Kevin Drum

Why Is Obama Fighting to Keep DADT?

| Thu Oct. 21, 2010 7:05 PM EDT

After a district court judge ruled the military's Don't Ask Don't Tell policy unconstitutional last month, the Obama administration went to court to defend it. Why? Officially, they say it's because they feel obligated to defend all properly enacted federal laws as long as they're even arguably constitutional. If that tradition were to die away, and presidents simply declined to enforce laws they disagreed with, chaos would ensue.

But is that the real reason? Partly, yes. But I suspect it actually has more to do with past promises Obama has made to various DADT stakeholders, especially those in the military. Basically, the deal he made with Secretary Gates and the Joint Chiefs is this: I'll let you control the process, write the rules, and move things along at a deliberate pace. In return, you'll promise not to publicly oppose repeal. The tradeoff is simple: DADT repeal will take a little longer, but it will end up having the support of the military leadership and will therefore be less contentious and more permanent. This is a win for both Obama and the military.

For better or worse, deals like this are just the way politics works. If Obama chose to drop the court case and let DADT be abruptly repealed before the military had its ducks in a row, the Pentagon leadership would probably take it as a personal betrayal by a commander-in-chief who had given his word on how this would all play out. That's not something a president can afford.

This, by the way, is probably also the reason that the public option wasn't added to the healthcare reform bill during the reconciliation process. Aside from the fact that Nancy Pelosi might not have had the votes in the House for it, Harry Reid had (again, for better or worse) agreed to drop the public option months earlier in return for support of the main bill by centrist senators like Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman. Having done that, and having gotten their votes based on that agreement, he couldn't turn around a few months later and put it back into the bill just because he didn't need their votes any longer. No party leader can pull a stunt like that and expect to retain the confidence of his caucus.

So Obama is stuck. He gave his word to the military leadership, and he has to stick to it whether it's politically beneficial or not. What's more, I suspect that he really does think that everyone will be better off if repeal happens via the political process and with the full support of the military brass. His decision to appeal the district court decision was, as they say, heavily overdetermined. He had what he considered three good reasons, and any one of them would have been enough.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Climate Change Folly

| Thu Oct. 21, 2010 2:36 PM EDT

Politico reports that the EPA is about to propose modest greenhouse gas emission limits for heavy trucks and buses. Stephen Spruiell comments:

It’s going to be very, very difficult for Congress or industry to get the EPA to stop doing this. I’m fairly sure that the president can veto or ignore any law or resolution aimed at curtailing the EPA’s power on this front, and we know where the Court stands. My concern is that even if the GOP takes the White House in 2012, the EPA will have set so much of this process in motion that it will be difficult or possibly pointless to undo.

Obviously Spruiell is unhappy about this, though I'm pretty sure these regs are only superficially related to climate change anyway. Basically, they're just an extension of the usual CAFE mileage standards, but ever since the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA was required to regulate greenhouse gases CAFE has become a joint DOT/EPA effort. That's a pretty thin veneer, though. Improving mileage automatically reduces carbon emissions, so EPA's involvement really has very little practical effect.

Still, Spruiell is right in general: EPA is going to start regulating greenhouse gases, and they're going to do it because congressional conservatives unanimously rejected a climate bill that would have preempted EPA action and set up a better, more predictable1 framework for reducing carbon emissions. So now we're going to start getting piecemeal EPA regulations that even liberals don't really want. Conservative compromise could have produced a bill that, literally, would have been better than the status quo by everyone's yardstick. The business community would have liked it better than EPA regs, liberals would have liked it better, and conservatives would have liked it better. But compromise is death with the tea party breathing down your neck, so instead we end up with the worst of all possible worlds. Nice work.

1Yes, more predictable. Ironically, for all the yammering that conservatives are currently doing about businesses cowering in fear because of the jackboot of Barack Obama's regulatory dystopia, they rejected a bill that would have removed EPA uncertainty and replaced it with known, reasonably measurable rules.

The Foreclosure Mill Scandal

| Thu Oct. 21, 2010 1:14 PM EDT

A few weeks ago, after Ally Financial halted all its foreclosure proceedings because it had discovered "important but technical defects" in its paperwork, all hell broke loose. Home foreclosures, it turned out, were routinely based on documentation that was sloppy at best and fraudulent at worst, and the stories since then have just kept getting worse and worse.

