Subject: ​Correct The Record Friday January 16, 2015 Afternoon Roundup
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: CTRFriendsFamily <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 14:59:54 -0500
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

*​**Correct The Record Friday January 16, 2015 Afternoon Roundup:*

*Tweets:*

*Sec. Hillary Rodham Clinton* @HillaryClinton: Attacking financial reform
is risky and wrong. Better for Congress to focus on jobs and wages for
middle class families. [1/16/15, 1:57 p.m. EST
<https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/556163273738166272>]

*Correct The Record *@CorrectRecord: .@HillaryClinton
<https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton> fought for religious freedom globally
#ReligiousFreedomDay
<https://twitter.com/hashtag/ReligiousFreedomDay?src=hash> #HRC365
<https://twitter.com/hashtag/HRC365?src=hash>
http://www.state.gov/secretary/20092013clinton/rm/2012/07/195782.htm …
<http://t.co/U9IUTAdC5Q> [1/16/15, 11:56 a.m. EST
<https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/556132823975743488>]

*Correct The Record *@CorrectRecord: Hey @ScottWalker
<https://twitter.com/ScottWalker> if folks dislike what @HillaryClinton
<https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton> embodies, why have they voted her Most
Admired Woman 17/18yrs? [1/16/15, 11:37 a.m. EST
<https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/556128087134728194>]

*Headlines:*

*Vox: “America just got its first glimpse at Hillarynomics — here's what it
looks like”
<http://www.vox.com/2015/1/16/7557803/inclusive-prosperity-hillarynomics>*

“A 160-page white paper from [Center for American Progress] ‘Report of the
Commission on Inclusive Prosperity’ is not exactly designed to set the
world ablaze. But the timing and circumstance of its authorship make it the
best guide to what Hillarynomics is likely to look like.”

*Bloomberg: Exclusive: Priebus Says GOP Already Digging in Arkansas
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/videos/2015-01-15/exclusive-preibus-says-gop-already-digging-in-little-rock>*

“When asked about preparing for a Hillary Clinton presidential run, RNC
Chair Reince Priebus told Bloomberg Politics' Mark Halperin, ‘We're writing
a Hillary Clinton book now, we have a research team in Little Rock, so
we're not going to be shy about it.’”

*Wall Street Journal blog: Washington Wire: “New Hampshire Liberals: We
Still Want Elizabeth Warren”
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/01/16/new-hampshire-liberals-we-still-want-elizabeth-warren/>*

"Indeed, in an interview published earlier this week in Fortune magazine,
Ms. Warren was asked flatly: 'Are you going to run for president.'

Her answer was unambiguous and left no wiggle room.

'No,' she said."

*Washington Post blog: The Fix: “Here’s how Democrats win back the Senate
in 2016. And it’s surprisingly simple.”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/01/16/heres-how-democrats-win-back-the-senate-in-2016-and-its-surprisingly-simple/>*

“To win the majority back, Democrats need to win five of those seven seats
in November 2016. (If Hillary Clinton, or some other Democrat, wins the
White House in 2016, then Senate Democrats need to win only four of those
seven.)”

*Johns Hopkins University: “Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley to join Johns
Hopkins as visiting professor”
<http://hub.jhu.edu/2015/01/16/omalley-hopkins-visiting-professor>*

“Outgoing Maryland governor Martin O'Malley will join the Johns Hopkins
University's Carey Business School as a visiting professor focusing on
government, business and urban issues.”

*Articles:*

*Vox: “America just got its first glimpse at Hillarynomics — here's what it
looks like”
<http://www.vox.com/2015/1/16/7557803/inclusive-prosperity-hillarynomics>*

By Matthew Yglesias

January 16, 2015, 1:51 p.m. EST

Hillary Clinton's years-long 2016 presidential un-campaign has created a
curious informational void. Over her several decades in the public eye,
she's become perhaps the most-covered figure in the political scene. But
her lack of meaningful opposition for the 2016 Democratic nomination
combined, with the general exhaustion of the party's agenda in the waning
days of the Obama administration, leaves us with little idea of how should
we actually govern as president. Until now, that is.

