America is in the middle of what is projected to become the worst flu epidemic in a decade, and across the country workers risk making it worse by going to their jobs while sick. They do so because American workers have little access to paid sick leave, but some cities are considering enshrining such leave into law.

City councils in Portland, Oregon and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania are both considering new paid sick leave laws. Under the Portland proposal, all businesses would have to grant workers at least 40 hours of sick leave each year; for businesses with more than six employees, that leave time would be paid. A report from the Main Street Alliance of Oregon, which supports paid sick leave, said business expenses would grow at most by 1.9 percent under the law.

In Philadelphia, where a paid sick leave law was passed in 2011 but was vetoed by the mayor, lawmakers are making another attempt. The bill is backed by local restaurant workers, thousands of whom go to work while sick each day. Nearly 80 percent of food workers do not have paid sick leave, and 60 percent say they have reported to work while sick. A majority of Americans support providing paid sick leave to food workers.

The lack of paid sick leave is its own epidemic in the United States, where 40 percent of private sector workers and 80 percent of low-income workers don’t receive a single paid sick day. Lack of paid sick leave led to an additional 5 million cases of the H1N1 flu virus in 2009.

And though business leaders in Portland and Philadelphia oppose the laws, perhaps they shouldn’t. Research suggests that paid sick leave reduces employee turnover and increases productivity, meaning providing it to employees has substantial benefits for the companies’ bottom lines too.

President Obama yesterday nominated prosecutor Mary Jo White to become the next head of the Securities and Exchange Commission. An important part of her task will be implementing the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, which is slowly grinding through the rule-making process.

According to a new report from the Government Accountability Office, there is still quite a bit of work to do, as 52 percent of the law is not yet in place, and no rulemaking at all has occurred for nearly one-quarter of its provisions:

Overall, GAO identified 236 provisions of the act that require regulators to issue rulemakings across nine key areas. As of December 2012, regulators had issued final rules for about 48 percent of these provisions; however, in some cases the dates by which affected entities had to comply with the rules had yet to be reached. Of the remaining provisions, regulators had proposed rules for about 29 percent, and rulemakings had not occurred for about 23 percent.

Banks have already managed to win delays on key regulations, and successfully convinced international regulators to water down other new rules. Further delay on the part of regulators will just extend the amount of time that taxpayers are on the hook for the financial system’s failures.

Indiana Gov. Mike Pence (R) used his State of the State speech this week to propose a 10-percent income tax cut that would cost the state so much money that even leading Republicans won’t support it. Pence’s proposal would cut the state’s income tax rate from 3.4 percent to 3.06 percent, a plan that follows up on corporate tax cuts and a phasing out of the state’s inheritance tax.

Indiana currently has a budget surplus, but it is one that was built largely on spending cuts to programs that benefit the state’s neediest residents. Pence’s plan would only exacerbate that problem, leaving Indiana with too little money to fully invest in education and other programs, state House Speaker Brian Bosma (R) told WISH TV:

To cut taxes the Pence budget will give schools spending increases of just 1 percent and Speaker Bosma says that not enough.

“We’ll probably invest more in that direction,” he said. In comments made in his Statehouse office Bosma also said the state needs to spend more on highway funding suggested there may be no middle ground between his position and the governor’s.

“It may be difficult to invest in all the critical needs we have before us and still accept the governor’s tax cut proposal,” he said. “That doesn’t mean it’s off the table.”

While Pence pitched it as a tax cut for every Indiana citizen, the Institution of Taxation and Economic Policy found that about 12 percent of Hoosiers, most of them low-income, would see no benefit from Pence’s plan. The plan is also wildly regressive, providing more than half its benefits to the wealthiest 20 percent of Indiana taxpayers. The average tax cut for the state’s top 1 percent would be more than $2,200, while the average middle-income taxpayer would receive just $102. The poorest 20 percent, ITEP found, would receive an average tax cut of just $18.

