Two and a half months after Hurricane Sandy ravaged the Northeast coast, the political fight over federal spending to assist the recovery efforts continues in Congress.

In the end, New York, New Jersey and Connecticut will almost certainly get more than $60 billion in federal aid to help them recover and rebuild.

But efforts by some House members even as late as Monday night to add unrelated funds to the Sandy emergency aid bill provided an object lesson in why such emergency bills are perfect vehicles for adding more spending.

The House on Tuesday will be voting on both a larger Sandy bill, costing $33.7 billion, offered by Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen, R- N.J., a senior member of the House Appropriations Committee, and a smaller one, costing $17 billion, offered by Appropriations Committee chairman Rep. Hal Rogers, R-Ky.

Recommended: Obama's promises kept and promises broken

If the House were to pass both those bills and if one adds the $9.7 billion that the House OK’d on Jan. 4 in additional borrowing authority for the National Flood Insurance Program, the total aid, at least for now, would be $60.4 billion.

At Monday night’s hearing of the House Rules Committee that considered 92 amendments to the bill, Rogers explained that his version was “Sandy only. We tried to rifle-shot money to this immediate catastrophe…. We kept everything out of my bill except Sandy.”

Rogers reminded committee members that tens of billions of federal dollars have already been spent on helping people hurt by Sandy. “So far FEMA has been able to award states a total of $3.1 billion for the immediate needs that have been taking place while we were scouring the numbers (in the big Sandy relief bill),” he reported. “For example, New York has received $2.1 billion and New Jersey almost $900 million, Connecticut $38 million.”

Among the differences between Frelinghuysen’s bigger bill and Rogers’s smaller one: Frelinghuysen would provide more funding for the operations of federal agencies in the Sandy-affected states – even if the agency is not directly engaged in helping people or businesses hit by the storm. For instance, Frelinghuysen’s bill would provide $50 million to the National Park Service’s Historic Preservation Fund for “expenses related to the consequences of Hurricane Sandy” and another $10 million for Sandy-related building and construction expenses for the federal prison system. Rogers’s bill does not include this funding.

Some House Republicans are still balking at the sheer size of the bills and at the near certainty that some money won’t be going directly to victims or towns hit by the storm.

J. Scott Applewhite / AP

House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio, walks to a strategy session with GOP members, on Capitol Hill, Friday, Jan. 4, 2013, at the start of the first full day of business for the new 113th Congress.

Rules Committee member Rep. Rob Woodall, R- Ga., said Monday night, “If we have an urgent need, let’s agree on that number we can agree on and let’s get it out the door with haste, but if we have a giant need, then let’s give it the slow and thoughtful scrutiny that we owe folks back home.”

He noted that a $60 billion bill for Sandy – to be given just a few days of debate -- would be larger than the normal appropriations bills for the State Department or the Homeland Security Department on which Congress deliberates for months.

Disaster relief bills are massive, have emotional appeal, and aren’t subject to as much scrutiny as spending bills that go through the normal Appropriations Committee process.

This bill has particular momentum since House Speaker John Boehner was so harshly criticized by New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and House members from the Northeast for not allowing a vote on a Sandy relief bill on New Years’ Eve.

And the bigger the emergency, the better the opportunity to add more money. Last June’s wildfires in Colorado and the 2011 tsunami in Japan both occurred months before Sandy and hundreds or even thousands of miles away from Sandy, but emergency bills are an opportunity to get aboard a moving train and get money for disasters in one’s own district.

For example:
• Rep. Cory Gardner, R- Colo. and other Colorado members proposed $125 million for watershed protection and flood mitigation around the nation, including about $20 million for areas in Colorado burned by last summer’s wildfires. This watershed protection money was in the Sandy bill that the Senate passed last month.
• Rep. Rick Larsen, D- Wash. proposed an amendment to allow the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration greater leeway over the $290 million in Sandy marine debris cleanup funds so that Pacific Coast states could get some of that money to cope with their own marine debris from the March 2011 Japanese tsunami.
“Just last month, an entire Japanese dock washed up on the Washington state coast,” Larsen said in a statement. “Our state and local governments do not have the resources to deal with this problem, which can cost as much as $4,300 per ton of debris that comes ashore.”

Ultimately the Rules Committee did not allow those two amendments to proceed to the House floor for Tuesday’s debate. It did allow a few amendments to try to offset the cost of the Sandy aid.

For example the House will consider a proposal by Rep. Mick Mulvaney, R- S.C. to offset $17 billion in Sandy funding by a 1.63 percent across-the-board cut in non-Sandy discretionary funding.

“I’ve lived through a hurricane myself; I’ve had my office destroyed by a flood; I think this (emergency aid) is a proper function of the government….I just want to try to find a way to pay for it,” Mulvaney told the Rules Committee. “This is important; there is no question. Is it important enough to borrow money from China to do it, especially when we’re already borrowing money from China to do so many other things?”

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who is seen as a key to Chuck Hagel's becoming Defense secretary, is throwing his support behind the former Nebraska Republican senator -- despite past controversial statements on Israel, Iran, and the "Jewish lobby."

"Based on several key assurances provided by Senator Hagel, I am currently prepared to vote for his confirmation," Schumer said in a statement. "I encourage my Senate colleagues who have shared my previous concerns to also support him."

Spencer Platt / Getty Images

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) speaks during a news conference where it was announced that free Wi-Fi will be provided by Google to the Manhattan neighborhood of Chelsea on January 8, 2013 in New York City.

He added, "I know some will question whether Senator Hagel's assurances are merely attempts to quiet critics as he seeks confirmation to this critical post. But I don't think so. Senator Hagel realizes the situation in the Middle East has changed, with Israel in a dramatically more endangered position than it was even five years ago. His views are genuine, and reflect this new reality. ... In general, I believe any President deserves latitude in selecting his own advisors. While the Senate confirmation process must be allowed to run its course, it is my hope that Senator Hagel's thorough explanations will remove any lingering controversy regarding his nomination."

With Schumer's support, Hagel is seen as a likely shoo-in to win confirmation.

Full statement from Schumer's office:

U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer released the following statement Tuesday regarding the nomination of former Senator Chuck Hagel’s nomination for Secretary of Defense:

When Senator Hagel’s name first surfaced as a potential nominee for Secretary of Defense, I had genuine concerns over certain aspects of his record on Israel and Iran. Once the President made his choice, however, I agreed to keep these reservations private until I had the opportunity to discuss them fully with Senator Hagel in person.

In a meeting Monday, Senator Hagel spent approximately 90 minutes addressing my concerns one by one. It was a very constructive session. Senator Hagel could not have been more forthcoming and sincere.

Based on several key assurances provided by Senator Hagel, I am currently prepared to vote for his confirmation. I encourage my Senate colleagues who have shared my previous concerns to also support him.

In our meeting Monday, Senator Hagel clarified a number of his past statements and positions and elaborated on several others.

On Iran, Senator Hagel rejected a strategy of containment and expressed the need to keep all options on the table in confronting that country. But he didn’t stop there. In our conversation, Senator Hagel made a crystal-clear promise that he would do “whatever it takes” to stop Tehran from obtaining nuclear weapons, including the use of military force. He said his “top priority” as Secretary of Defense would be the planning of military contingencies related to Iran. He added that he has already received a briefing from the Pentagon on this topic.

In terms of sanctions, past statements by Senator Hagel sowed concerns that he considered unilateral sanctions against Iran to be ineffective. In our meeting, however, Senator Hagel clarified that he ‘completely’ supports President Obama’s current sanctions against Iran. He added that further unilateral sanctions against Iran could be effective and necessary.