A 160-page white paper from a think tank titled "Report of the Commission
on Inclusive Prosperity" is not exactly designed to set the world ablaze.
But the timing and circumstance of its authorship make it the best guide to
what Hillarynomics is likely to look like.

In some ways, it defies stereotypes of the Clintons as standard-bearers for
neoliberal centrism — endorsing fiscal stimulus and a strong pro-labor
union agenda, while downplaying the strong education-reform streak of the
Obama administration. But it's also notable for the Obama-era liberal
ambitions it pushes aside. There's no cap-and-trade or carbon tax in here,
no public option for health care, and no effort to break up or shrink the
largest banks. Nor is there an ambitious agenda to tackle poverty.

Instead, you get a multi-pronged push to boost middle-class incomes. After
an extended period in which Democratic Party politics has been dominated by
health care for the poor, environmental regulation, and internecine fights
about Wall Street, Hillarynomics looks like back-to-basics middle-class
populism. It should in many ways further infuriate Clinton's left-wing
intellectual critics — and then further infuriate them by turning out to be
an agenda that makes the party's voting base perfectly happy.

Why the Commission on Inclusive Prosperity matters

White papers are released in Washington all the time. But this one came out
under the aegis of the Center for American Progress (where, full
disclosure, I once worked), a think tank that has a unique relationship to
Hillaryland. Its founder, John Podesta, has already been announced as the
chair of her not-yet-extant campaign. Its president, Neera Tanden, was
policy director of Clinton's previous presidential campaign.

One of the co-chairs of the Commission is Lawrence Summers. Summers ran the
Treasury Department at the end of the Clinton administration, and ran the
National Economic Council at the beginning of the Obama administration;
only liberal opposition stopped him from chairing the Federal Reserve. He
is, in other words, Democrats' go-to guy for economic policy. The other
co-chair is even more telling — Ed Balls, the UK Labour Party's Shadow
Chancellor of the Exchequer. In other words, Labour is the opposition party
now, but Balls is the guy who'll be running UK economic policy if Labour
wins the next election. The report offers separate sections for US and UK
policy recommendations, but Balls' involvement is a sure sign of how
seriously the overall document is meant as a real policy blueprint.

The central challenge of Hillarynomics

[CHART]

The chart above exemplifies the report's framing of the central economic
challenge of the era. Across a variety of wealthy countries, incomes for
the bottom 90 percent of the population have not kept up with productivity
or per capita GDP growth. But there is also considerable variation. The
experiences of Canada, Australia, and Sweden show that there is nothing
inevitable about income stagnation.

The list of proposed solutions for the US is long, ranging from more
infrastructure spending (with new measures to improve project management on
federal infrastructure deals), more preschool, closing corporate tax and
inheritance tax loopholes, curbing the deductibility of executive pay, a
tax cut for middle class workers, more FHA subsidies for riskier loans, and
a reiteration of the merits of comprehensive immigration reform.

But the report is especially striking for its endorsement of labor market
regulations not normally associated with the Summers wing of Democratic
thinking. As David Leonhardt put it, "one theme is that the countries where
the middle class has fared better are countries where workers have more
power." The document endorses a variety of regulatory changes that would
make union organizing easier, and calls for the creation of German-style
works councils outside the context of traditional union organizing. It also
endorses more favorable tax treatment for worker-owned firms, and proposing
"estate tax relief" for corporate founders who convert their companies to
worker-owned enterprises when they retire or die.

On the non-wage front, inclusive growth calls for paid (gender-neutral)
parental leave, expanded Family and Medical Leave Act eligibility, and
universal paid sick days and paid vacation days — all loosely under the
banner of increasing women's labor force participation. Clinton has, in the
past, field-tested feminist frames as a means of selling big government.

