Kevin Drum

The TPP Is Dead. Now Let the Scapegoating Begin.

| Fri Jun. 12, 2015 2:16 PM EDT

The House just voted down fast-track authority for the TPP, handing President Obama a stinging defeat. This happened mainly because too few Democrats voted to support it. But why? Here's the Washington Post:

Lawmakers said the White House has pushed harder on trade than any legislative issue since the health-care reform effort during his first year. After keeping trade on the back burner, Obama joined forces with business-friendly Republicans after the midterm elections in pursuit of a rare bipartisan deal and launched a fierce effort to win support from his usual Democratic allies over the intense opposition of labor unions.

And here's the New York Times:

A president who has long kept Congress at arm’s length may have paid a price. Representative Henry Cuellar, Democrat of Texas, said Mr. Obama mustered rousing applause Friday morning as he went through the battles he had fought with fellow Democrats — on labor organizing, health care access and environmental protection. But he could not change minds.

“I wish there had been much better outreach,” Mr. Cuellar lamented.

So either Obama made this his #1 priority or else Obama barely bothered to lobby for it. I assume that eventually one narrative or the other will stick and we'll all agree on just what Obama did.

UPDATE: Sorry, I jumped the gun. TPP is dead for now, but Obama may get another bite at the apple next week. It all depends on whether he's able to negotiate a more liberal version of Trade Adjustment Authority to couple to the fast-track bill. The trick is appeasing Democrats sufficiently without losing too many Republican votes. Could be a busy weekend.

Advertise on

We Finally Have Something to Thank Michele Bachmann For: She Killed the Iowa Straw Poll

| Fri Jun. 12, 2015 1:51 PM EDT

Some interesting news today out of the Hawkeye State:

The Iowa straw poll, a political jamboree that has been a fixture in the Republican presidential nominating process for nearly four decades but has come under criticism in recent years, was cancelled Friday by state GOP leaders in a unanimous vote.

The Republicans cited a lack of interest in the event from leading presidential candidates and they said their decision will help preserve the importance of the Iowa caucuses, which are slated to be held early next year before any other state gets to vote.

It's the end of an era. Or, at least, the end of the nation's most famous state party fundraising extravaganza.

Now, it's not true, as you might expect, that the straw poll has always been won by some lunatic conservative with an unusually fanatical following, thus doing nothing except embarrassing all the legitimate candidates. Still, last time around the winner was Michele Bachmann. Maybe that was the death knell. More and more, the rise of the tea party meant that mainstream candidates were progressively less enthused about participating in an event they were likely to lose to a slavering mob. And for what? To help fund the Iowa GOP? There are easier ways of doing that.

Anyway, Ed Kilgore is my go-to guy to explain The Meaning Of It All for this kind of thing, but he hasn't weighed in yet. But maybe he has since I began typing this. Hold on a sec....ah yes, he's totally on top of things. Basically, the straw poll died for the reason everyone thinks it did: Because all the candidates got tired of it and didn't want to risk participating. And yet:

You could make arguments, however, that Fox News did in the Straw Poll by making it a distraction from the national campaigning necessary to qualify for the first debate, or that Erick Erickson did it in by counter-scheduling a presidential cattle call for the same weekend, or that Jeb Bush did it in by announcing he wouldn't be there practically before anybody had time to ask. The point is there were a lot of knives out for this event, and not enough determination among Iowa Republicans to blackmail candidates into participating or else.

Rest in peace, Iowa straw poll. In the age of Facebook and micro-targeting, you were a dinosaur. You won't be missed.

Dear Twitter: There's No Need to Piss Anyone Off. Why Not Give Us Two Kinds of Timelines?

| Fri Jun. 12, 2015 12:57 PM EDT

Twitter is getting a new CEO, so it must be time for some bold new directions. But what should Twitter do? Here's a suggestion that I've read at least half a dozen times in the past couple of days:

Right now, Twitter displays tweets in strict reverse chronological order, but [Chris] Sacca encourages Twitter to relax this assumption. Instead, when a user logs in, the platform should show a selection of the most interesting and insightful tweets that would have appeared on the user's timeline since the last check-in.

The counterargument here is that a more accessible version of Twitter already exists. It's called Facebook, and it's wildly popular. The danger is that aping Facebook might alienate existing users more quickly than it attracts new ones.

