Kevin Drum

Filibuster Madness

| Tue Mar. 2, 2010 8:18 PM EST

Back in 2005 Democrats filibustered ten of George Bush's judicial nominees, ending with the famous "Gang of 14" compromise.1 Apparently Republicans have decided to get their revenge by filibustering every Barack Obama nominee, even ones that Republicans themselves unanimously approve of. Steve Benen has the capsule summary of Barbara Milano Keenan's meandering journey to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals.

So what's the strategy here? Take your pick: (a) It's just to piss off Democrats. (b) It's got nothing to do with judges, it's just to slow down the Senate so that it has less time for other business. (c) It's habit. (d) All of the above. Me? I guess I'll go with (d).

1By the way, whether or not the Democratic filibusters were defensible, they had pretty good reason for them. Everybody seems to have forgotten about this history, though, so here's the background.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Latest Bunning News

| Tue Mar. 2, 2010 6:07 PM EST

Time's Jay Newton-Small on the latest Jim Bunning news:

Roll Call reports that Dems are lining up a series of senators who will attempt to move for a vote on the bill all night long, forcing Bunning to be present in the chamber to physically voice his objection to prevent a vote. It's unclear if the handful of Republicans who've spoken out on Bunning's behalf — Sam Brownback, Jon Kyl, Jim DeMint and John Cornyn — will help him sustain his block on the bill.

Later she tweets:

Bunning has placed a hold on all nominations, Reid's office tells me.

Is this guy God's gift to Democrats, or what? If he didn't exist, we'd have to invent him. It's like Dr. Strangelove except it's about Senate procedure instead of nuclear war.

Getting to Yes

| Tue Mar. 2, 2010 2:23 PM EST

Jonathan Cohn reports on a Democratic strategy memo that outlines a plan for passing healthcare reform:

The gist is pretty simple: The House takes up the Senate bill and passed it by March 19. A few days later it passes a reconciliation bill and sends it over to the Senate, which starts the voting process on March 26.

It's a "process" because, even though the reconciliation process limits debate to 20 hours, it doesn't limit amendments. And Republicans have warned they plan to introduce an amendment, forcing Democrats to take difficult votes, for as long as they can.

That's probably not a major issue. Sen. Kent Conrad explains:

Reconciliation is limited in time to 20 hours of consideration. At the end of that time, you can continue to offer amendments. You could offer 10,000. But if the parliamentarian judges someone as being dilatory, that can be stopped. If he says they’re just offering amendments to delay final action, he can rule to shut that down.

There are going to be lots of votes and lots of delaying tactics offered up by Republicans. But the whole point of the reconciliation process is to allow budget-related bills to pass in a reasonable timeframe on a majority vote. It might take more than 20 hours, but Republicans can't hold it up forever. If Democrats are serious about this, they can pass both the main bill and a package of amendments via reconciliation, and they can do it within weeks, not months. This is on them, not the GOP.

How Bad is the Recession?

| Tue Mar. 2, 2010 2:06 PM EST

A recession is typically defined primarily as a drop in GDP. But how is GDP calculated? Here is James Hamilton a couple of years ago:

It is possible to think of GDP in two different ways. One is as the dollar value of all final sales of goods and services produced by factors of production located within the United States. The second is as the dollar value of all the income generated by that production. The two measures are equal to each other by definition. But in practice, one can try to calculate GDP either using production data or using income data. If we obtain the production and income numbers from different sources, we're certain to end up with different numbers for what is supposed to be the nation's GDP. The difference between "gross domestic product" (GDP) and "gross domestic income" (GDI) is simply reported by the BEA as a "statistical discrepancy."

So what accounts for this discrepancy? A few years ago, Mark Thoma suggested the answer had something to do with the level of non-defense government consumption expenditures, but a better answer was apparently elusive. In any case, Justin Wolfers writes over at Freakonomics today that when it comes to the real economy, the "discrepancy" might actually be a problem with standard GDP calculations. Maybe GDI is the measurement that does a better job:

This alternative measure of output growth suggests that the recession may have been deeper, and longer-lasting than previously thought, although data for the fourth quarter aren’t yet available. While many economists believe the recession ended in the second quarter of 2009, this income-based measure of output kept shrinking in the third quarter, too.  And while the expenditure-based measure is back to its level from the third quarter of 2006, the income-based measure suggests that output is still 3.5 percent below that level.  That’s a pretty big hole to dig out of.