Put it all together, and you see the sketch of a Clinton economic agenda.
It has a lot to offer Americans who are employed and not impoverished, but
nonetheless struggling with stagnant incomes and a sense of pervasive
economic insecurity. Yet many thinkers on the left will find a great deal
missing.

On the cutting board

What Hillarynomics does not include is anything like an Elizabeth
Warren-style effort to dethrone giant banks from the commanding heights of
the American economic system. The authors suggest that the practice of
settling bank misconduct claims without an admission of guilt should be
"severely curtailed," and offers support for requiring banks to borrow
less. But there's no talk of breaking up or shrinking the biggest banks,
and no support for the Financial Transaction Tax that House Democrats are
lining up behind. Nor is there much of an anti-poverty agenda here —
low-income Americans would be helped by some of these proposals, but they
are very much not front and center.

Conversely, though the report speaks at length about the value of
education, it does so primarily in the frame of liberal-friendly proposals
for subsidizing preschool and college. The Obama administration's focus on
improving K-12 teacher quality, through moves that are often hostile to the
interests of teachers' unions, is nowhere to be found.

Two important leftover items from the Obama-era progressive agenda —
charging fees for carbon dioxide emissions and adding a "public option" to
the Affordable Care Act — are absent. One could simply plead political
realism on these points. But there's frankly no indication that Congress is
poised to enact a paid parental leave bill, or a sweeping array of changes
to the union organizing process, either. The practical realities of the
modern Congress and the contemporary House map mean that almost anything
liberals get done for the foreseeable future will have to come through
executive action.

You can't get there from here

Clinton is going to have major difficulty engaging her supporters on an
emotional level over economic issues. This is in some respects an exciting
plan, but lacks a realistic path for enacting it. So who is actually going
to feel excited about it?

The Hillarynomics blueprint offers none of the Obama administration's
recent emphasis on creative uses of executive power. The text hews very
much to a path of policy literalism, and offers no real political theory
about how to achieve any of this. Some of that is a matter of focus, but
some follows naturally from the heavy emphasis on labor market policy and
the de-emphasis on financial and environmental regulation. The core of the
agenda is a laser focus on middle-class income, a subject that simply
doesn't seem amenable to redress through executive unilateralism.

Figuring out how to craft an economic message that's largely built out of
politically unrealistic proposals is outside the scope of this commission's
work. But it's a big, difficult question the Clinton camp is going to have
to address. Clinton is already more accepted than loved by liberal
activists, and there's nothing in this economic plan to change this. So
while a crowded Republican primary field gets ready to entertain America
and deliver a winner who manages to find a way to stand out from the pack,
Clinton is counting more on her iconic status than her agenda to power her
forward.

*Bloomberg: Exclusive: Priebus Says GOP Already Digging in Arkansas
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/videos/2015-01-15/exclusive-preibus-says-gop-already-digging-in-little-rock>*

By Mark Halperin

January 15, 2015 5:03 p.m. EST

When asked about preparing for a Hillary Clinton presidential run, RNC
Chair Reince Priebus told Bloomberg Politics' Mark Halperin, "We're writing
a Hillary Clinton book now, we have a research team in Little Rock, so
we're not going to be shy about it." He added that they have "two or three"
people in Arkansas, saying, "We're going to get whatever we have to share
with the American people the truth about Hillary and Bill Clinton."

*Wall Street Journal blog: Washington Wire: “New Hampshire Liberals: We
Still Want Elizabeth Warren”
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/01/16/new-hampshire-liberals-we-still-want-elizabeth-warren/>*

By Peter Nicholas

January 16, 2015, 11:39 a.m. EST

The Elizabeth Warren-for-President movement rolls on – even though it’s by
no means clear Ms. Warren is along for the ride.

Liberal supporters of the Massachusetts senator took out full page ads
today in two New Hampshire newspapers urging her to jump in the 2016
presidential race.

“Elizabeth Warren, New Hampshire wants you in our primary,” reads the ads,
which appear in the Union Leader and Concord Monitor.