I totally get this. I only follow 200 people on Twitter, and even at that it's like a firehose. All I can do is dip into it whenever it happens to cross my mind. This means that once an hour or so I see 10 or 20 random tweets, and then go back to whatever I was doing. I almost certainly miss lots of stuff I'd be interested in.

At the same time, chronological order is pretty handy if you're having a conversation, or some kind of news is breaking. I wouldn't want to give that up.

But why should I? Is there really any technological barrier to having both? I'd love to toggle back and forth. Maybe I'd take a look at the algorithmic feed once an hour to see if I've missed anything important, and then switch to the chronological feed if something was going on or if I just felt like randomly dipping in to the firehose. Sometimes random is good, after all. It keeps you out of a rut.

So....what's the deal here? Why can't we have both?

UPDATE: Atrios comments here. FWIW, I blame Apple.

TPP and Chemo Brain: My Story

| Fri Jun. 12, 2015 11:51 AM EDT

You may be wondering what I think of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. All the cool kids are talking about it these days. Unfortunately, I don't really have a position because I haven't studied it enough.

But perhaps that will change soon. You may not have noticed, but yesterday was a miniature milestone for me. My post about Paul Ryan and Obamacare was the first time in months that I wrote a fairly analytical piece based on actual research. It was hardly an academic white paper or anything, but it's the kind of post I haven't really trusted myself to write ever since chemo brain took over my life. However, this week seems to have been a bit of a turning point. I still expect ups and downs, but I feel a bit better and sharper and able to write more. My concentration is a little more acute and I have a bit more energy. Progress! (I hope.)

Anyway, that's a long way of saying that until now I just haven't been up to the task of seriously evaluating the TPP. So I'll say just this much: I am in favor of fast-track promotion. If it were up to me, I'd make it permanent, since it's obvious that no treaty can ever be negotiated without it. But am I in favor of actually passing TPP? I'm not sure.

Bottom line: yes to an up-or-down vote, because that's just common sense. But I'm unsure about how I'd like to see that vote go. Maybe I'll dig into it a bit over the weekend.

Are Police in Baltimore Sulking Over Indictments in Freddie Gray Case?

| Fri Jun. 12, 2015 11:16 AM EDT

Crime has increased significantly in Baltimore since the Freddie Gray funeral. Police say it's because of a spike in drug gang warfare. But it also appears to be a result of a deliberate pullback by police officers who are angry at seeing their own members indicted for Gray's death. Alex Tabarrok produces the chart on the right that illustrates the sudden drop in arrests right at the time of Gray's funeral and the indictments of the officers a few days later.

Is this drop legitimate, because it now takes more officers to handle a single incident? Or is it the drug war? Or is it a deliberate attempt by police to slow down, work to rule, and create a vivid demonstration of what happens when you mess with the thin blue line? I don't know, but when you look at the sharp line on that chart it's hard not to think the latter is part of it, just as we've seen before in Ferguson and New York City. And the more of these petulant outbreaks we see, the harder it gets to sympathize with the police. Much harder. Tabarrok also fears a possible long term problem:

With luck the crime wave will subside quickly but the longer-term fear is that the increase in crime could push arrest and clearance rates down so far that the increase in crime becomes self-fulfilling. The higher crime rate itself generates the lower punishment that supports the higher crime rate....Once the high-crime equilibrium is entered it may be very difficult to exit without a lot of resources that Baltimore doesn’t have. I have long argued that high-crime areas need more police but the tragedy is that they also need high-quality policing and that too is made more difficult to achieve by strained budgets and strained police.

Stay tuned. The police slowdown is a dangerous and juvenile tactic that could backfire very easily if it keeps up. That would be bad for Baltimore and bad for the Baltimore PD.

Surprise! Paul Ryan Is Misleading People Again About Obamacare.

| Thu Jun. 11, 2015 2:20 PM EDT

Rep. Paul Ryan really, really doesn't like Obamacare. And now he's got the facts and figures to prove what a disaster it is:

The whole point of Obamacare was to make health care more affordable. But premiums aren’t going down; they’re going up—way up. All over the country, insurers are proposing double-digit premium hikes. In Maryland, it’s close to 30 percent. Tennessee, 36 percent. South Dakota, 42 percent.