On Hezbollah, Senator Hagel stressed that—notwithstanding any letters he refused to sign in the past—he has always considered the group to be a terrorist organization.

On Hamas, I asked Senator Hagel about a letter he signed in March 2009 urging President Obama to open direct talks with that group’s leaders.

In response, Senator Hagel assured me that he today believes there should be no negotiations with Hamas, Hezbollah or any other terrorist group until they renounce violence and recognize Israel’s right to exist.

Senator Hagel volunteered that he has always supported Israel’s right to retaliate militarily in the face of terrorist attacks by Hezbollah or Hamas. He understood the predicament Israel is in when terrorist groups hide rocket launchers among civilian populations and stage attacks from there. He supported Israel’s right to defend herself even in those difficult circumstances.

In keeping with our promises to help equip Israel, Senator Hagel pledged to work towards the on-time delivery of the F-35 joint strike fighters to Israel, continue the cooperation between Israel and the U.S. on Iron Dome, and recommend to the President that we refuse to join in any NATO exercises if Turkey should continue to insist on excluding Israel from them.  Senator Hagel believes Israel must maintain its Qualitative Military Edge.

Regarding his unfortunate use of the term “Jewish lobby” to refer to certain pro-Israel groups, Senator Hagel understands the sensitivity around such a loaded term and regrets saying it.

I know some will question whether Senator Hagel’s assurances are merely attempts to quiet critics as he seeks confirmation to this critical post. But I don’t think so. Senator Hagel realizes the situation in the Middle East has changed, with Israel in a dramatically more endangered position than it was even five years ago. His views are genuine, and reflect this new reality.

On issues related to female and LGBT service members, Senator Hagel provided key assurances as well. He said he is committed to implementing the Shaheen amendment to improve the reproductive health of military women. He also supports the full repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

In general, I believe any President deserves latitude in selecting his own advisors. While the Senate confirmation process must be allowed to run its course, it is my hope that Senator Hagel’s thorough explanations will remove any lingering controversy regarding his nomination.

Obama’s promises kept… And promises broken… President pins the debt-ceiling responsibility on Congress… Executive recommendations on guns… Keeping track of the cabinet shuffle… Boxer backs Hagel… And a deeper look at Hagel’s “openly aggressive gay” comment.

Alex Wong / Getty Images

President Barack Obama speaks during his final news conference of his first term at the East Room of the White House Jan. 14, 2013.

*** Promises kept… : With President Obama’s second inaugural address now less than a week away, we took a look at his biggest three speeches over the past five years -- the 2007 presidential announcement speech in Springfield, IL, the 2008 convention acceptance speech in Denver, and the 2009 inaugural -- to checklist what he promised. And, by and large, he accomplished many of his big objectives. Or he mostly accomplished them. He promised ending the war in Iraq. (“America, it's time to start bringing our troops home,” he said in his ’07 announcement speech.) He promised health care reform. (“Let's be the generation that says right here, right now, that we will have universal health care in America by the end of the next president's first term,” he said in that same ’07 address.) And he promised quick action in dealing with the financial collapse of 2008. (“The state of our economy calls for action: bold and swift. And we will act not only to create new jobs but to lay a new foundation for growth,” he said in his ’09 inaugural.) Of course, there is still debate about whether his fixes will work, but the point is: He made a promise and got his vision of a fix.

*** … and promises broken: But he also didn’t accomplish some of his other goals -- like changing the country’s politics, a huge recurring theme in all three speeches. (“On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics,” he said in his ’09 inaugural.) Or recruiting more teachers when it turns out that about 212,000 teacher jobs have been cut between 2009 and 2011. (“Let's recruit a new army of teachers, and give them better pay and more support in exchange for more accountability,” he said in that ’07 speech.) And then there are the issues that barely got mentioned in those three big speeches, issues that ironically will make up the bulk of Obama’s second term agenda. Guns only received one mention. (“Don't tell me we can't uphold the 2nd Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals,” he said in ’08 acceptance speech.) Ditto immigration. (“Passions fly on immigration, but I don't know anyone who benefits when a mother is separated from her infant child or an employer undercuts American wages by hiring illegal workers.”) And if you believe the increased burden on the government for natural disaster cleanup is related to climate change and global warming, you’ll also be disappointed. Looking back at those most important Obama speeches from ’07, ’08 and ’09, the issue BARELY got a mention. Indeed, it’s remarkable what was in those speeches and what wasn’t.

*** Pinning the debt-ceiling responsibility on Congress: It appears that the chief goal of Obama’s press conference yesterday was to pin the responsibility -- and potential blame -- on Congress for raising (or not raising) the debt ceiling. “There's one way to get around this. There's one way to deal with it. And that is for Congress to authorize me to pay for those items of spending that they have already authorized,” Obama said. And there’s also a reason why the White House decided to abandon the idea of any Plan B (like the $1 trillion platinum coin or the 14^th Amendment): They will own part of the chaos if they pursue a Plan B. But by having no Plan B, the Obama White House is trying to ensure that raising the debt ceiling is all on Congress. What’s more, Obama seemed to accept that a government shutdown -- and not the debt ceiling -- is the better place to have a fiscal fight. “Well, ultimately, Congress makes the decisions about whether or not we spend money and whether or not we keep this government open… I think [a government shutdown] would be a mistake. I think it would be profoundly damaging to our economy… But they’re elected representatives, and folks put them into those positions and they’re going to have to make a decision about that.”

*** Executive recommendations on guns: Per NBC’s Frank Thorp, House Democrats were told yesterday that Vice President Joe Biden and his task force have developed 19 areas where President Obama could use executive orders to institute new gun control policy. The New York Times has more: “Actions the president could take on his own are likely to include imposing new limits on guns imported from overseas, compelling federal agencies to improve sharing of mental health records and directing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to conduct research on gun violence, according to those briefed on the effort.”

*** The cabinet shuffle: Yesterday, we learned that Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, Education Secretary Arne Duncan, and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack will remain in their jobs during President Obama's second term. So to recap, here are the cabinet secretaries who are remaining:

Napolitano (DHS)
Duncan (Education)
Vilsack (Agriculture)
Holder (Justice)
Sebelius (HHS)
Shinseki (Veterans Affairs)

And here are the cabinet members leaving, plus their nominated replacements if applicable:

Clinton at State (John Kerry nominated)
Panetta at Defense (Chuck Hagel nominated)
Geithner at Treasury (Jack Lew nominated)
Solis at Labor
Jackson at EPA

*** Boxer backs Hagel: Yesterday, Sen. Barbara Boxer -- who is Jewish -- came out in support of Hagel. “After speaking extensively with Sen. Hagel by phone last week and after receiving a detailed written response to my questions late today, I will support Senator Hagel’s nomination as Secretary of Defense,” Boxer said. “First and foremost, he has pledged without reservation to support President Obama’s polices – policies that I believe have made our world safer and our alliances stronger.” More: “I asked him about a number of issues – including America’s special relationship with Israel, the threats posed by Iran to the world and the treatment of women and gay and lesbian members of our military – and his answers were reassuring and show a sensitivity and understanding of these issues. In addition, Sen. Hagel has pledged to meet with me once he has been confirmed for a more detailed discussion about the Defense Department’s efforts to combat sexual assault in the military.”