The ads — underwritten by the group Democracy for America — invite people
to a rally Saturday in Manchester, N.H.

Last month, the Draft Warren movement staged a similar event in Iowa, the
state that holds the first contest of the 2016 presidential campaign season.

MoveOn.Org, the liberal advocacy group, is hiring staff in Iowa and New
Hampshire in an attempt to showcase broad support for Ms. Warren and lure
her into the race.

But the clock is ticking and Ms. Warren doesn’t seem to be making the moves
one would expect of an insurgent preparing to take on the colossus of the
Democratic field: Hillary Clinton.

Indeed, in an interview published earlier this week in Fortune magazine,
Ms. Warren was asked flatly: “Are you going to run for president.”

Her answer was unambiguous and left no wiggle room.

“No,” she said.

Politicians often change their minds about such things — See Romney, Mitt.
But Ms. Warren can’t afford to be coy forever. The Iowa caucuses are a year
away and Mrs. Clinton has a huge head start.

*Washington Post blog: The Fix: “Here’s how Democrats win back the Senate
in 2016. And it’s surprisingly simple.”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/01/16/heres-how-democrats-win-back-the-senate-in-2016-and-its-surprisingly-simple/>*

By Chris Cillizza and Aaron Blake

January 16, 2015, 1:09 p.m. EST

The Senate map is Democrats' friend in the 2016 cycle. They are defending
only 10 seats while Republicans have two dozen of their own seats to hold.
But wait, it gets better. Seven of those 24 Republican seats are in states
that President Obama won not once but twice: Florida, Illinois, Iowa, New
Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

To win the majority back, Democrats need to win five of those seven seats
in November 2016. (If Hillary Clinton, or some other Democrat, wins the
White House in 2016, then Senate Democrats need to win only four of those
seven. That's the exact path Republicans took to the Senate majority in
2014 when, needing a six-seat gain, they won all six of the states —
Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana, Montana, South Dakota and West Virginia — that
Mitt Romney carried in 2012 and were represented by Democrats. (Republicans
also won two states — Iowa and Colorado — that Obama carried twice and one,
North Carolina, that Obama won in 2008 and Romney won in 2012.)

Of course, 2014 was a historically good year for Senate Republicans. The
last time the party won more than nine seats in a midterm election was 1994
when they won 10.  Prior to 1994, you have to go all the way back to 1946
when Republicans netted 12 seats.

And, while the map looks great for Democrats on paper, several of those
seven races look less rosy in reality. Iowa is a very tough Democratic
pickup unless Sen. Chuck Grassley (R) decides to retire, which he insists
he isn't going to do. Ohio Sen. Rob Portman is a gifted politician and
fundraiser while the Democratic bench in the state is decidedly thin.  The
Democratic fields in New Hampshire, Florida and Illinois are still quite
muddled. And neither Sens. Pat Toomey (Pa.) nor Ron Johnson (Wis.) are
political dead men walking. Not yet, at least.

There are also two genuinely vulnerable Democrats — Sens. Harry Reid (Nev.)
and Michael Bennet (Colo.) — on the ballot in 2016.

Still, as the 2014 election revealed, the map and the math are huge factors
in the battle for the Senate. Both are on Democrats' side this time around.

Below are the 10 most competitive Senate contests on the ballot in 2016.
The number-one-ranked race is the most likely to switch parties in 2016.

10. Kentucky (Republican-controlled): Sen. Rand Paul (R) is staffing up, as
expected, for a presidential run next year, landing incoming Illinois Gov.
Bruce Rauner's (R) campaign manager, Chip Englander, as his campaign
manager and installing Doug Stafford as a top adviser, among other
well-known GOP consultants. Paul still has to figure out how he's going to
run for president and hold his Senate seat if that former race doesn't work
out. His opponent in that effort could be none other than Alison Lundergan
Grimes, given her role as Kentucky's chief elections officer. (Previous
ranking: 10)