Tax season was like a bad dream before. Now it’s a total nightmare. People could never afford these plans on their own, so the law gave them subsidies. Well, now, two-thirds of the people who got them had to pay the IRS back—on average over $700. That’s not the kind of money most people have lying around.

And for all of this hassle, what are we getting for it? The argument was if people had insurance, they’d go to the doctor instead of the emergency room. But now even more people are using the emergency room.

My initial reaction to this was, "That's it? That's all you got?" I mean, even if it were all true, it's a pretty meager set of complaints to set aside a program that's provided decent, affordable health care to more than 10 million people, and has done so at a cost that's surprisingly reasonable and surprisingly lower than initially projected.

But you probably know what's coming next: It's not actually all true. I know Paul Ryan doesn't care, but just for the record, let's take his horror stories in order:

  1. This is based on a small number of insurance companies who have asked for large increases—something that happens every single year. They won't get them, and when 2016 dawns the average increase will almost certainly be in the range of 4-7 percent. Paul Ryan knows this perfectly well.
  2. This is based on a study from H&R Block that covers only its own customers. It appears to have been reported only in right-wing publications, most of which conveniently left out a few facts: (a) that $700 was a refund reduction, not money that had to be paid out of pocket, and (b) a quarter of recipients overpaid and got a $400 increase in their refund. Actual data based on all taxpayers isn't available yet, so there's no telling how close this is to the truth.
  3. I wouldn't be surprised if ER visits have gone up now that more people know that a visit won't bankrupt them. But by how much? We don't know yet, because as the chart on the right shows, the CDC only has data through 2013. Ryan's statement is based on a.....poll. That's right: a poll of ER doctors, three-quarters of whom think nothing has changed much and one-quarter of whom think business has increased significantly. That's frankly unlikely given that Obamacare has only increased the share of insured Americans by about 5 percent, but I guess it's possible, especially in specific geographic areas that are already underserved with primary care physicians and emergency services. However, it's all just guesswork at this point. We'll have to wait until next year to get actual figures from the CDC.

Bottom line: Ryan doesn't have much. And what he does have ranges from misleading to outright lies. I wish I could say I was surprised, but this is his usual MO. He's a little more slick about it than your average TV shouter, but the results are about the same.

Advertise on

"Lily Pads" Are the Latest Attempt to Make Old Iraq Strategy Look New

| Thu Jun. 11, 2015 12:32 PM EDT

Excellent news out of Iraq today:

The United States is considering establishing additional military bases in Iraq to combat the Islamic State, the top American general said on Thursday, a move that would require at least hundreds more American military advisers to help Iraqi forces retake cities lost to the militant Sunni extremist group.

....Speaking to reporters aboard his plane to Naples, Italy, General Dempsey described a possible future campaign that entailed the establishment of what he called “lily pads” — American military bases around the country from which trainers would work with Iraqi security forces and local tribesmen in the fight against the Islamic State.

"Lily pads." Isn't that soothing? So reminiscent of Monet. I'm sure this will be the very last troop increase and we'll have ISIS mopped up in no time.

Yeah, Scott Walker Is a Social Troglodyte. This Is News?

| Thu Jun. 11, 2015 11:03 AM EDT

Greg Sargent:

The other day, Scott Walker declared that if the Supreme Court rules for a Constitutional right to gay marriage, he’d support a Constitutional amendment allowing states to ban it. This stance would not have been surprising coming from Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal, or Ted Cruz. But coming from a self-styled reform governor who represents a new generation of leaders, it turned a lot of talking heads.

Here's my take on why heads should probably stop turning. First of all, constitutional amendments are the last refuge of scoundrels. It's the ultimate in mood affiliation campaigning, backed by the sure knowledge that it's going nowhere and requires no actual work from the candidate aside from occasional applause lines about supporting it.

Second, this is one of those areas where Republican candidates get something of a free pass. Campaign reporters all know that this is the kind of thing Republican candidates "have" to do, and they take it as sort of an elaborate lodge handshake, rather than a truly antediluvian position that Scott Walker actually cares about. So they shrug their shoulders, dispatch a few paragraphs about it, and move on. Just another day in GOP-land.