But those stories all started with an expose of "foreclosure mills" that was written last August by our own Andy Kroll. His look at this shadowy industry begins with the case of Ariane and Tom Ice, who were investigating foreclosures by one of Florida's biggest mills, run by multimillionaire attorney David J. Stern:

A Florida notary's stamp is valid for four years, and its expiration date is visible on the imprint. But here in front of Ice were dozens of assignments notarized with stamps that hadn't even existed until months—in some cases nearly a year — after the foreclosures were filed. Which meant Stern's people were foreclosing first and doing their legal paperwork later. In effect, it also meant they were lying to the court — an act that could get a lawyer disbarred or even prosecuted. "There's no question that it's pervasive," says Tom Ice of the backdated documents — nearly two dozen of which were verified by Mother Jones. "We've found tons of them."

...The Ices had uncovered what looked like a pattern, so Tom booked a deposition with Stern's top deputy, Cheryl Samons, and confronted her with the backdated documents—including two from cases her firm had filed against Ice Legal's clients. Samons insisted that the filings were just a mistake, so the Ices moved to depose the notaries and other Stern employees. On the eve of those depositions, however, the firm dropped foreclosure proceedings against the Ices' clients.

It was a bittersweet victory: The Ices had won their cases, but Stern's practices remained under wraps. "This was done to cover up fraud," Tom fumes. "It was done precisely so they could try to hit a reset button and keep us from getting the real goods."

If you want to know where it all started, read the whole thing. When you're done, you'll no longer wonder how all of this could have happened. It was baked into the cake from the start.

Sarah's World

| Thu Oct. 21, 2010 12:46 PM EDT

I suppose I'm going to have to cave in and start blogging more about the midterm campaigns. If I don't, I'm just not going to have much of anything to write about. So here's the latest on "Hurricane Sarah," who apparently is creating quite a reputation for leaving chaos in her wake wherever she goes. For example:

Late last Friday afternoon, Palin’s political aide, Andy Davis, contacted officials with a competitive House campaign. The former governor would be available Tuesday, Davis said. As with Grassley, the reaction of the House campaign was to have Palin do a fundraiser. “What [the candidate] needs more than anything else is money,” said a GOP source familiar with the situation.

No-go, replied Davis, indicating that not only did she not want to raise money, but she also didn’t want to do a rally. The preference was for something “low-key,” so Davis suggested visiting a factory or going door to door. But in doing so, the candidate would have to limit the exposure of the event. They could bring only one “trusted local reporter” along, Davis said, according to a source familiar with the exchange.

Without much media attention, such a grass-roots event would have done next to nothing for the candidate, said the source close to the situation. But the campaign — a lean operation, like those of most House candidates — scrambled to put together another plan that would accommodate Palin. They sent it to Davis on Saturday.

The campaign didn’t get word until Monday morning, the day before the event was to take place, that Palin’s schedule had changed. She couldn’t come. Palin offered no reason for the no-show. After the experience, the campaign, filled with conservatives who thought well of Palin, began referring to her as “Princess Sarah,” said the source close to the situation.

That's from Jonathan Martin, who reports that Palin is "kind and courteous" when she actually shows up, but is demanding and erratic when it comes to deciding when, where, and how she'll show up in the first place. Martin's conclusion from all this is that it's a bad sign for a potential presidential run, since she's pissing off important people and demonstrating an inability to do logistics that no presidential campaign can afford. Maybe so. But Sarah always writes her own rules, and maybe the lesson of 2012 is going to be that logistics don't matter anymore. Maybe star power is everything.

Living Near Fumes

| Thu Oct. 21, 2010 12:04 PM EDT

How dangerous is it to live near areas of heavy traffic congestion? Janet Currie and Reed Walker of Columbia University have done a clever study to try to get a handle on this. They took a look at the incidence of low birthweight in babies born to mothers who lived near busy toll plazas before and after E-ZPass was introduced. Their idea was that E-ZPass reduced congestion, and therefore mothers living near toll plazas ought to benefit from it. And they did:

We find that reductions in traffic congestion generated by E-ZPass reduced the incidence of prematurity and low birth weight among mothers within 2km of a toll plaza by 6.7-9.1% and 8.5-11.3% respectively, with larger effects for African-Americans, smokers, and those very close to toll plazas....The results suggest that traffic congestion is a significant contributor to poor 
health in affected infants.

