Conservatives in Italy — a country that was neither colonized by Great Britain nor staged a massive civil disobedience campaign centered on hot beverages — are trying to form their own “Tea Party,” using Grover Norquist’s anti-tax pledge as a central organizing tool. US News & World Report has more:

A group called Tea Party Italia, inspired by the tea party movement in the U.S. and by Norquist’s pledge, created a similar taxpayer contract it is pushing ahead of the country’s general election next month. The pledge says politicians won’t raise taxes and will work to reduce the country’s debt, which the Associated Press reports hit a record $2.64 trillion in December.

But getting politicians to sign on to the pledge might prove more of a challenge.

“Candidates in the U.S. want to sign this pledge because they have to do a difficult and hard campaign,” he says. Italian candidates, on the other hand, are chosen by the party and don’t go through a campaign season. “So it’s very difficult to find [politicians] that believe in our ideas in Italy.”

Norquist penned a letter to the group earlier this month endorsing the “Italian taxpayer protection pledge,” a move that could make it significantly more difficult for the country to retire it’s $2.6 trillion debt. Conservatives in other countries, from Japan to Israel, have tried to emulate similar tactics as well.

One reason why Norquist may be looking overseas for support is that his power is waning back home. Norquist’s pledge contributed to dozens of GOP losses in 2012 and Republicans subsequently abandoned him in droves during the fiscal cliff negotiations.

House Republicans recently agreed to raise the debt ceiling, preventing a self-inflicted economic calamity. Experts agree that failure to raise the debt ceiling would have catastrophic consequences for the U.S. economy. The debt ceiling debacle of 2010, during which the U.S. did not actually breach the debt limit and default, will wind up costing U.S. taxpayers $18.9 billion and one million jobs.

But television watchers going to CNBC, Fox News, or Fox Business for their news may not know just how dangerous a weaponized debt ceiling really is. As Media Matters’ Alan Pyke showed, those networks were very likely to discuss the debt ceiling without noting the negative effects that breaching it might have:

Only 100 segments out of 273 mentioned the negative economic effects of failing to raise — or threat of failing to raise — the debt ceiling. MSNBC most frequently mentioned negative effects in 41 of 68 segments (60 percent), while CNN mentioned them in 13 of 23 segments (57 percent). The remaining networks lagged far behind, with CNBC, Fox Business, and Fox News mentioning macroeconomic consequences in 26, 23, and 25 percent of segments, respectively.

The debt ceiling, of course, hasn’t gone away, and will need to be dealt with again in May. Economists largely agree that the debt ceiling should be abolished.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) today vetoed an increase in the minimum wage that was passed by the state’s Democratic senate. Using what’s known as a “conditional veto,” Christie sent the bill back saying he would sign it if certain changes were made, including: shrinking the increase from $8.50 to $8.25 per hour, phasing it in over three years, and eliminating a provision tying the wage to inflation.

New Jersey’s current minimum wage stands at $7.25, so Christie’s veto, in essence, is saying that he believes a $1 increase in the wage over three years is sufficient. As the New Jersey Policy Perspective noted, “the first year increase proposed by the governor of 25 cents will be erased by inflation by the time the third year kicks in its 25 cents.” Here are more benefits that Christie denied to working New Jerseyans:

– Wages would have increased by $439 million in the first year;

– Overall economic activity would increase by $278 million in the first year;

– The equivalent of 2,420 new full time jobs would be created;

– 537,000 people would have received an increase in wages: 307,000 New Jerseyans making between $7.25 and $8.50 per hour would’ve seen an immediate raise, and 230,000 New Jerseyans making between $8.50 and $9.75 per hour would’ve seen a raise as pay scales were adjusted upwards.

Christie vetoed the wage increase, even though the cost of living in the Garden State is about 30 percent higher than the national average, according to a study by the New Jersey Minimum Wage Advisory Commission.

Christie claimed that the minimum wage bill would threaten the slow economic recovery in New Jersey. “The sudden, significant minimum-wage increase in this bill, coupled with automatic raises each year tied to the Unites States consumer price index, will jeopardize the economic recovery we all seek,” Christie said. But as the Center for American Progress’ T. William Lester, David Madland, and Nick Bunker wrote, “We reviewed academic research that examines the effects of minimum wage increases during a recession or stretch of time with high unemployment and found significant evidence that even during hard economic times, raising the minimum wage is likely to have no adverse effect on employment.”

