In The News

August 29, 2014 The White House appears to be moving full-speed ahead on an executive order that would provide widespread protection to illegal immigrants from deportation, Republicans—and maybe some Democrats—be damned.

Those close to the process expect an order in the first few weeks of September—and expect it, in the words of one immigration advocate, to be “significant.”

White House aides stress that nothing has been finalized. Yet the administration’s posture has been one of anticipating—even inviting—a highly public confrontation with Republicans over the issue. And while the concerns of vulnerable Senate Democrats in key races are being taken into account, they don’t seem to be persuading the White House to deviate from its course—suggesting that the matter is viewed less in terms of the politics of the moment and more in terms of President Obama’s long-term liberal legacy.

“Have no doubt, in the absence of congressional action, I’m going to do what I can to make sure the system works better,” Obama told reporters at the White House on Thursday.

Even as the ultimate scope of the order remains unclear, Obama is in a position where he almost has to go big, because no matter what he does, it will be construed that way by the GOP. Already, this week, Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, among others, has suggested that the order could fuel a showdown over funding the government at the end of the month. Another lawsuit, too, is nearly inevitable.

Obama’s aides have been anticipating this response almost since the end of June, when the president first pledged to act on the issue in the face of a paralyzed Congress. At a breakfast with reporters last month, Dan Pfeiffer, a top adviser, seemed to relish the idea of a GOP freak-out, saying he was certain the president’s order would provoke an “aggressive” response. And this week White House press secretary Josh Earnest has been dismissive of Republican threats.

All of it is rooted in the belief that painting Republicans as extremists willing to shut down the government (or impeach the president) over the issue helps both Obama and midterm Democratic candidates. But that view isn’t universal.

“There is growing concern about the issue creeping into ’14 in a bad way,” says one Democratic strategist. “No question where the long-term advantage lies, but right now, in an ugly year, it’s raising an uglier head.”

Nervous Senate Democrats such as Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, and Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire in recent days have urged Obama to go slow. “Sen. Shaheen believes Congress must address our broken immigration system with a comprehensive fix and would not support a piecemeal approach issued by executive order,” says Shaheen spokesman Shripal Shah.

New Hampshire has been one state where the immigration issue—brought to a head by the border crisis earlier this summer—is being credited for narrowing the gap between Shaheen and her likely challenger in the fall, former Sen. Scott Brown. A recent poll showed Shaheen’s lead over Brown, once in double digits, to be crumbling. Brown, more than most candidates, has been hitting the executive-authority issue hard. “Immigration has been a top-tier issue in New Hampshire for years,” says Jeb Bradley, a former GOP congressman in the state.

Shaheen’s particular problem is that she supported both the comprehensive reform bill passed last year that died in the House and backed Obama’s unilateral move in 2012 to provide deportation relief to so-called “dreamers”—children brought across the border by undocumented parents. Any criticism now can be framed as backtracking. Other at-risk Democrats such as Hagan and Pryor also supported the reform measure.

Moreover, once it became clear that the House wasn’t going to act on the Senate bill, high-profile Senate leaders such as Chuck Schumer of New York called for Obama to act on his own. Schumer’s office said that he hasn’t shifted from that stance and has not asked the White House to delay the order until after the midterms.

Unfortunately for Democratic incumbents, however, the map affords them very little opportunity to use the issue to drive Hispanic turnout. The only state where it could conceivably make a positive difference is in Colorado, where Sen. Mark Udall is matched up in a tight race with Rep. Cory Gardner.

Otherwise, it’s more than possible in states such as Arkansas, Michigan, New Hampshire, and North Carolina that Obama’s order will feed the Republican narrative of an out-of-control chief executive, perhaps serving as the wedge issue that puts the GOP candidates there over the top. The National Republican Senatorial Committee points to polls that show that a majority of independents who favor legislative reform oppose unilateral action.

Compounding the issue from a messaging standpoint is that Obama spent much of the first part of the year talking about how he lacked the power to make bold moves to reshape the nation’s immigration system. Those words will certainly be used against Obama and Democratic candidates in GOP campaigns.

But the White House appears to not be overly concerned about any of this—and that’s in line with its approach to the midterms to date. While the president has been a voracious fundraiser for the party, he hasn’t held back from pursuing what might be called legacy issues—even if those actions might harm moderate Democrats. (A similar view helped cost Democrats the House in 2010.)

Immigration is one example. Another is climate change. The administration’s proposed limits on coal-fired power plants were released this summer, much to the consternation of Sen. Mary Landrieu, fighting for her survival in energy-producing Louisiana. And the administration is pursuing a global climate agreement that could be executed without congressional approval, another action likely to feed that building GOP narrative. Nor has the administration shown any inclination to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, which would at least give someone like Landrieu a positive talking point.

The long-term political view is that granting widespread deportation relief will accrue to the Democrats’ advantage in 2016, helping to ensure that the Obama Coalition doesn’t fray, the president is succeeded by a Democrat who will safeguard his signature accomplishments, and the Senate, if lost, is regained. “This will be a generational-defining move,” says Frank Sharry, president of America’s Voice, which has been lobbying for a dramatic executive order.

If some eggs are broken along the way, so be it.

.

Brown crosses Mount Washington off his bucket list

.