9. Ohio (R): Ohio is a swing state. But Portman isn't seen as particularly
vulnerable in 2016. A lot of that is because he banked $5.8 million by the
end of 2014. Another big reason is Democrats have a very slim bench in
Ohio.  Among the names mentioned are Cincinnati Councilman P.G. Sittenfeld,
former governor Ted Strickland, former congresswoman Betty Sutton and Rep.
Tim Ryan. A Strickland comeback would be particularly interesting, but he
passed on a rematch with Gov. John Kasich (R) in 2014. (Previous ranking: 8)

8. Florida (R): Whither Marco Rubio? The Florida senator could be the odd
man out in the presidential race, with fellow Floridian Jeb Bush and other
establishment-friendly candidates like Mitt Romney and Chris Christie in
the mix. Consider this: Rubio is just 43 years old, and he's got his 2016
reelection campaign to worry about. Perhaps it's better to focus on staying
in the Senate and waiting for the next opportunity. If he runs, he'll be
favored. And Republicans would be happy to see him stay focused on the
Senate. (Previous ranking: 9)

7. New Hampshire (R): The massive question here is what Gov. Maggie Hassan
(D) does. Democrats think there's a pretty decent chance she'll run against
Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R), but a New England College poll showed Ayotte leading
that matchup by five points. Hassan, for what it's worth, would have to
give up her job to run for the Senate; New Hampshire governors serve
two-year terms. (Previous ranking: 7)

6. Colorado (Democratic controlled): No one though Bennet would even be in
the Senate in 2016. After being appointed as a total unknown in 2009,
Bennet ran a perfect campaign in 2010 and benefited from the fact that his
Republican opponent was not very good. Given Colorado's swinginess, Bennet
will be a major Republican target again. But who will Republicans put
forward? Rep. Mike Coffman and newly elected state Attorney General Cynthia
Coffman are mentioned — they're married — as is Rep. Scott Tipton. None of
that trio has the political skills of newly elected Sen. Cory Gardner (R).
)(Previous ranking: 5)

5. North Carolina (R): Sen. Richard Burr (R) isn't doing much to inspire
confidence in Republicans about his future plans. His fundraising is weak —
$720,000 on hand as of the end of September 2014 — and rumors continue to
swirl about him not running again in 2016. (Burr has said he plans to
run.)  If Democrats can convince former senator Kay Hagan (D) to run, this
race moves up on the Line. But even if they don't, it's hard to see this
not being a very competitive race in a presidential year. (Previous
ranking: 6)

4. Pennsylvania (R): Attorney General Kathleen Kane (D) was once the
Democrats' heir apparent opponent for Toomey. She now faces potential
criminal charges for allegedly violating the secrecy of a grand jury. This
isn't huge news, given these problems have been going on for a while now
and her name wasn't really being floated for Senate anymore, but it does
reinforce that Democrats have a recruiting question here. The establishment
does not want 2010 nominee and former congressman Joe Sestak as its
nominee, but Sestak is pretty gung-ho about running again. (Previous
ranking: 4)

3. Illinois (R): State Attorney General Lisa Madigan is Democrats' first
choice to take on Sen. Mark Kirk (R). But, she has passed up so many
winnable races for higher office that it's hard to see why she runs this
time. If not Madigan, then Democrats will turn to Rep. Tammy Duckworth or
Rep. Bill Foster.  Kirk is an excellent fundraiser and knows the
seriousness of the challenge he faces.  Much depends on the top of the
ticket; if the Democratic presidential nominee wins Illinois by 15 points
(Obama carried it by 17 points) then it's hard to see a path to victory for
Kirk. (Previous ranking: 3)

2. Nevada (D): Reid got knocked down — hard — while working out at his home
in Nevada. He got so banged up that he missed the first days of Congress
and might not regain vision in his right eye. He said it won't affect his
reelection decision. The bigger question is what Gov. Brian Sandoval (R)
does. Does he wait for Reid to decide whether to seek reelection? Force his
hand? This is a big question in a race Republicans would love to win to
stem possible losses elsewhere. Meanwhile, former lieutenant governor Brian
Krolicki, who blamed Reid for a 2008 indictment that Krolicki later beat,
is considering running. (Previous ranking: 2)