A bipartisan group of senators introduced a comprehensive immigration reform plan today that would reshape the nation’s outdated economic laws by putting 11 million undocumented immigrants on a path to citizenship while boosting border security. The plan would expand the pool of visas for highly-skilled immigrant workers and put young immigrants and undocumented agricultural workers on a faster path to citizenship, elements of reform both parties have supported in the past.

Addressing immigration is a key issue for the American economy, which could see a major boost thanks to comprehensive reforms that will boost wages, job creation, and overall economic growth for the entire country. Here are four areas of the economy that immigration reform will help:

Jobs and growth: Using a model based on the 1986 immigration reform law, UCLA professor Raúl Hinojosa-Ojeda estimated that modern immigration reform that included a path to citizenship would increase the nation’s gross domestic product by $1.5 trillion over the next decade, a total boost of 0.84 percent. Higher earning power from Latinos would lead to between $4.5 billion and $5.4 billion in increased tax revenues, as well as increased consumer spending that would support 750,000 to 900,000 additional jobs in the United States, according to the Center for American Progress.

Wages: Immigration reform would also boost wages for both immigrant and native workers. Newly-legalized, less-skilled workers would see an average wage boost of $4,405 each year, while high-skilled workers would see wage increases of more than $6,100. CAP estimates that wages would also “increase modestly” for native workers, adding to the 0.4 percent wage boost the Economic Policy Institute found that immigration brought to native workers over the period it studied. Other economists have found that immigration boosts wages for native workers by 0.6 percent each year.

New businesses: Nearly a quarter of the businesses started between 2006 and 2012 had at least one immigrant founder, and businesses owned by Latinos and Asians employ 4.7 million workers a year, according to the Immigration Policy Center. High-tech firms have advocated for immigration reform in an effort to boost their labor pool and increase the formation of start-up businesses. Expanding the high-skill visa program would allow more immigrants to become entrepreneurs in the United States.

State economies: Anti-immigration laws passed at the state level have had harmful effects on key industries in those states. In Georgia and Alabama, farmers have reported worker shortages after their states passed such laws, with one farmer estimating that he lost $300,000 in produce in 2011. Meanwhile, a University of Southern California study estimates that legalizing the state’s Latino workers generate $2.2 billion in wage gains and $1.75 billion in direct spending, leading to the creation of 25,000 new jobs and more than $300 million in new tax revenue.

Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) has been touring his state to promote a plan that would eliminate Virginia’s gas tax and replace it with an expanded sales tax. McDonnell is touting the plan as a way to fix the state’s dysfunctional transportation funding system, but its practical effect would be to make Virginia’s already regressive tax system even worse. As the Commonwealth Institute explained:

Even with the proposed elimination of the tax on gas, the governor’s plan would result in higher taxes for Virginians across the board. However, the proposed tax changes will fall most heavily on lower-income families.
That’s because as a share of their income, low- and moderate- income households spend more than high-income households buying the basic necessities of life like clothing, toiletries, and school supplies, which are subject to the state’s sales and use tax.

For example, a family making less than $21,000 a year, among the lowest 20 percent of the income distribution, would see its taxes rise by about .21 percent under the governor’s plan. But at the other end of the spectrum, households making over $509,000 a year, in the top 1 percent of the income distribution, would see an increase of just .05 percent.

Under Virginia’s current tax system, the richest 1 percent pay a 5.2 percent effective tax rate, while the poorest Virginians (those making less than $19,000) pay 8.8 percent. McDonnell’s plan would raise those rates, but do so in a way that the gap between what the richest and poorest Virginians are paying would expand. In addition, the plan would shift the responsibility for paying for Virginia’s highways from people who most use the roads (including those from outside the state) to poorer residents who can least afford it.

Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) on Monday offered up a constitutional amendment which would make failure to balance the nation’s budget an impeachable offense.