One way or another, our current recession really does appear to be deeper and longer-lasting than the usual GDP calculations suggest. Maybe that's an illusion, or maybe there really is a problem with the way we measure GDP. We aren't likely to get any firm answers on this front anytime soon, but at least the questions are worth asking.

Payday Loans Are Thriving

| Tue Mar. 2, 2010 1:13 PM EST

The LA Times reports that at least one sector of the economy is thriving during the recession:

The payday loan industry has found a new and lucrative source of business: the unemployed.

....No job? No problem. A typical unemployed Californian receiving $300 a week in benefits can walk into one of hundreds of storefront operations statewide and walk out with $255 well before that government check arrives — for a $45 fee. Annualized, that's an interest rate of 459%....APRs in other states are even higher: nearly 782% in Wyoming and 870% in Maine.

But hey — couldn't that proposed Consumer Finance Protection Agency tighten up regulation of these guys? Yes indeed. Which is why lobbying activities have reached a fever pitch over the past year. Here is Keith Epstein in the Huffington Post:

Last year, as the U.S. House drew up a financial reform bill, some lawmakers who were courted by the companies and received campaign contributions from them helped crush amendments seeking to restrict payday practices, a review by the Huffington Post Investigative Fund has found.

The failed amendments would have capped payday interest rates — which reach triple digits on an annualized basis — and would have limited the number of loans a lender could make to a customer. Working largely behind the scenes, the industry ended up dividing the Democratic majority on the 71-member House Financial Services Committee...."The payday lenders have done a lot of work," House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said in an interview. "They've been very good at cultivating Democrats and minorities."

....Steven Schlein, a spokesman for an industry trade group, the Community Financial Services Association, said the industry's victory in the House against the proposed amendments was hardly final. "We were worried," said Schlein. "But we worked it hard. We have lobbyists, and they made their point. The banks worked it hard, too. But we're still in the middle of what could be a big fight."

....The activity in Congress led the industry to spend $6.1 million lobbying Washington last year, more than twice what it spent a year earlier....Meanwhile, an analysis of federal elections records shows payday-linked political contributions are streaming into the campaigns of members of Congress. At the current rate — $1.3 million since the start of last year — the amount of money spent before the 2010 midterm elections could easily surpass the industry's spending during the 2007-2008 presidential campaign season.

You can make up your own mind whether you approve of payday lending or not. The libertarian argument says that poor people deserve to have control over their lives just as much as rich people. Who are we to tell them they can't voluntarily take out a high-interest loan if they're in dire straits?

There's a rough sort of merit to this, but for my taste it's a little too redolant of Anatole France's famously acerbic observation that "The law, in its majesty, prohibits the rich as well as the poor from sleeping under bridges." In fact, common sense not only allows us to make distinctions, it demands it. And common sense suggests that abusive practices that target the most desperate and vulnerable ought to be regulated in ways that similar practices might not be in other circumstances. I don't know that I'd outlaw payday lending entirely, but would I cap interest rates and limit both the number of loans a single customer could take out as well as the total cumulative payout from a single loan? You betcha. Too bad I don't have $1.3 million to contribute to congressional reelection campaigns.

Jim Bunning and the End of Outrage

| Tue Mar. 2, 2010 12:21 PM EST

What is there to say about the Jim Bunning situation? It just leaves me speechless. We have here a situation in which the Senate is being hijacked, literally, by the ravings of a single cranky old man against a bill that the entire Republican leadership had already agreed to. It's pure pique, and the Republican Party is unwilling to do anything about it.

A lot of liberals have taken lately to calling the GOP nihilistic, and I've never bought it. Opportunistic? Sure. Brutally partisan? Sure. Vacuously unwilling to address the country's most serious problems? Sure. Ideologically frozen in the past? Sure. But nihilistic? On the contrary, they seemed driven by a brute cunning that I might even approve of if it were my own side doing it.