*** “Openly aggressive gay”: Yesterday, we took an in-depth look at Chuck Hagel’s controversial “Jewish lobby” remark. Today, we examine his nearly 15-year-old description of James Hormel, nominated to be ambassador to Luxembourg, as an “openly aggressive gay.” Explaining his opposition to Hormel in a 1998 interview with the Omaha World-Herald, Hagel said: “They are representing America. They are representing our lifestyle, our values, our standards. And I think it is an inhibiting factor to be gay -- openly aggressive gay like Mr. Hormel -- to do an effective job.” Later, the Omaha World-Herald noted that Hagel said “he has seen another video clip that showed Hormel at what Hagel called an anti-Catholic event in San Francisco, featuring the ‘Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence,’ a group of male drag queens.” Luxembourg is mostly Catholic.

*** Apology accepted -- but not by all: Hagel has apologized for the 1998 remarks on Hormel. "They do not reflect my views or the totality of my public record, and I apologize to Ambassador Hormel and any LGBT Americans who may question my commitment to their civil rights. I am fully supportive of ‘open service’ and committed to LGBT military families.” Hormel accepted the apology, and so did the Human Rights Campaign. "Sen. Hagel's apology and his statement of support for LGBT equality is appreciated and shows just how far as a country we have come when a conservative former senator from Nebraska can have a change of heart on LGBT issues,” the organization said. But the Log Cabin Republicans took out a full-page ad in the Washington Post hitting Hagel’s record on gay rights. “Chuck Hagel’s Apology: Too Little, Too Late,” the ad said. 

Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter. Follow us @chucktodd, @mmurraypolitics, @DomenicoNBC, @brookebrower

*** Tuesday’s Daily Rundown’s line-up: NRCC Chairman Greg Walden (R-OR) on the debt fight… Meet the new member with Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA)… A Deep Dive into the promises kept and not kept over the course of President Obama’s first term… Plus the Huffington Post’s Jon Ward, Center for American Progress’ Daniella Gibbs Leger and Alfonso Aguilar of the Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles join the Gaggle.

*** Tuesday’s “Jansing & Co.” line-up: MSNBC’s Chris Jansing interviews Rep. Loretta Sanchez, Nicholas Kristof and Rana Foroohar on the debt ceiling and gun debate; Ford CEO Alan Mulally joins us from the auto show; Karen Finney and Michael Steele talk about the president’s press conference and brinksmanship with congress; and congressman Michael Grimm looks at today’s Sandy Relief vote.

*** Tuesday’s “MSNBC Live with Thomas Roberts” line-up: MSNBC’s Thomas Roberts interviews Rep. Ted Yoho (R-FL), Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ) and Rep. John Yarmuth (D-KY).  Today’s Power Panel includes:   National Journal/Hotline’s Reid Wilson, Fmr. Sen. Blanche Lincoln, and MSNBC Contributor Robert Traynham.

*** Tuesday’s “NOW with Alex Wagner” line-up: Alex Wagner’s guest include Huffington Post’s Ryan Grim, CNBC’s Andrew Ross Sorkin, TheGrio.com’s Joy Reid, and MSNBC’s Steve Kornacki.

*** Tuesday’s “Andrea Mitchell Reports” line-up: NBC’s Andrea Mitchell interviews Rep. Steve Israel (D-NY), Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Gov. Bob McDonnell (R-VA), former Defense Secy. William Cohen, The Washington Post’s Jonathan Capehart and Ruth Marcus.

*** Tuesday’s “News Nation with Tamron Hall” line-up: MSNBC’s Tamron Hall interviews Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), former Gov. Ed Rendell (D-PA), MSNBC contributor Michael Smerconish, The Atlantic’s Molly Ball, Sports Illustrated’s David Epstein and Politico’s Roger Simon.

Obama used his press conference yesterday to suggest that it’s up to Congress to raise the nation’s debt limit. “The issue here is whether or not America pays its bills. We are not a deadbeat nation. And so there’s a very simple solution to this:  Congress authorizes us to pay our bills.”

(That "deadbeat nation" line, by the way, isn't unique to Obama. NBC's Carrie Dann points out that in January of last year, during a similar debt ceiling scuffle with Congress, Republican Sen. Marco Rubio argued that increased borrowing authority without spending cuts would signal that "America is becoming a deadbeat nation inevitably heading toward a European-style debt crisis.")

The AP: “President Barack Obama’s blanket statement Monday that ‘Social Security checks and veterans benefits will be delayed’ if Congress doesn’t raise the debt limit masked the options open to the government if it is forced to operate in a severe fiscal pinch. There are many, although none pleasant. If Washington can’t keep borrowing to ensure all its bills are paid, it will need to decide which expenses to cover and which might have to slide until a deal comes together.” And: “benefits for retirees and veterans, as he told it, were sure to lag ‘if congressional Republicans refuse to pay America’s bills on time.’ If that happens, though, it will be partly his call too.”

Here’s the transcript of Obama’s press conference yesterday.

Charlie Cook: “For all of the focus and talk about the cleavages within the GOP and how unrealistic Republicans’ approach to taxes has been, we will now see a mirror-image debate over spending that will show Democrats to be equally culpable for the fiscal crisis that we find ourselves in.”

“The United States could lose its top credit rating from a second rating agency if there's a delay in raising the country's debt ceiling, Fitch Ratings warned Tuesday,” USA Today writes. 

On Chuck Hagel’s nomination, National Journal: 82 percent of National Journal’s National Security Insiders support his confirmation.

“Chuck Hagel is moving to assuage concerns raised by pro-Israel Democrats over his nomination as defense secretary, laying out a hawkish posture toward Iran and Hezbollah and apologizing for characterizing powerful activists as the ‘Jewish lobby,’” Politico writes. “In a letter to California Sen. Barbara Boxer, a Jewish Democrat, Hagel said he fully supports unilateral sanctions on Iran and condemned Hezbollah as a terrorist threat to Israel. He called it “a very poor choice of words” when he referred in a 2006 interview that the ‘Jewish lobby’ tends to ‘intimidate’ lawmakers, saying he understands how such words ‘can be construed as anti-Israel.’”

Boxer, in turn, said she supports Hagel. “After speaking extensively with Senator Hagel by phone last week and after receiving a detailed written response to my questions late today, I will support Senator Hagel’s nomination as Secretary of Defense,” she said in a statement.

On guns: “Facing powerful opposition to sweeping gun regulations, President Barack Obama is weighing 19 steps that could be taken through executive action alone, congressional officials said,” the AP writes. Those steps could include ordering stricter action against people who lie on gun sale background checks, striking limits on federal research into gun use, ordering tougher penalties against gun trafficking, and giving schools flexibility to use grant money to improve safety. Obama is expected to unveil his proposals as early as Wednesday….”

Aren’t video games supposed to be part of the problem, according to the NRA? So why did it release an app – “NRA: Practice Range” -- with a shoot-em-up game that is designated for those 4 years and older?

The New York Daily News puts it on its cover. Headline: “NRA spits on the graves of Newtown massacre victims with release of mobile shoot-'em-up app for iPhone, iPad.”

“In the last decade alone, the NRA has spent $21 million to lobby Congress and federal agencies — 10 times the amount spent by one of the nation's best-known gun-control groups, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, during the same period,” USA Today notes while outlining the laws the group has lobbied for (and gotten) in Congress and in state capitols.

The vote on the rest of the Sandy recovery funding takes place today.