Republicans have proposed a compromise plan that would still provide large tax cuts and make Indiana the latest state, along with North Carolina, Louisiana, Kansas, and Nebraska, where Republicans are pushing tax cuts that largely benefit the wealthy.

As income inequality skyrockets, a new report from the Economic Policy Institute finds that the economic downturn and gradual recovery has exacerbated the trend. The wages of the richest Americans are making a dramatic comeback, while the rest of the country has seen its income drop by 1.2 percent since 2007.

The wealthiest earners took a hit in the immediate aftermath of the financial crisis, with wages declining 15.6 percent from 2007 to 2009. But these individuals will quickly recover all their losses, while the bottom 90 percent of Americans continue to see their wages shrink:

As the stock market regained its value in the recovery, one would expect the top 1.0 percent to fare better than other workers—and they have, with annual wages growing 8.2 percent from 2009 to 2011 (the S&P grew 37.4 percent over this period). As the recovery continues and the stock market sustains its growth, the top 1.0 percent of wage earners are likely to quickly recoup all of the ground lost in the downturn.

In contrast, annual wages of the bottom 90 percent of earners eroded by 0.6 percent in the downturn—and by a further 1.2 percent in the 2009–2011 recovery. This is not surprising given the persistently high unemployment over this period. Meanwhile, high-wage earners from the 90th to the 99th percentile enjoyed wage growth in the recovery—and are the only wage earners to have higher wages in 2011 than in 2007.

Entrenched wealth-friendly policies have helped smooth the recovery even more for the super-rich. Even under President Obama, maligned by conservatives as “anti-business,” chief executives have seen their paychecks grow steadily. And as top earners’ total incomes — including wages, capital gains, and other assets — recovered, they also benefited from lower tax rates (only some of which was addressed by the recent deal to avert the so-called “fiscal cliff”).

As the EPI report notes, income inequality shot up in recent decades, paused during the economic downturn, and then began growing again in the recovery. The richest 20 percent currently make eight times more than the bottom 20 percent in nearly every state.

Less than a day after President Obama announced that he is re-nominating Richard Cordray to be director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), Republicans suggested that they again intend to obstruct his nomination based on their continued opposition to having a strong independent agency protecting consumers from predatory lending practices. Cordray’s recess appointment is set to expire at the end of 2013, unless the Senate confirms him.

Nearly every Senate Republican voted against the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, which established the independent bureau. In 2011, 45 Republicans filibustered Cordray’s nomination, denying him an up-or-down vote, based on their objection to the agency itself. In a May 2011 letter, the Republican Senators made it clear that they would not allow a vote on any nominee unless the CFPB was first drastically restructured and weakened — though they did not attack the former Ohio Attorney General Cordray’s qualifications.

Though President Obama comfortably won re-election and Senate Democrats expanded their Senate majority to 55 seats in November, just 41 members of the Republican majority can again prevent Cordray from even getting a confirmation vote. It appears that might be a challenge, as:

• Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID), who is likely to be the top Republican on the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, said in a statement: “Today’s decision to re-nominate Richard Cordray to be Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau after using an unconstitutional recess appointment is premature, given the outstanding concerns about the bureau and the legal challenge to the recess appointment. Until key structural changes are made to the bureau to ensure accountability and transparency, I will continue my opposition to any nominee for director, as outlined in a letter signed by 45 Republican Senators to the president.”
• Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), the outgoing Ranking Member on the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, through a spokesman said he has “not changed his position” since 2011.
• Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), a member of the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, said in a statement: “While I respect Richard Cordray as a substantive person who has shown thoughtfulness in writing regulation up to now, I still have reservations about the CFPB’s structure, namely the lack of a board to help ensure sound policy and accountability, and I look forward to discussing with him how to address those concerns.”
• Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), chairman of the House Committee on Financial Services, said in a statement: “The Dodd-Frank Act places vast, unprecedented and unchecked power completely in the hands of a single person. The CFPB director has the power to decide whether American families can obtain a mortgage, get a car loan or even get a credit card. My hope is that the decision to renominate Mr. Cordray will open the debate about whether some common sense checks and balances will be placed on a massive bureaucracy that is now totally unaccountable to the American people.”