NEW HAMPSHIRE US SENATE WATCH: Scott Brown climbs Mount Washington today with New Hampshire state Senator Jeb Bradley. @SenScottBrown tweets: “Spectacular views as we get closer to the summit – what’s your favorite NH mountain to climb?” pic.twitter.com/vuJ0gvxGeP

 .

Republicans are determined to create as many political headaches for Hassan as possible.

On the campaign side, the state party has filed several complaints with the attorney general’s office regarding her fundraising and other campaign actions. The first complaint resulted in Hassan’s campaign returning $33,000 in donations that it received one day after she filed for re-election, which is when donation limits for political committees set in. Their new criticism focuses on Hassan’s first television ad, which started airing this week.

Hassan filmed the ad in the governor’s office, which the state Republican Party says violates a state law banning electioneering on government property. State party Chairwoman Jennifer Horn filed an information request asking when Hassan filmed the ad and whether her official staff were paid. In a response sent Friday afternoon, Hassan’s legal counsel, Lucy Hodder, said Hassan filmed the ad on Saturday, July 26. She said no staff employed by the governor’s office were scheduled to assist “in any official capacity.” She also said any emails about the ad were related to scheduling, but she did not provide the emails.

The state Democratic Party, meanwhile, launched personal attacks on Horn, calling her “desperate” for attacking Hassan’s ethics. They pointed to Horn owing $92,000 in back taxes, something that first surfaced in 2013.

“Between not paying her taxes and her questionable campaign finance actions, Horn’s credibility on ethical questions is even worse than her record of winning elections,” Democratic Party Chairman Ray Buckley said in a press release.

On the official side, state Republicans are after Hassan to give an update on state spending. The fiscal year closed June 30 with revenues coming in close to the targets, but a report on spending is not due until 90 days after the close of the year.

Democratic leadership has not agreed to Republican requests for spending updates. On Friday, Senate Majority Leader Jeb Bradley, a Wolfeboro Republican, launched something called “Spending Watch ’14,” which will track the number of days between the end of the fiscal year and when state agencies report their spending. So far its been 32. A press release noted its been 86 since Hassan put her spending freeze in place.

Last week she also asked state agencies to put a hold on “large expenditures” and directed agency heads to submit “conservative” budget proposals for the next budget.

 .

PUC to determine the final outcome

.

A Spanish company has abandoned plans to construct a controversial 23-turbine wind farm in the Danbury area, and the decision is raising questions about the renewable resource’s future in New Hampshire.

.

Senate Bill 268 would give small portion of the funds raised through the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative cap and trade program to Give Power Back, which is managed through the New Hampshire Retail Association and is aimed at small businesses, and Pay For Performance, or P4P, a program for large businesses managed by TRC, a Portsmouth engineering and consulting firm.

Give Power Back pays half the cost of an in-depth energy audit and rebates 30 percent of the cost up to a maximum of $30,000. P4P rebates are determined by the amount of energy saved, but businesses end up paying a little more than a third of a project’s costs, according to Tom Rooney, vice president of programs for TRC.

Rooney pointed to a recent national report that praised the program’s “whole elephant” approach.

Both were among the last to be funded by the New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission with RGGI funds. While New Hampshire still participates in the multi-state program, it now returns most of the funds to ratepayers and dedicates what’s left to utilities’ energy-efficiency core programs. Lawmakers, primarily Republicans, argued that the PUC was picking winners and losers by funding targeted programs.

The aforementioned business programs lingered on (along with a revolving loan program by the Business Finance Authority that does not need more funding to continue), but their money will soon run out. The Give Power Back program, which was awarded $3.4 million in two grants in 2009 and 2010, has about $400,000 left, and will shut down at the end of the year without additional funds, according to Amanda Holden, who manages the program.

P4P, which received about $5 million, has $750,000 left and could shut down in June, though it will stop accepting new applications over the next few months without added funds.

SB 268, as amended by the House, would enable the PUC to continue those programs, with the caveat that they file annual reports about their progress – a response to complaints that they lack transparency.

House conferees argued that the programs allow a more comprehensive program, not primarily one based on electricity-related savings, such as the core programs run by the utilities. Those core programs would still get the bulk share of the RGGI funds, about $25 million. The business programs were hoping to get about $1 million.

“It’s not a slap in the face at the core programs,” said Rep. David Borden, D-New Castle. “It’s keeping continuity and allowing for two different approaches.”

However, Sen. Jeb Bradley, R-Wolfeboro, said that since the money comes from generators of electric power, it ultimately comes from electric ratepayers. So was it fair, he asked, that they were subsidizing other kinds of energy savings? And, he said, the programs raise the question of residential customers subsidizing commercial customers.

Finally, he worried that the use of more funds for conserving energy might eventually result in ratepayers paying more.

Bradley said he was willing to let the retail association’s program continue, but not P4P, citing complaints from BAE Systems.

BAE, TRC’s Rooney told NHBR, scaled back its energy program considerably and there were problems with documenting project costs, so the rebate was not as large as was hoped. But he told lawmakers that one complaint out of the 40 businesses served was not indicative of the problem.

On Tuesday, conferees agreed that rebidding the awards every three or five years was a good idea, but could not agree on whether to include TRC or whether the program would sunset. The House conferees also wanted any evaluation to include the CORE programs.

Both sides agreed to meet Thursday morning to hash out their differences.

.