As you can see from the chart, E-ZPass reduced the incidence of low birthweights by half for mothers who lived within a couple hundred yards of a toll plaza. The effect decreased with distance, and at about a kilometer out the effect went away, presumably washed out by the ordinary background traffic congestion in the area. Results are similar for premature births. The public policy conclusions are a little unclear here, aside from the fact that E-ZPass is good and breathing auto fumes is bad, but it's useful to put a number to this stuff.

(Via Austin Frakt, by email.)

Afghanistan Update

| Thu Oct. 21, 2010 1:36 AM EDT

I don't know how seriously to take this, but I could use some good news and I guess I'll take it wherever I can find it. So here it is: Carlotta Gall reports in the New York Times that our offensive in Kandahar is going pretty well:

NATO commanders are careful not to overstate their successes — they acknowledge they made that mistake earlier in the year when they undertook a high-profile operation against Marja that did not produce lasting gains. But they say they are making “deliberate progress” and have seized the initiative from the insurgents.

Western and Afghan civilian officials are more outspoken, saying that heavy losses for the Taliban have sapped the momentum the insurgency had in the area. Unlike the Marja operation, they say, the one in Kandahar is a comprehensive civil and military effort that is changing the public mood as well as improving security.

....Apparently surprised by the intensity of the strikes on their supply routes, bomb factories and command compounds, many Taliban commanders pulled out to Pakistan, and most of the fighters have also slipped away or hidden their weapons, NATO commanders, local residents and the Taliban themselves say.

Now, "slipping away" is what insurgents always do when confronted with overwhelming force, and the question is whether we can stop them from slipping right back in. But like I said: for the moment, this sounds like good news. And who knows? Maybe Karzai can actually take advantage of it somehow. Here's hoping.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Quote of the Day: The Great Conservative ACA Sham

| Wed Oct. 20, 2010 3:30 PM EDT

From Boeing spokeswoman Karen Forte:

If you would've asked me if we would've made these changes without the enactment of the law, I would've said yes.

The subject is the healthcare reform law, and whether Boeing is making changes to its health plan because of the law's new regulations. The answer is no. Contrary to what they said in a letter to employees, they were planning to make them anyway.

Once again with feeling: healthcare reform is a wonderful excuse for companies to use when they decide to pare back benefits. It's also a wonderful talking point for conservatives to haul out whenever anything changes in the healthcare industry. There's just one thing: the claims are almost never true. Either the changes aren't actually happening in the first place or they're changes that would have happened anyway.

You should expect to continue hearing a tidal wave of claims that ACA is damaging access to healthcare in one way or another. About 1% of the time there will be something to it. The other 99% of the time it will quickly turn out to be hooey, but you won't find out about that on the front page. You'll find out about it, at best, on page A17. Caveat emptor.

Watching the Collapse

| Wed Oct. 20, 2010 2:11 PM EDT

Noam Scheiber writes today about two different views of the recession. The first, represented by Johns Hopkins economist Chris Carroll, relies on a model that says recovery depends on three things: wealth, unemployment expectations, and access to credit. As they recover, so will the economy: "The beauty of Carroll’s model is that it explains, with uncanny precision, consumer behavior going all the way back to the late ’60s. Those three simple variables — wealth, unemployment, and credit — tell you most of what you need to know about changes in the saving rate, and their predictive power has held up even through 2010."

The second, represented by Japanese economist Richard Koo, says the data of the past 40 years is useless because we're not going through a normal business cycle recession. We're in the middle of a balance sheet recession, the same kind that Japan went through in the 90s: "Whereas Carroll assumes people base their saving decisions on the same factors both before and after the crisis, Koo says the way they make decisions beforehand tells you little about their behavior afterward. The crash doesn’t just pummel the value of their assets (like housing). It creates a kind of psychological trauma that preoccupies them with paying down debt before they can think about borrowing again."

So who's right?