But then along comes Bunning, ranting against a temporary extenstion to unemployment benefits just for the sake of.....well, no one quite knows. For the sake of whatever demons are running around in his head, I guess. It's the kind of situation where a non-nihilistic party would finally step up and agree to rein the guy in. But that hasn't happened. The Republican leadership has, by all accounts, done nothing, and the rest of the caucus — or enough of it, anyway — has actually rallied around Bunning. Rallied around him! They know perfectly well he's a crackpot; they know perfectly well this is a bipartisan bill designed to provide working-class relief in the middle of a massive recession. But for guys like Bob Corker and Jeff Sessions and John Kyl it's more important to demonstrate solidarity with a crackpot than it is to help a few people out. "I admire the courage of the junior senator from Kentucky," said John Cornyn, apparently speaking for many.

Nihilism is probably still the wrong word for this. But I guess it's close enough for government work. Whatever it is, it's a very deep rot in the soul of the Republican Party.

And why won't they pay a price for this? Well, partly because Democrats aren't willing to force them to. But it's also partly because of how this gets played to most of the public. One of the consequences of Bunning's objections is that Medicare payments for doctors went down 21% effective yesterday. And whose fault is this? According to the AMA, it's the fault of the "U.S. Senate." Here's their press release:

“The Senate had over a year to repeal the flawed formula that causes the annual payment cut and instead they abandoned America’s seniors, making them collateral damage to their procedural games,” said AMA President J. James Rohack, M.D.  “Physicians are outraged because the cut, combined with the continued instability in the system, will force them to make difficult practice changes including limiting the number of Medicare patients they can treat.”

Not "Jim Bunning." Not "the Republican Party." It's the fault of "the Senate." This sort of thing gets played out in headlines around the country, and the result is disgust with government and disgust with Congress. But it doesn't affect Republicans any more than Democrats until the headlines change.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Quote of the Day: Fox News

| Tue Mar. 2, 2010 11:25 AM EST

From Ezra Klein, on Fox News:

I continue to be amazed that lying brazenly to your audience is such a good business strategy.

Why, it's the oldest moneymaking strategy in the world. Fox News has just polished it up a bit for the 21st century. Details at the link.

The Slow Death of Climate Change Legislation

| Mon Mar. 1, 2010 4:42 PM EST

The climate change bill is yet another piece of legislation being watered down almost to nothingness in a vain attempt to gain two or three Republican votes. This weekend's new proposal from the Kerry-Graham-Lieberman team, for example, ditches economy-wide carbon pricing and instead would implement lobbyist-friendly caps on individual sectors. (It's lobbyist friendly because this makes it much easier for lobbyists for specific industries to pick off their little piece of the pie. Before long, the whole thing is gone.) And anyway, Sen. Dick Lugar says it's still no good: he could support carbon pricing "potentially at some point, but not at the moment." Aaron Wiener translates:

Which is Congress-speak for: Sure, I’d consider voting for climate legislation, but not until after the midterm elections, when the Democratic majority will be sufficiently reduced to make passing a comprehensive climate bill impossible. At which point I’ll oppose it because "it simply doesn’t have the votes."

Quote of the Day: The GOP on Healthcare Reform

| Mon Mar. 1, 2010 4:04 PM EST

Steve Benen highlights this excerpt from a Good Morning America segment about healthcare reform today:

Republicans want the bill to pass because of its unpopularity but, at the same time, they can't be complacent on health care overhaul, said Matthew Dowd, ABC News contributor and former adviser to President George W. Bush. [...]

"Republicans would like this bill to pass because they know how unpopular it is," Dowd said on "GMA."

Steve is skeptical. Me too. After all, if Republicans really want the bill to pass, they know what to do: just withdraw their filibuster and allow a vote. Democrats will do the rest.

But don't hold your breath.

How the Repo Market Ate Wall Street

| Mon Mar. 1, 2010 3:05 PM EST

Several years ago I remember reading about the repo market for the first time. I had never heard of it before not because it didn't exist, but because I'm not a financial guy and I had simply never paid much attention to how Wall Street banks fund themselves. To make a long story short, the repo market is basically a market for short-term loans. Really short term: it's an overnight market, and if you have, say, $100 billion in repo funding, you have to roll over that funding every single day. If you can't, you're in big trouble.