USA Today: “New Jersey and New York lawmakers are pushing for a robust package that would total at least $51 billion, but its prospects were uncertain. Many conservative Republicans have complained the price tag is too high.” More: “The aid package up for consideration Tuesday consists of a $17 billion aid bill by Rep. Hal Rogers, R-Kentucky, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, and an amendment by Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen, R-N.J., that would add $34 billion. The House earlier this month approved $9.7 billion to help pay flood insurance claims from the storm. Passage of the measures up for consideration Tuesday could bring the total to around $60 billion. Late last year, the Senate passed a $60.4 billion Sandy disaster bill that mirrored the request from the White House. That vote was nullified when the 112th Congress ended and the 113th Congress took office on Jan. 3.”

And there’s this: “The new disaster relief package could face substantial obstacles. More than 90 amendments had been filed by Friday, including some that would slash funding for Community Development Block Grant money designed to help Sandy victims.” Plus: “Among the most controversial amendments is one from Rep. Mick Mulvaney, R-S.C., that would completely offset the bill by cutting all discretionary federal programs, including defense, by 1.63%.”

But David Rogers reports: “[T]he South Carolina Republican is sure to face resistance in his own party since the reduction from defense would come on top of automatic spending cuts already threatening the military this spring.”

Rogers notes that Republicans scaled ack the amendments. Here’s how the vote will go: “At the core of Tuesday’s debate will be a two-step process in which that same $17 billion tranche is only the starting point. That package, sponsored by House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.), is almost certain to prevail and then become the underlying bill to which the Northeast will try next to add $33.67 billion. That will be done through an amendment offered by Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-N.J.).”

The Senate reconvenes Jan. 22^nd and will take up the legislation then.

As NBC’s Michael O’Brien points out, it seems that some conservative voices – Peter Wehner, Ross Douthat, Matt Lewis, and National Review (to a point) – are beginning to take more vocal and dissenting stances toward the wisdom of the congressional GOP’s strategy on the debt ceiling.

National Journal looks at Marco Rubio’s positioning against President Obama on immigration.

Say what? Justice Clarence Thomas broke his seven-year silence on the Supreme Court yesterday. (He didn’t say much. The official transcript gives him just four words and it’s not a complete sentence.)

Ann Romney was approached by Dancing With the Stars but turned the show down.

The public heavily favors universal background checks for gun buyers, and a majority of Americans approve of a federal database to track gun sales as well as a ban on "assault style weapons," a new poll from the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press shows. 

In the survey, 85 percent of respondents said they favor background checks for private and gun show sales, while only 12 percent say they oppose such checks. 

Sixty-seven percent of adults surveyed approve of a federal database to track gun sales, the poll indicated. A majority -- 55 percent -- back a ban on assault weapons, with 40 percent saying they don't approve of the ban, a measure for which President Barack Obama again voiced support during a press conference today. (The partisan breakdown, however, is stark, with seven in ten Democrats backing the ban compared to just 44 percent of Republicans.) 

A major gender gap also remains on the gun issue; women favor an assault weapons ban by almost 20 percentage points over men. Women are also far less likely to support the idea of encouraging more gun ownership among teachers and other school officials. 

Overall, the NRA-backed idea of encouraging more armed guards and police officers at schools garners wide support, with just 32 percent opposing and 64 percent favoring the proposal. 

But when it comes to arming more teachers, those numbers are nearly flipped, with 57 percent giving the idea a thumbs down. 

The Pew survey was conducted January 9-13, with a sample size of 1,502 adults. The margin of error for the total sample is +/- 2.9 percentage points. 

First Read confirms that Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano will remain in her job during President Obama's second term, according to an administration official.

The news was first reported by the Washington Post.

To recap the cabinet shuffle so far:
Cabinet secretaries remaining:
Napolitano (DHS)
Eric Holder (Justice)
Kathleen Sebelius (HHS)
Eric Shinseki (Veterans Affairs)

Leaving:
Hillary Clinton at State (John Kerry nominated)
Leon Panetta at Defense (Chuck Hagel nominated)
Tim Geithner at Treasury (Jack Lew nominated)
Hilda Solis at Labor
Lisa Jackson at EPA

President Barack Obama on Monday acknowledged that full implementation of his expected gun control proposals may be stonewalled in Congress but pledged to "vigorously pursue" recommendations from an administration task force, including a "meaningful" assault weapons ban. 

"What you can count on is that the things that I've said in the past - the belief that we have to have stronger background checks, that we can do a much better job in terms of keeping these magazine clips with high capacity out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them, an assault weapons ban that's meaningful - those are things I continue to believe make sense," Obama said during the final press conference of his first term. 

"Will all of them get through this Congress? I don't know," he added. "But what's uppermost in my mind is making sure that I'm honest with the American people and with members of Congress about what I think will work."  

Obama said that some measures, like the lifting of restrictions on how the federal government can collect data about guns, can be accomplished by executive order, while others will require legislation. 

"Members of Congress are going to, I think, have a debate and examine their own conscience because if in fact - and I believe this is true - everybody across party lines was as moved and saddened as I was by what happened in Newtown, then we're going to have to vote based on what we think is best." 

The president is expected to review recommendations from the task force led by Vice President Joe Biden today in a private meeting. Obama charged Biden with leading the reform effort after a mass school shooting in Newtown, Conn., left 20 children dead.

"My starting point is not to worry about the politics," Obama said of the expected resistance from gun groups and many in Congress who are skeptical of an assault weapons ban. "My starting point is to focus on what makes sense, what works. What should we be doing to make sure that our children are safe and that we're reducing the incidence of gun violence?  And I think we can do that in a sensible way that comports with the Second Amendment." 

Addressing a question about recent spikes in gun sales, Obama blamed pro-gun groups for "ginning up fear" among firearm owners.

"Those of us who look at this problem have repeatedly said that responsible gun owners -- people who have a gun for protection, for hunting, for sportsmanship - they don't have anything to worry about," he said. "The issue here is not whether or not we believe in the Second Amendment. The issue is are there some sensible steps that we can take to make sure that somebody like the individual in Newtown can't walk into a school and gun down a bunch of children in a shockingly rapid fashion."

President Barack Obama ratcheted up pressure on congressional Republicans to authorize an increase in the nation’s debt limit, warning of potentially catastrophic results for many Americans and the overall economy if the U.S. were to default on its obligations.

“The issue here is whether or not America pays its bills,” Obama said at a press conference on Monday, the last of his first term in office. “We are not a deadbeat nation.”

Jason Reed / Reuters

President Barack Obama is reflected in a mirror as he speaks during a news conference in the East Room of the White House, Jan. 14, 2013.

Anticipating a politically bruising fight this spring with the GOP – members of which in Congress have increasingly and openly discussed the prospect of refusing to raise the debt ceiling or allowing a government shutdown – Obama urged lawmakers to avoid using the vote over the debt limit as a point of leverage.

And the president sought to frame the risks of default in stark terms. He warned markets would go “haywire” if Congress would not act; Obama said that interest rates would rise, and checks to Social Security beneficiaries and military veterans would cease.

Related: Obama says he'll 'vigorously' pursue 'meaningful' assault weapons ban

But as some Democrats urge the administration to consider options to sidestep Congress and assert the authority to unilaterally authorize more borrowing, Obama all but ruled out these sorts of “Plan B” options.

“If the House and the Senate wants to give me the authority so they don’t have to take these tough votes… I’m happy to take it,” he said. But, Obama added: “There are no magic tricks here, no loopholes. There’s no easy way out.”

All but ruling out these fallback maneuvers, Obama’s pronouncement all but ensures another incident of brinksmanship versus Republicans in Congress.

The past two years of Obama’s presidency were marked by showdowns with House Republicans on taxes and spending that turned acrimonious and extended in most cases to the last possible minute. Fights over extending government funding and raising the nation’s debt limit took the government to the verge of shutdown and default, respectively, in 2011. And the unresolved issues from those debates culminated in the “fiscal cliff” showdown at the end of last year.