1. Wisconsin (R): Johnson seems entirely unaware of the fact that he won a
Democratic-leaning (at the federal level) state in 2010. He had the ninth
most conservative record in the Senate, according to National Journal's
2013 vote ratings. Democrats are banking on former Sen. Russ Feingold, who
lost to Johnson in 2010, running for his old seat.  If Feingold does run,
he'll have to run a much better campaign that he did five years ago. If he
doesn't run, expect Rep. Ron Kind, who has been itching to run statewide
for as long as we can remember, to leap into the race. (Previous ranking: 1)

*Johns Hopkins University: “Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley to join Johns
Hopkins as visiting professor”
<http://hub.jhu.edu/2015/01/16/omalley-hopkins-visiting-professor>*

By Dennis O’Shea

January 16, 2015

Outgoing Maryland governor Martin O'Malley will join the Johns Hopkins
University's Carey Business School as a visiting professor focusing on
government, business and urban issues.

O'Malley, who on Jan. 21 concludes two terms as the state's chief
executive, will participate in classes on such topics as leadership,
infrastructure, entrepreneurship, and ethics. He also will work with other
faculty members and students on their studies of management in the
government sector.

The former Baltimore mayor and city council member will also be a part of
Johns Hopkins' 21st century cities initiative, involving faculty members
from disciplines across the university to study and propose approaches to
issues affecting cities, including economic growth, urban education,
violence, urban health, and support for arts and culture.

"The Johns Hopkins Carey Business School is training students to be both
business leaders and exemplary citizens who will improve society and
increase value for all stakeholders," Dean Bernie Ferrari said. "Gov.
O'Malley's wealth of experience and leadership will be a welcome addition
to our faculty and in the classroom. We are delighted to have him."

Added Ronald J. Daniels, president of the university: "Gov. O'Malley has
devoted his career to bringing data-driven decision-making to tackling our
city and state's most complex challenges. His insights and experience will
be of enormous benefit to our students and faculty."

O'Malley, who will begin at Johns Hopkins on Feb. 2, is known as an
innovator in management for the public sector. He developed a data-driven
management system as Baltimore's mayor starting in 1999. The program,
called CitiStat, provided leaders with frequent statistical performance
updates department-by-department throughout city government, allowing the
mayor and his appointees to identify problem areas and fix them.

When he became governor in 2007, O'Malley transferred the concept to the
state level, creating StateStat and putting data online so that taxpayers,
lawmakers, and researchers could track performance along with the governor,
his cabinet, and staff.

O'Malley also incorporated his data-based management philosophy in his
BayStat program, monitoring progress in restoring the Chesapeake Bay, and
in the Genuine Progress Indicator, an index of economic, social, and
environmental indicators measuring quality of life in Maryland. The index
advanced 3.27 percent in 2013, the latest year for which full data is
available.

"I am honored to join Johns Hopkins University, a world-class institution
that has done so much for Baltimore and Maryland," O'Malley said. "As both
a mayor and governor, I've worked to make government work better for all of
our citizens through a relentless focus on data and transparency. Our
efforts got results—driving violent crime down to record lows, recovering
100 percent of the jobs lost during the recession, and restoring the health
of the Chesapeake Bay for generations to come. I look forward to sharing
management insights from these past two decades with the next generation of
leaders at Johns Hopkins."

O'Malley managed Maryland during the recession of 2008 and the subsequent
recovery, cutting projected state spending while making strategic
investments in education and infrastructure and maintaining the state's AAA
bond ratings. He worked to raise the state's minimum wage to $10.10 by
2018; has promoted renewable energy, the restoration of the bay, and
reductions in greenhouse gas emissions; and signed into law same-sex
marriage equality in Maryland and a state-level version of the Dream Act
providing access to public higher education for immigrants.