To a layman, that sounds crazy. Investment banks weren't just using the repo market to gain a bit of additional flexibility, they were using it as a significant part of their funding base. They were literally dependent for their continued existence on a line of funding that had to be renewed daily.

I'm reminded of this by a paper from Yale's Gary Gorton that I just got around to reading today. It explains the role of the repo market in our recent economic collapse. Gorton estimates that the total size of the repo market had grown to about $12 trillion by 2007, and as the housing bubble started to burst investors began large-scale bank runs. Except that instead of the run being caused by individuals queuing up at local banks to cash out their savings accounts, it came from repo lenders calling in their loans:

For concreteness, let’s use some names. Suppose the institutional investor is Fidelity, and Fidelity has $500 million in cash that will be used to buy securities, but not right now. Right now Fidelity wants a safe place to earn interest, but such that the money is available in case the opportunity for buying securities arises. Fidelity goes to Bear Stearns and “deposits” the $500 million overnight for interest. What makes this deposit safe? The safety comes from the collateral that Bear Stearns provides. Bear Stearns holds some asset‐backed securities [with] a market value of $500 millions. These bonds are provided to Fidelity as collateral. Fidelity takes physical possession of these bonds. Since the transaction is overnight, Fidelity can get its money back the next morning, or it can agree to “roll” the trade. Fidelity earns, say, 3 percent.

....There’s another aspect to repo that is important: haircuts. In the repo example I gave above, Fidelity deposited $500 million of cash with Bear Stearns and received as collateral $500 million of bonds, valued at market value. Fidelity does not care if Bear Stearns becomes insolvent because Fidelity in that event can unilaterally terminate the transaction and sell the bonds to get the $500 million. That is, repo is not subject to Chapter 11 bankruptcy; it is excluded from this.

Imagine that Fidelity said to Bear: “I will deposit only $400 million and I want $500 million (market value) of bonds as collateral.” This would be a 20 percent haircut. In this case Fidelity is protected against a $100 million decline in the value of the bonds, should Bear become insolvent and Fidelity want to sell the bonds.

....For now, keep in mind that an increase in the haircuts is a withdrawal from the bank. Massive withdrawals are a banking panic. That’s what happened. Like during the pre‐Federal Reserve panics, there was a shock that by itself was not large, house prices fell. But, the distribution of the risks (where the subprime bonds were, in which firms, and how much) was not known. Here is where subprime plays its role. Elsewhere, I have likened subprime to e‐coli (see Gorton (2009a, 2010)). Millions of pounds of beef might be recalled because the location of a small amount of e‐coli is not known for sure. If the government did not know which ground beef possibly contained the e‐coli, there would be a panic: people would stop eating ground beef. If we all stop eating hamburgers for a month, or a year, it would be a big problem for McDonald’s, Burger King, Wendy’s and so on. They would go bankrupt. That’s what happened.

The evidence is in the figure [on the right], which shows the increase in haircuts for securitized bonds (and other structured bonds) starting in August 2007. The figure is a picture of the banking panic. We don’t know how much was withdrawn because we don’t know the actual size of the repo market. But, to get a sense of the magnitudes, suppose the repo market was $12 trillion and that repo haircuts rose from zero to an average of 20 percent. Then the banking system would need to come up with $2 trillion, an impossible task.

There's more in the paper, which is worth reading if you want to learn more about this stuff. In my own mind, I have a tendency to waffle back and forth between blaming the economic meltdown solely on a single fundamental (housing prices crashed, everyone panicked) and blaming it on a variety of other factors as well (mortgage fraud, the growth of credit derivatives, ratings agency conflicts, massive abuse of leverage, wild underestimation of risk, etc.). Overall, I tend toward believing that although the housing crash was clearly both the proximate and primary cause of the collapse, all the other stuff really did matter too, magnifying an asset bust far beyond what it could have done on its own. Without massive leverage, for example, even a huge housing bubble couldn't have caused the scale of the damage we saw.

Gorton has a slightly different take: the housing bubble was primary, but it was the fundamental structure of modern banking that turned it into a catastrophe: "The problem is structural," he says. "This structure, while very important for the economy, is subject to periodic panics if there are shocks that cause concerns about counterparty default....The economy needs banks and banking. But bank liabilities have a vulnerability."