Though Republicans eventually acceded to Obama’s demand that taxes be allowed to rise on the wealthiest Americans, something that was passed with mostly Democratic votes, the fiscal cliff agreement pushed back a series of automatic spending cuts for two months. As a result, the deadline at which Congress must authorize the government to borrow more basically overlaps with the deadline at which the government runs out of money for its day-to-day operations. Republicans have argued that tax rates are now settled, and have suggested they intend to use those rapidly-approaching deadlines to extract new spending cuts and entitlement reforms that were absent from the New Year’s deal to handle the tax component of the fiscal cliff.

But these battles could exhaust much of the political capital won by Obama during his re-election last November. The president will formally be sworn into his second term on Sunday. And while planning for that second term is well underway, top priorities like confirming new cabinet secretaries, reforming the nation’s immigration system and passing new measures to address gun violence might be imperiled by a protracted and bloody fight with Republicans over spending.

Obama said that he would detail one of those initiatives, his administration’s proposals to curb gun violence, later this week. But even as the president renewed his support for stricter magazine regulations and tighter background checks – along with a ban on assault weapons – Obama nodded to the difficulty in passing those proposals.

“Will all of them get through this Congress? I don't know,” he said.

Slideshow: Obama's first four years in office   

For their part, Republicans argue that Obama and his administration have been largely unserious about actually addressing spending – the primary cause of the mounting national debt, in the GOP’s view. Republicans cite the president’s request for more infrastructure spending as part of his fiscal cliff negotiations as indicative of the White House’s disinterest in actually cutting spending.

“The president and his allies need to get serious about spending, and the debt-limit debate is the perfect time for it,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said in a statement. 

In a statement following the president’s press conference, House Speaker John Boehner said, “The consequences of failing to increase the debt ceiling are real, but so too are the consequences of allowing our spending problem to go unresolved. Without meaningful action, the debt will continue to act as an anchor on our economy, costing American jobs and endangering our children's future."

Recommended: Gun debate gets sustained run for a change

But much of Obama’s remarks on Monday were directed toward framing the political terms of that debate, which might dictate the outcome of these impending fights as much as ideological motives.

“It would be a self-inflicted wound on the economy. It would slow down our growth, might tip us into recession. And ironically it would probably increase our deficit,” Obama said of the risk of default. “So to even entertain the idea of this happening, of the United States of America not paying its bills, is irresponsible. It's absurd.”

The politics of Newtown -- one month later… Colin Powell defends Hagel and also blasts the GOP… Hagel to meet with Schumer this week (and possibly as early as today)… Spare some change? Obama administration nixes the platinum coin idea… Taking a more in-depth look at Hagel’s “Jewish lobby” remark… No Labels holds confab in NYC… And Booker vs. Lautenberg.

*** The politics of Newtown -- one month later: It was just a month ago today when the country learned about the shooting tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown CT. And today, Vice President Biden meets with Democratic lawmakers before he’s expected to present the Obama administration’s recommendations on guns, violence, and mental health on Tuesday. So what has changed -- politically -- in a month since Newtown? For starters, for the first time since Al Gore lost in 2000, you’ve had a sustained conversation about what the government can do regarding gun violence. That is a difference. Also, you’ve seen the Democratic Party coalesce around gun control more than it ever has before, and it will be a litmus test in the 2016 Democratic primary (see Andrew Cuomo and Martin O’Malley). On the other hand, the National Rifle Association seems like less of a bipartisan organization than it did a month ago. (Remember, interest groups, like AIPAC, are often more powerful when they have bipartisan appeal.) But here’s what hasn’t changed in the month since Newtown: the likelihood of passing real gun reform. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) epitomizes this. Immediately after Newtown, Manchin made headlines for calling for everything to be on the table. Now? He’s backing down ever so slightly. “An assault weapons stand-alone ban on just guns alone will not, in the political reality that we have today, will not go anywhere,” he said on CNN yesterday, per NBC’s Sarah Blackwill.

*** UPDATE *** Manchin's office responds to First Read: "Since the tragic shooting in Newtown, Sen. Manchin has not wavered: he believes this country needs to have a conversation where we put everything on the table in a comprehensive way to change the culture of mass violence. If anyone believes there's one cause or one solution to mass violence, they're wrong. So Sen. Manchin has introduced a bill with his colleague John McCain to establish a Commission on Mass Violence, and he has encouraged the vice president to include this commission in his recommendations to the president, so everyone can come to the table."

*** Is air leaking out of the gun-control balloon? The White House is serious about making a push for some new gun laws, with universal background checks serving as the likely centerpiece of what the president asks Congress to pass when guns are brought up at the State of the Union. But you also get the sense that the air is leaking ever-so-slightly out of this balloon that is called gun control -- as those advocating new government regulations start accepting the political realities on Capitol Hill. The wild card here: the victim groups. Just like the 9/11 widows, they could become a powerful force that does move public opinion.

*** Powell: “I think the GOP is having an identity problem”: Colin Powell yesterday appeared on “Meet the Press” to defend Chuck Hagel nomination’s to be defense secretary. But he did more than defend Hagel; he used his appearance to issue a scathing indictment of much of the Republican Party. “I think the Republican Party right now is having an identity problem, and I'm still a Republican… But in recent years, there's been a significant shift to the right, and we have seen what that shift has produced: two losing presidential campaigns.” More Powell: “Everybody wants to talk about, ‘Who's going to be the candidate?’ You've got to think first about what's the party actually going to represent? If it's just going to represent the far right wing of the political spectrum, I think the party is in difficulty. I'm a moderate, but I'm still a Republican. That's how I was raised. And until I voted for Mr. Obama twice, I had voted for seven straight Republican presidents.” Conservatives would argue that moderates like Powell have been the problem, because they have abandoned the party’s conservative principles. Conservatives would also argue that Colin Powell attacking the GOP is not “new”(s); he’s been doing it for some time. But the fact is, conservatives shouldn’t fully bury their head in the sand on Powell and take comfort that he’s never been a reliable supporter of the party. Sure, he lives in the Acela Corridor, and Republicans in the DC-NY nexus are more moderate than the rank-and-file of the party. But realize: Powell has cachet with “center” of American politics, and there seems to be a growing number of moderate Republicans like Powell, Huntsman, Hagel, Scowcroft, Bloomberg who all say some form of the same thing about the GOP -- it doesn’t represent the mainstream. That’s not healthy for the GOP if it hopes to win a presidential election anytime soon.

*** Hagel to meet with Schumer: Yet most of Powell’s appearance was focused on defending Hagel, another Republican. “I think he gets confirmed. I think he's ultimately superbly qualified, based on his overall record, based on his service to the country, based on how he feels about troops and veterans and families. I think he will do a great job as secretary of defense. And I think, in his confirmation hearings, all of these issues that you've raised, that others have raised, he will be prepared to deal with.” Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that Hagel is set to meet this week -- and perhaps as early as today -- with Sen. Chuck Schumer, who has emerged as the Democrat most skeptical about Hagel’s nomination. “Mr. Schumer has told aides and other senators that he could be persuaded to support Mr. Hagel depending on the meeting’s outcome. Mr. Hagel’s nomination has been met with suspicion, and even outright hostility, among Republicans and Democrats who are strongly aligned with Jewish groups. Mr. Schumer plans to ask Mr. Hagel to clarify and in some ways recant statements about Iran and Israel, according to a person with knowledge of the senator’s plans for the meeting.” Schumer has the power to ensure Hagel’s confirmation, but does he have the power to kill it? He might but it’s an open question as to whether Schumer would want to spend the political capital it would take to kill Hagel’s nomination.

