secret — so long as it doesn’t spend a majority of its budget on politics.

Today’s court ruling preserves the ability of Crossroads and other nonprofits to shield donors even when they’re running election-season ads.

Original post is Crossroads Financed Group That Appealed to Keep Donors Secret by Political Capital.

Photograph by Stan Honda/AFP/Getty Images

An anti-Obama sticker in Golden, Colorado.

An intriguing coincidence: On the same day the pro-Republican nonprofit Crossroads GPS detailed where it will air $8-million-worth of new ads hammering President Barack Obama, congressional Democrats launched their latest effort to force such groups to reveal their donors.

We won’t know until November’s election the bottom-line impact of the massive spending by Crossroads and similar organizations — unleashed by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in early 2010. It’s a sure bet, though, the the Democratic disclosure push is doomed to failure.

The buy announced today by Crossroads, created with the help of Republican political gurus Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie,  is part of an overall $25 million anti-Obama ad campaign the group earlier pledged to finance.  The current segment starts today on TV screens in the swing states of Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Nevada, Ohio and Virginia.

“The economy’s slowing, but our debt keeps growing,’” the ad declares. Unsaid is that much of the red ink is directly attributed to the policies of Rove’s and Gillespie’s former boss, President George W. Bush, who inherited a surplus and then cut taxes, enacted a Medicare prescription drug program, and fought two wars without increasing government revenue sources to pay for the conflicts (as had been past practice).

Of course, one doesn’t look for historical perspective in 30-second hit pieces.

As the donors to Crossroads GPS remain hidden from view, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada today brought up legislation to require such disclosure, with a vote scheduled for Monday. And Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland said House Democrats would begin efforts to force the House Republican majority to bring such legislation to the floor.

“Voters have a right to know who is trying to influence their vote, and we owe it to them, and to the health of our democracy, to shine a light on the unprecedented money being spent by shadowy interests,” Van Hollen said in a statement making good use of adjectives.

Senate Republicans have blocked past efforts to require nonprofit groups, most of which are supporting their party’s candidates, to disclose their donors. And with the Democratic caucus these days numbering 53, there’s no reason to expect Reid can get the 60 votes he needs to bring the latest bill to the floor. Nor is there any realistic scenario for Van Hollen to obtain the petition signatures he needs to bypass House Republican leaders for a vote on his legislation.

Original post is Democrats Target Crossroads GPS, Which Keeps Targeting Obama by Political Capital.

Photograph by Carolyn Kaster/AP Photo

Sen. Mary Landrieu, center, and Sen. Christopher Coons, left, arrive for a news conference on the debt on Capitol Hill.

Congressional Democrats have developed a get-tough strategy to try to force Republicans to go along with President Barack Obama’s call for higher taxes for the wealthiest Americans.

If Republicans continue their opposition to more revenue from top earners, Democrats say, they are prepared to go over the so-called fiscal cliff at the end of the year — allowing the George W. Bush-era tax cuts to temporarily expire for everyone on Dec. 31 and accepting scheduled spending reductions, including for Pentagon programs favored by Republicans.

Democrats who say their party blinked two years ago by not separating lower rates for the richest taxpayers from those for the middle class maintain they have the leverage to prevail this time, saying no deal on taxes and spending would be better than a bad deal.

Obama telegraphed the approach yesterday through his spokesman Jay Carney, who said the president would veto a bill to extend lower tax rates for the richest Americans. Democrats say it’s part of their drive to underscore that the main area of disagreement between the two parties is over continuing tax breaks for the nation’s highest earners.

“Republicans have been mindlessly lockstep against putting any new revenues on the table, and until they do, there will be no deal,” said Senator Mary Landrieu, a Louisiana Democrat.

Senate Democratic leaders Harry Reid and Charles Schumer have been resolute in recent caucus meetings, warning members against voting for a compromise that fails to include tax sacrifice from the nation’s highest earners, according to leadership aides.

Maryland Representative Chris Van Hollen, the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, said talks will go into 2013 if there’s no agreement on revenue. “This is the Republicans’ choice, either they can provide tax relief to 99 percent of the American people or we’ll get it done after the end of the year,” he said in an interview.

See the full report at Bloomberg.com.

Original post is Democrats Ready to Risk ‘Cliff’ for Obama’s Taxes on Higher-Earners by Political Capital.