Brooks’ outlandish proposal calls for a balanced budget within five years, after which time federal spending could not exceed federal revenue. If the country were to face a deficit, Brooks’ bill demands that the President take “such steps as are necessary” to avoid excess spending. But under Brooks’ plan, there’s only one thing the President can do to avoid a deficit, as only one side of the balance sheet is open to negotiation:

“The President may not order any increase in taxes or other revenue measures to enforce the Amendment,” the bill reads. “A President’s failure to prevent a prohibited fiscal year deficit is an impeachable offense.”

Brooks is the latest Republican to suggest that revenue measures are off the table after Democrats and Republicans agreed to allow the Bush-era tax cuts to expire for those earning more than $450,000 a year as part of the “fiscal cliff” negotiations. But even with increased tax revenues, the deficit reduction President Obama has overseen since 2011 has still favored spending cuts over increased revenue by a 3 to 1 margin.

Our guest blogger is Jane Farrell, a research assistant for economic policy at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

It seems that the U.S. is set up for a double-whammy outbreak of illness this winter — after enduring one of the worst flu seasons in years, America now faces an especially vicious strain of the highly contagious norovirus, also known as the stomach flu. This strain, “GII.4 Sydney,” originated in Australia and just made the leap to the U.S. after tearing through Britain, France, and New Zealand.

Unfortunately, the United States has yet to employ one of its best defenses against spreading this illness and other contagions more widely: universal paid sick leave.

Norovirus causes stomach pain, nausea, diarrhea, and vomiting. It is easily spread from person to person or through contaminated food or dirty surfaces. About 21 million Americans contract it annually and of those infected, approximately 70,000 are hospitalized and 800 die. The elderly and very young are especially at risk once infected.

According to the Centers for Disease Control:

Most (72 [51%]) of these GII.4 Sydney outbreaks resulted from direct person-to-person transmission; 29 (20%) were foodborne, one (1%) was waterborne, and the transmission mode was unknown in 39 (28%) of the outbreaks. Long-term–care facilities and restaurants were the most frequently reported settings, accounting for 91 (65%) and 18 (13%) of the GII.4 Sydney outbreaks, respectively.”

There is no vaccine for norovirus and no drug available to treat it.

Unfortunately, nearly 40 percent of U.S. workers who care for the elderly lack even a single paid sick day. While caregivers are presumably putting their patient’s health ahead of their own and staying home if they are sick, these oftentimes low-wage workers will suffer disproportionately if they miss even a day’s pay.

Moreover, only one-third of workers in service occupations have paid sick days. Nearly 80 percent of those working in the Leisure and Hospitality industry lack this benefit. This means that the people preparing restaurant meals or cleaning hotel rooms have good reason to come to work sick. The U.S.’s lack of paid sick leave is out of line line with all other highly developed nations.

As the nation slowly ground its way out of the Great Recession, the biggest banks in the country (whose malfeasance played a large role in creating the downturn) grew even larger. According to data from the Dallas Federal Reserve, the largest 0.2 percent of all banks now control nearly 70 percent of all banking assets:

As of third quarter 2012, there were approximately 5,600 commercial banking organizations in the U.S. The bulk of these—roughly 5,500—were community banks with assets of less than $10 billion. These community-focused organizations accounted for 98.6 percent of all banks but only 12 percent of total industry assets. Another group numbering nearly 70 banking organizations—with assets of between $10 billion and $250 billion—accounted for 1.2 percent of banks, while controlling 19 percent of industry assets. The remaining group, the megabanks—with assets of between $250 billion and $2.3 trillion—was made up of a mere 12 institutions. These dozen behemoths accounted for roughly 0.2 percent of all banks, but they held 69 percent of industry assets.

The Dallas Fed, led by Richard Fisher, has consistently called for the largest banks to be broken up, as have some lawmakers. “These banks are not just too big to fail, they’re too big to manage,” said Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH). “I think these banks will be stronger and healthier and probably more profitable if they’re smaller.”

Instead of breaking up the biggest banks, the Dodd-Frank financial reform law of 2010 attempts to wall off some of the riskiest activities in which mega-banks engage and lays out a process for unwinding failing financial firms without resorting to ad hoc bailouts. Banks are looking to water down or circumvent the former (and may sue if they don’t get their way), while House Republicans have made a concerted effort to repeal the latter. (HT: Zero Hedge)