*** Spare some change? In addition to the Biden task force and Hagel’s nomination, the other big story is the latest fiscal debate (over the debt ceiling and possible government shutdown). And over the weekend, the Obama administration took the $1 trillion platinum coin off the table. “Neither the Treasury Department nor the Federal Reserve believes that the law can or should be used to facilitate the production of platinum coins for the purpose of avoiding an increase in the debt limit,” Treasury spokesman Anthony Coley said in a statement. The New Republic’s Jonathan Cohn explains that position is more than defensible. “You can safely assume West Wing officials worried that a protracted debate about the coin's propriety was going to make their job more difficult, not less, by interfering with their ability to portray the debate in simple, straightforward terms.” But Cohn also ask that without the coin (or the 14^th amendment), how does the Obama White House promise not to negotiate over the debt ceiling?

*** On Hagel’s “Jewish lobby” remark: Speaking of Hagel and with his confirmation hearings likely to take place after the inauguration, First Read will be taking a deeper look at the biggest controversies surrounding his nomination to be defense secretary. Our first entry: Hagel’s “Jewish lobby” remark. The line comes from a 2006 interview with former Middle East peace negotiator Aaron David Miller. “The Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here. Again, I have always argued against some of the dumb things they do because I don’t think it’s in the interest of Israel. I just don’t think it’s smart for Israel,” he said. Later in the interview, Hagel added, “I’m a United States senator. I’m not an Israeli senator… I support Israel, but my first interest is I take an oath of office to the Constitution of the United States – not to a president, not to a party, not to Israel. If I go run for Senate in Israel, I’ll do that. Now I know most senators don’t talk like I do.”

*** Offensive or just poor word choice? Critics have seized on “Jewish lobby,” because the lobbying organization to which he was referring -- the American Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC) -- doesn’t solely consist of Jews and not every American Jew supports Israel. As Powell noted on “Meet the Press,” Chuck should have said Israeli lobby, and not Jewish lobby.” But Hagel isn’t the first person who has used that term. Some, like the Wall Street Journal’s Bret Stephens, have said the remark was offensive. “Prejudice—like cooking, wine-tasting and other consummations—has an olfactory element.” Others, like writer Peter Beinart, aren’t offended. “So yes, the groups that lobby for America to support the policies of the Israeli government are substantially, but not exclusively, composed of Jews… Hagel was imprecise. Call the Anti-Defamation League.”

*** Just say “No” (Labels): The centrist group No Labels is holding a conference in New York intended “to attract members of Congress and lawmakers from across the political spectrum who want compromise after a lengthy campaign season put Washington in a virtual holding pattern,” the AP reports. The group has announced that Dem Sen. Joe Manchin and failed GOP presidential candidate Jon Huntsman will serve as national leaders of the organization, and they will join “about a dozen members of Congress … to band together under the ‘No Labels’ alliance that aims to put governing over political orthodoxy.”

*** Booker vs. Lautenberg: Fair or not, Newark Mayor Cory Booker is creating the unmistakable impression he’s trying to muscle current Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D) from his job -- well before the seat is up in 2014. Back in December, Booker released a video stating he was eyeing Lautenberg’s Senate seat. Then last week, he filed a statement of organization with the Federal Election Commission to begin laying the groundwork for a bid. And this is all taking place before the 89-year-old Lautenberg has officially announced his plans for 2014 (most assume he will retire). Asked on “Meet the Press” if he has handled this with respect, Booker replied, “This is really early. We've reached out to [Lautenberg]. We even had a trip down here to speak with him, but he wasn't able to speak… This campaign is over a year away… But for me to do a good exploration, to do diligence for running, I have to file that paper.” But here’s the thing: Giving that the filing deadlines for 2014 aren’t even on the state’s election-division website, Booker has PLENTY of time to wait on Lautenberg to make his decision before filing his paperwork with the FEC.

Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter. Follow us @chucktodd, @mmurraypolitics, @DomenicoNBC, @brookebrower

*** Monday’s Daily Rundown’s line-up: Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) on the gun fight, debt deadline and more… A deep dive into the shifting political landscape of coal country with The Hotline’s Reid Wilson… Political highlights from the Golden Globes… Plus The Grio’s Perry Bacon Jr., the Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin and Democratic strategist Steve McMahon on Colin Powell’s tough talk for the GOP.

*** Monday’s “Jansing & Co.” line-up: MSNBC’s Chris Jansing talks with Michael Crowley, Ed O’Keefe and Rep. Marsha Blackburn about the looming debt ceiling; Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa on immigration reform and guns; Maggie Omero, Tony Fratto and Sen. Joe Manchin on getting anything done in Washington; and the Washington Post’s Sarah Kliff on resistance to getting the flu shot.

*** Monday’s “MSNBC Live with Thomas Roberts” line-up: MSNBC’s Thomas Roberts interviews Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), MSNBC Host Rev. Al Sharpton, Martin Luther King III, and Clarissa Martinez De Castro of the National Council of La Raza.  Today’s Power Panel includes:  Time’s Rana Foroohar, Fmr. Gov. Ed Rendell and Republican Strategist Chip Saltsman.

*** Monday’s “Andrea Mitchell Reports” line-up: NBC’s Andrea Mitchell interviews Jon Huntsman, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, Gun Owners of America Executive Director, Rockefeller Foundation President Judith Rodin and The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza and Jonathan Capehart.

*** Monday’s “News Nation with Tamron Hall” line-up: MSNBC’s Tamron hall interviews Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA), Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), Rep. John Larson (D-CT), Democratic strategist Jimmy Williams, Roll Call’s Shira Toeplitz, John Rosenthal from “Stop Handgun Violence”, Telemundo’s Jose Diaz-Balart, and NBC Latino’s Sandra Lilley.

Sunday’s New York Times: “President Obama plans to push Congress to move quickly in the coming months on an ambitious overhaul of the immigration system that would include a path to citizenship for most of the 11 million illegal immigrants in the country, senior administration officials and lawmakers said last week.”

More: “Mr. Obama is expected to lay out his plan in the coming weeks, perhaps in his State of the Union address early next month, administration officials said. The White House will argue that its solution for illegal immigrants is not an amnesty, as many critics insist, because it would include fines, the payment of back taxes and other hurdles for illegal immigrants who would obtain legal status, the officials said. The president’s plan would also impose nationwide verification of legal status for all newly hired workers; add visas to relieve backlogs and allow highly skilled immigrants to stay; and create some form of guest-worker program to bring in low-wage immigrants in the future.”

By the way, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villraiagosa will speak on immigration at the National Press Club at 1:00 pm ET.

Well, that’s that… Treasury spokesman Saturday: "Neither the Treasury Department nor the Federal Reserve believes that the law can or should be used to facilitate the production of platinum coins for the purpose of avoiding an increase in the debt limit."

“In what could be a crucial moment in the Obama administration’s efforts to advance the nomination of former Senator Chuck Hagel as secretary of defense, he will meet this week with Senator Charles E. Schumer, the most influential Jewish member of the Senate, who is expected to press Mr. Hagel on issues concerning Iran and Israel,” the New York Times says.

The AP looks at the relationship between Obama and Israel’s Netanyahu, which one former American ambassador calls “troubled” and “the greatest dysfunction between leaders” that he’s seen. “Netanyahu likely will win re-election on Jan. 22, two days after Obama is sworn in for a second term,” the AP writes, adding, “A further complication is Obama’s nomination of former Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel as defense secretary.”