Despite the GOP’s reservations, the Cordray’s CFPB has been a great success, cleaning up the mortgage servicing industry, winning refunds for credit card customers, and preventing wrongful foreclosures. The fears of the industry proved baseless, as Cordray has earned praise for working with banks, credit unions, and consumer groups.

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-MI) is gearing up to release a corporate tax overhaul. Much like the last few versions he’s proposed, the plan is expected to include some favorite Republicans provisions that would make it easier for corporations to avoid taxes and offshore jobs.

But according to the Huffington Post’s Ryan Grim and Zach Carter, the plan may include one interesting facet: a new tax treatment for derivatives, the credit instruments that were at the epicenter of the 2008 financial crisis. And Camp may be proposing the idea out of spite at CEOs who supported new revenue during negotiations over the so-called “fiscal cliff”:

One Republican operative told HuffPost that Camp’s bill is political payback for the CEOs collaborating with the Fix the Debt coalition, which worked with corporate chiefs who had pressured Republicans to accept tax increases as part of a deal to avert the so-called fiscal cliff at the close of 2012. [...]

Camp’s bill would establish a new tax regime for derivatives, requiring banks to declare the fair market value of the products at the end of each year. Any increase in value would be considered corporate income, subject to taxation. It’s a more aggressive tax treatment than Wall Street enjoys for either derivatives or for trading in more traditional securities.

Under Camp’s plan, banks would have to pay taxes on the increase in value of their derivatives, treating the increase as income; it’s a more efficient way of taxing profits than the current, convoluted system. “It’s a pretty bold step and I think this idea is sensible,” said Steve Rosenthal of the Tax Policy Center. The current system has “no basis in the reality of economics,” said tax lawyer David Miller. “As a result, sophisticated taxpayers are free to choose a tax treatment that minimizes their taxes.”

Members of the financial services industry are, predictably, freaking out about the proposal: “It doesn’t make any sense,” said one trader. The derivatives market, which is still largely unregulated, totals about $639 trillion.

Camp’s bill also preserves an important provision that prevents homeowners from having to pay a huge tax bill when they receive a mortgage modification. The provision was temporarily extended recently, and would be made permanent under Camp’s plan.

The conservative Tory government’s austerity policies are pushing the United Kingdom toward an unprecedented triple-dip recession, as the UK’s economy contracted 0.3 percent in the fourth quarter of 2012. If the economy slumps again in the first quarter of this year, the two consecutive quarters of losses will mark Britain’s third recession in four years.

British Prime Minister David Cameron and George Osborne, the nation’s finance minister, eschewed stimulative policies when the Great Recession began, choosing instead to pursue swift deficit reduction to address the nation’s long-term debt. The result has been unfortunate: as this chart from the Guardian shows, the British economy has now contracted in four of the past five quarters (the London Olympics, which helped the British economy, occurred during the one quarter of growth):

When he instituted the first round of austerity in 2010, Osborne said his package of tax increases and spending cuts would reduce the deficit from 4.8 percent of Britain’s economy to just 1.9 percent. Three years and a second recession later, the deficit is at 4.3 percent. But even as his plan to revive the economy to reduce deficits has led to further recessions, Osborne remains steadfast in his belief that deficit reduction is the correct path to follow:

George Osborne said he would not “run away” from the problems facing the UK economy: “We have a reminder today that Britain faces a very difficult economic situation. A reminder that last year was particularly difficult, that we face problems at home because of the debts built up over many years and problems abroad with the eurozone, where we export most of our products, in recession.”

While the British raced to austerity, the United States turned to stimulus in 2009. Instead of pushing us into a second recession, The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act turned around the American economy, which has far outperformed the British economy ever since:

Still, President Obama’s second attempt to stimulate the economy, the American Jobs Act, was blocked by Republicans, and Washington has turned its attention toward immediate deficit reduction since, even as unemployment remains stubbornly high and the economic recovery is far from robust.