Now, if they could find anything about some Walker relative being gay, or perhaps Walker owning a speedboat, or possibly honing campaign strategy in secret with the help of polling numbers—well, that would be a story. And if he controlled a foundation that gave billions of dollars to worthy causes? Well hold the presses! That would be flood-the-zone news indeed.

NOTE TO CAMPAIGN REPORTERS: Scott Walker is actually a pretty full-blown evangelical tea party type. He sands the edges off occasionally, but not really that often. Nobody should have been truly surprised by this.

Iceland Is Too Tiny to Be a Poster Child For the Financial Crisis

| Thu Jun. 11, 2015 10:35 AM EDT

For what it's worth, there's been a bit of talk lately about how well Iceland is doing and how everyone should have followed their example in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis. Tyler Cowen has a fair-minded response here. In short: Some of what Iceland did was probably good, including devaluing and inflating their currency, and "ring fencing" their good banks from their bad. But most of their actions simply wouldn't work in most other countries. For starters, Iceland is the size of a small city like Bakersfield. Their actions caused no global repercussions. Second, Iceland mostly forced foreign depositors to take the hit from the crisis, something that wouldn't work in a country with lots of domestic deposits. Third, its stock market is minuscule. A 90 percent drop didn't have a big effect on the economy, but it would in a larger country. And finally, capital controls aren't a serious option for most large countries.

Overall, I agree with Cowen. Sure, maybe we should have treated our bankers more harshly, as Iceland did. But generally speaking, a tiny, isolated island can get away with a lot of things just because they're so tiny and isolated that big countries have better things to do than try to retaliate. Who really cares about Bakersfield in the Atlantic, after all? They just aren't much of an example of what could and couldn't have been done by larger, more systemically important countries in 2008-10.

Chuck Schumer Is Not Working the Refs Very Well

| Wed Jun. 10, 2015 4:47 PM EDT

This is kind of fascinating:

After almost six months in the minority, Charles E. Schumer says Senate Democrats aren’t afraid to be obstructionists, detailing a strategy of blocking appropriations bills and other Republican agenda items until they get what they want....Schumer (D-N.Y.) said they are joining with President Barack Obama behind a plan to try to force Republicans to the negotiating table over everything from domestic and defense spending to highway funding and international tax reform.

....The White House-backed plan to get Republicans to support more spending for domestic programs by blocking floor consideration of appropriations bills was developed in a series of closed-door meetings held over the course of several weeks.

....To maintain their leverage, Democrats have decided to block all spending bills starting with the defense appropriations measure headed to the floor next week. Durbin told reporters on Tuesday that there is also no ruling out a blockade of program authorizations, like upcoming votes on highway funding.

It's not the substance of Schumer's comments that's fascinating. By now, even the checkout clerks at the local Safeway know that Democrats plan to obstruct everything and anything. It's time for Republicans to get a taste of their own dog food.

No, what's fascinating is that Schumer is so open about it. As I recall, ever since 2009 Republicans have adamantly refused to ever publicly admit that this was their strategy.1 And there was sound thinking behind that. The rules of objective journalism prevent reporters from just flatly attributing something to a party unless they have a party leader on the record fessing up to it. So instead they have to tiptoe around the subject, or quote liberal activists accusing Republicans of obstructionism, or something like that. This leaves things a little fuzzy or "controversial" in a lot of people's minds, which means they never really accept the whole obstructionism story. Hey, maybe each individual filibuster really is a matter of principle.

But if a party leader just comes out and admits it, then that's that. No one will ever believe that Democrats are being principled because Schumer has already given the game away. Republicans were obstructionist, so we're going to be too.

That's a mistake. It may seem dumb to keep up a pretense that everyone knows is baloney, but there really is a reason for it. It won't fool all the people all the time, but who cares? It will handcuff the press, and thereby fool some of the people some of the time. That's worth a lot.

1This is why President Obama keeps talking about "working" with Republicans and "finding common ground" even though he knows perfectly well by now that this isn't going to happen. He knows the press has to report it regardless of whether they think he really believes it. This means people see it on the news, and some of them will continue to believe that this is what he's trying to do.2

2Which, admittedly, he is trying to do in a few special cases. But not many.