Gallup: “In the aftermath of the Newtown, Conn., school shootings, and as Vice President Joe Biden leads a federal task force that will recommend ways to curb gun violence in the U.S., 38% of Americans are dissatisfied with the nation's gun laws and want them strengthened. This is up from 25% who held this set of views a year ago, and is the highest since 2001. Still, more Americans are either satisfied with current gun laws, 43%, or think they should be loosened, 5%.”

USA Today: “Vice President Biden, poised to propose new gun violence legislation this week, meets Monday morning with Democratic lawmakers who will consider the administration's plans.” Biden will deliver his recommendations to the president tomorrow.

The Washington Post: “Opposing forces in the debate over the nation’s gun laws staked out starkly different positions Sunday, with the head of the largest gun rights group declaring confidence that a ban on assault weapons would not win passage from lawmakers, while advocates of tightening restrictions on guns said such measures can be approved.”

The NRA says it has the support to block another assault-weapons ban. The group’s president: “You don’t want to bet your house on the outcome. But I would say that the likelihood is that they are not going to be able to get an assault weapons ban through this Congress.”

The New York Times goes to Colorado for the gun debate.

Funny… worth the read… the White House’s response to the petition to create a Death Star: “This Isn’t the Petition Response You’re Looking For.”

There could be more health care mandate penalties – “mandate plus” – in the first two years because insurance companies fear there won’t be enough young, healthy people signing up for insurance when penalties are lower to offset those with preexisting conditions they already have to take on.

Michael Hirsch: “Despite the hopeful talk that came out of his summit in Washington with Afghan President Hamid Karzai last week, President Obama is in danger of losing control of south-central Asia entirely, sacrificing a decade’s worth of blood and treasure as he begins his second term. Most of the focus now is on how rapid the U.S. troop drawdown will be. But the bigger problem for Obama is the absence of a U.S. diplomatic vision for the region—and a diplomat to execute it.”

Transformational president? Perhaps… George Packer: “Every President elected between 1976 and 2004 was, by birth or by choice, a Southerner, except Ronald Reagan, who enjoyed a sort of honorary status. (When he began the 1980 campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi, scene of the murder, in 1964, of three civil-rights workers, many Southerners heard it as a dog whistle.) A Southern accent, once thought quaint or even backward, became an emblem of American authenticity, a political trump card. It was a truism that no Democrat could win the White House unless he spoke with a drawl. Now the South is becoming isolated again. Every demographic and political trend that helped to reëlect Barack Obama runs counter to the region’s self-definition: the emergence of a younger, more diverse, more secular electorate, with a libertarian bias on social issues and immigration; the decline of the exurban life style, following the housing bust; the class politics, anathema to pro-business Southerners, that rose with the recession; the end of America’s protracted wars, with cuts in military spending bound to come. The Solid South speaks less and less for America and more and more for itself alone.”

Sunday’s New York Times: “President Obama plans to push Congress to move quickly in the coming months on an ambitious overhaul of the immigration system that would include a path to citizenship for most of the 11 million illegal immigrants in the country, senior administration officials and lawmakers said last week.”

More: “Mr. Obama is expected to lay out his plan in the coming weeks, perhaps in his State of the Union address early next month, administration officials said. The White House will argue that its solution for illegal immigrants is not an amnesty, as many critics insist, because it would include fines, the payment of back taxes and other hurdles for illegal immigrants who would obtain legal status, the officials said. The president’s plan would also impose nationwide verification of legal status for all newly hired workers; add visas to relieve backlogs and allow highly skilled immigrants to stay; and create some form of guest-worker program to bring in low-wage immigrants in the future.”

By the way, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villraiagosa will speak on immigration at the National Press Club at 1:00 pm ET.

Well, that’s that… Treasury spokesman Saturday: "Neither the Treasury Department nor the Federal Reserve believes that the law can or should be used to facilitate the production of platinum coins for the purpose of avoiding an increase in the debt limit."

“In what could be a crucial moment in the Obama administration’s efforts to advance the nomination of former Senator Chuck Hagel as secretary of defense, he will meet this week with Senator Charles E. Schumer, the most influential Jewish member of the Senate, who is expected to press Mr. Hagel on issues concerning Iran and Israel,” the New York Times says.

The AP looks at the relationship between Obama and Israel’s Netanyahu, which one former American ambassador calls “troubled” and “the greatest dysfunction between leaders” that he’s seen. “Netanyahu likely will win re-election on Jan. 22, two days after Obama is sworn in for a second term,” the AP writes, adding, “A further complication is Obama’s nomination of former Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel as defense secretary.”

Gallup: “In the aftermath of the Newtown, Conn., school shootings, and as Vice President Joe Biden leads a federal task force that will recommend ways to curb gun violence in the U.S., 38% of Americans are dissatisfied with the nation's gun laws and want them strengthened. This is up from 25% who held this set of views a year ago, and is the highest since 2001. Still, more Americans are either satisfied with current gun laws, 43%, or think they should be loosened, 5%.”

USA Today: “Vice President Biden, poised to propose new gun violence legislation this week, meets Monday morning with Democratic lawmakers who will consider the administration's plans.” Biden will deliver his recommendations to the president tomorrow.

The Washington Post: “Opposing forces in the debate over the nation’s gun laws staked out starkly different positions Sunday, with the head of the largest gun rights group declaring confidence that a ban on assault weapons would not win passage from lawmakers, while advocates of tightening restrictions on guns said such measures can be approved.”

The NRA says it has the support to block another assault-weapons ban. The group’s president: “You don’t want to bet your house on the outcome. But I would say that the likelihood is that they are not going to be able to get an assault weapons ban through this Congress.”

The New York Times goes to Colorado for the gun debate.

Funny… worth the read… the White House’s response to the petition to create a Death Star: “This Isn’t the Petition Response You’re Looking For.”

There could be more health care mandate penalties – “mandate plus” – in the first two years because insurance companies fear there won’t be enough young, healthy people signing up for insurance when penalties are lower to offset those with preexisting conditions they already have to take on.

Michael Hirsch: “Despite the hopeful talk that came out of his summit in Washington with Afghan President Hamid Karzai last week, President Obama is in danger of losing control of south-central Asia entirely, sacrificing a decade’s worth of blood and treasure as he begins his second term. Most of the focus now is on how rapid the U.S. troop drawdown will be. But the bigger problem for Obama is the absence of a U.S. diplomatic vision for the region—and a diplomat to execute it.”

Transformational president? Perhaps… George Packer: “Every President elected between 1976 and 2004 was, by birth or by choice, a Southerner, except Ronald Reagan, who enjoyed a sort of honorary status. (When he began the 1980 campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi, scene of the murder, in 1964, of three civil-rights workers, many Southerners heard it as a dog whistle.) A Southern accent, once thought quaint or even backward, became an emblem of American authenticity, a political trump card. It was a truism that no Democrat could win the White House unless he spoke with a drawl. Now the South is becoming isolated again. Every demographic and political trend that helped to reëlect Barack Obama runs counter to the region’s self-definition: the emergence of a younger, more diverse, more secular electorate, with a libertarian bias on social issues and immigration; the decline of the exurban life style, following the housing bust; the class politics, anathema to pro-business Southerners, that rose with the recession; the end of America’s protracted wars, with cuts in military spending bound to come. The Solid South speaks less and less for America and more and more for itself alone.”

Here’s a headline: Politico: “Double trouble: House GOP eyes default, shutdown.” From the story: “House Republicans are seriously entertaining dramatic steps, including default or shutting down the government, to force President Barack Obama to finally cut spending by the end of March.”

Another: “Hill friction puts sand in storm recovery’s gears.” The vote is slated for tomorrow on the other $51 billion in Sandy recovery funding.

Republicans are upset with Phil Gingrey (R-GA) for trying to legitimize Todd Akin’s rape comments.

Forbes looks at how Congress’ squabbling is hurting medical research.

The first practicing Hindu is in Congress – Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii. The 31-year-old’s also an Iraq war vet.

Senate Democratic leaders urged President Barack Obama to act to increase the nation's debt limit, even without congressional approval, in order to avoid a standoff with Republicans over the nation's borrowing authority.

The top four Democrats wrote Obama on Friday to urge him against allowing the debt ceiling becoming a bargaining chip with Republicans, who might threaten to vote against any increase in the debt limit without new spending cuts or entitlement reforms from the administration.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and three other Democrats wrote:

In the event that Republicans make good on their threat by failing to act, or by moving unilaterally to pass a debt limit extension only as part of unbalanced or unreasonable legislation, we believe you must be willing to take any lawful steps to ensure that America does not break its promises and trigger a global economic crisis -- without Congressional approval, if necessary.  

The White House has been loath to assert the type of broad executive privileges that would allow the president to unilaterally increase the amount of money the government is able to borrow in order to cover its obligations. Traditionally, approval of an increase in the debt ceiling has been the province of Congress.

But the 2011 fight over increasing the debt limit almost produced a default. Obama's agreement with Republicans at that time produced the spending cuts that make up the recent "fiscal cliff," which the president and lawmakers didn't fully solve. Obama warned after reaching an agreement with Republicans on taxes earlier this month that he wouldn't bargain over the debt limit, but some GOP lawmakers have begun to speak more openly about using that moment as a point of leverage.

It's not clear what authority Obama would invoke to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling. Popular theories argue he could invoke the 14th Amendment (which says the "validity of the public debt of the U.S. ... shall not be questioned"), invoke an obscure provision allowing the government to mint a $1 trillion coin to pay for the debt, or even issue I.O.U.s.

"We support your view that an extension of the debt limit is not something for which Democrats should have to negotiate," the Democratic leaders wrote. "At the same time, as a separate matter, we agree about the importance of developing a broad, bipartisan agreement on fiscal policy that strengthens our economy and reduces our long-term budget deficit."

Capping off a week of meetings with stakeholders in the debate over gun control, Vice President Joe Biden called a session with the National Rifle Association 'productive' despite the group's public complaints yesterday. 

"I thought we had a very straightforward, productive meeting," Biden said of yesterday's closed-door session with pro-gun groups.

The NRA charged in a statement yesterday that the Obama administration has "an agenda to attack the Second Amendment."

But Biden said that the variety of gun owners' organizations that met at the White House yesterday did not all share the NRA's opinions on the causes of and potential solutions for mass gun violence. 

“There was actually a difference among them as well,” he said. “There was not a uniform view.”

Biden invoked a common metaphor about firearms to describe the challenges facing foes of gun violence. 

"We know there's no silver bullet" for stopping mass shootings, he said during a meeting with video game industry representatives.

Related: Assault weapons ban remains politically tricky for White House

The vice president has said he wants his task force to present recommendations to the president by next week. 

"I'm shooting for Tuesday," he said. "I hope we get it done by then." 

Newark Mayor Cory Booker (D) has filed a statement of organization with the Federal Election Commission -- as part of his all-but certain effort to run for Senate in 2014.

The FEC filing, which the Newark Star-Ledger first reported, is dated Jan. 8

Booker released a video back in December saying that he wouldn't run for governor in 2013 but was instead eyeing a bid for Senate -- even though the seat is currently occupied by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ).

A recent Fairleigh Dickinson University poll found Booker leading Lautenberg by more than 20 points among New Jersey Democrats in a hypothetical Dem primary, 42%-20%.

As the White House considers proposals to curb gun violence, a potential re-upping of the 1990s ban on assault weapons has emerged as the most politically difficult measure for activists hoping to keep the most dangerous weapons out of criminal hands.

But, after pro-gun groups met with Vice President Joe Biden's task force on violence prevention yesterday, at least one participant came away believing that it's a fight that President Barack Obama is willing to try.

Richard Feldman, the president of the Independent Firearm Owners Association said that Biden left the group with the “clear implication” that the president would pursue an assault weapons ban in addition to other regulatory measures. 

In naming possible new regulations this week, Biden mentioned universal background checks and restrictions on high-capacity magazines but did not refer specifically to an assault weapon moratorium. The president and his spokespeople have said repeatedly that the administration is in favor of an assault weapons ban.

Feldman told NBC News said the conversation in the closed-door meeting with gun rights groups was “wide ranging."

“We certainly talked rather extensively about civil commitment laws," he said. "The Attorney General was in the meeting. We talked about enforcement procedures against violations.”

Feldman’s take on the session seemed to be different than the National Rifle Association’s, which came out with a fairly combative statement late in the day indicating that the White House was not open to hearing the concerns of Second Amendment proponents.

“I think that it was a conversation and it wasn't a lecture,” Feldman countered. 

When asked about the NRA’s characterization of the meeting, Feldman praised NRA advocate Jim Baker for forcefully voicing the concerns of the nation's most powerful gun group.

"I think the vice president, who knows Jim, listened to them," he added. "But you know, we come at this from different positions.”

The NRA has stated that they’re going to take their argument up to Capitol Hill, something that some experts say could be part of a two-path approach for the gun rights group.

“My guess is what we're going to see is a kind of two-layer game," said Don Kettl, dean of the Public Policy School at the University of Maryland. "For the NRA itself, they've made very clear so far that they're just not interested in anything that remotely involves any effort to try to reduce the availability of guns, or ammunition or any of the other pieces or anything that would restrict the ownership of guns. But behind the scenes I suspect they and some of their lobbyists are going to be working very carefully to try to find ways of at least minimizing, from their point of view, the damage.”

Kettl thinks this could be a defining moment for the group, “Deep down this is one of those line-in-the-sand kind of issues that will be the make or break for the NRA's power. And I suspect we are in the middle of a defining debate in the pubic right now about the role of guns in American society.”

President Barack Obama will deliver the first State of the Union address of his second term on Feb. 12, House Speaker John Boehner's, R-Ohio, office said Friday.

The speaker extended the customary invitation to the president to deliver the speech on Tues., Feb. 12., the birthday of President Abraham Lincoln.

Larry Downing / REUTERS

President Barack Obama hosts a bipartisan meeting with Congressional leaders in the Roosevelt Room of White House to discuss the economy in this file photo with Speaker of the House John Boehner.

Boehner wrote in his letter:

Our nation continues to face immense challenges, and the American people expect us to work together in the new year to find meaningful solutions. This will require a willingness to seek common ground as well as presidential leadership. For that reason, the Congress and the Nation would welcome an opportunity to hear your plan and specific solutions for addressing America’s great challenges. Therefore, it is my privilege to invite you to speak before a Joint Session of Congress on February 12, 2013 in the House Chamber of the U.S. Capitol Building.

Thank you for your consideration, and I look forward to your response.

Obama's speech is sure to include elements touching on the upcoming battle with congressional Republicans over taxes, spending and entitlements -- an outgrowth of the "fiscal cliff" deal at the beginning of this month. The president has also previously said that the recommendations from Vice President Joe Biden's gun violence task force would be part of his State of the Union speech.