Early last year, economists at the San Francisco Fed observed that, if you extrapolate from the Japanese experience, the deleveraging process would take about a decade, during which time the saving rate would rise to about 10 percent, subtracting about half a percentage point from GDP growth each year (a huge amount when GDP is only growing by 2-3 percent). Slightly less alarmingly, the economist Allen Sinai has constructed an index of household financial conditions based on the measures of leverage we’re talking about. Sinai says the index recorded its all-time worst reading in early 2009 and estimates it’ll take another two or three years to get back to a level that’s healthy by historical standards.

We should be able to figure out whether we’re living in Chris Carroll’s world or Richard Koo’s over the next few six to nine months; the first big set of indicators — data on spending and saving from this year’s third quarter — should be out in the next few weeks. In either case, the economy probably needs more stimulus — 9.6 percent unemployment is much too high by any measure. But if it’s Koo who better approximates reality, the stimulus need could be acute at a time when GOP congressional gains have made it a political nonstarter.

OK, fine, I'm rooting for Carroll to be right. And I'll even make a point in his favor: the Japanese have always been famous savers, so it's quite possible that American savings rates aren't going to follow the same trajectory theirs did.

Still, that just means we might be slightly better off than Japan, not different. What's more, there's a point in Koo's favor that Scheiber doesn't mention: Japan at least had the advantage of working through its recession during a global economic expansion. We don't. In the end, Koo almost certainly has the better of this argument, but even if he's only partly right, we are, quite plainly, fiddling while Rome burns. We know what we need to do to save our economy from a decade of ruinous stagnation, and we're simply choosing not to do it. It's almost beyond belief.

Via Mike Konczal, who has more on this, including a few charts like the one above.

The Emperor's Clothes

| Wed Oct. 20, 2010 1:29 PM EDT

Jon Cohn asks a question about the provision in the healthcare reform bill that requires everyone to get health insurance:

The individual mandate continues to be health care reform's most controversial element, both in the courts and on the campaign trail. And many of the mandate's critics see this as a matter of principle. Requiring people to carry health insurance, they say, compromises individual freedom. I don't agree with that argument, but I understand it.

What I don't understand is why the requirement scares people without such strong libertarian instincts.

Answer: it doesn't.

This is what makes writing about policy so frustrating. The answer to Jon's question is pretty obvious. Conservatives have no problem in general with mandating behavior. Nor do they have any problem with mandating affirmative behavior. In the context of healthcare reform, many of them have supported the individual mandate in the past. And the smart ones, at least, understand perfectly well why a mandate is necessary in order to make the broader healthcare reform package work.

Their opposition isn't based on any special principle. It's based on the fact that (a) they don't like healthcare reform and (b) people don't really like being forced to do stuff. This makes the mandate a convenient point of attack. Most non-libertarians don't really care about the mandate, but once Glenn and Sean and Rush have them suitably foaming at the mouth about Barack Obama's relentless attack on all that we hold dear in this country, getting them upset about the mandate is a pretty easy upsell.

But you can't just say this, even though it's plainly true. You have to pretend to take conservative arguments about this seriously. You have to write detailed responses, complete with quotes from law professors and health experts. You have to pretend that this is an actual issue, not just a handy attack point. And so we all spend mountains of time in a sort of pundit fantasyland where we all agree to talk about stuff that we all know nobody truly cares about.

Anyway: Conservatives don't like Barack Obama. They don't like social welfare programs. They don't like healthcare reform. So they're looking for handy ways to attack it, and the mandate fits the bill. Liberals would do the same thing if the shoe were on the other foot. There's no need to complicate what's going on here.1

1I will, of course, continue to complicate this kind of thing regularly myself. It's what I do, after all. But I'm pretty sure that I lose a hundredth of an IQ point every time I do, which means my career as a writer is probably self limiting.

China's Dumb Embargo

| Wed Oct. 20, 2010 12:25 PM EDT

China's decision to respond to U.S. complaints about its trade practices by embargoing exports of rare earth minerals is, obviously, pretty stupid. Even if it succeeds in garnering some concessions, it's sent a crude, ear-splitting message to the rest of the world that China can't be trusted as a trade partner. If they keep it up, they'll end up going down the same self-destructive path that Russia has gone down with its endless gameplaying over natural gas deliveries to western Europe. Dan Drezner comments:

China's foreign economic policies with respect to raw materials suggests that Beijing doesn't think market forces matter all that much — what matters is physical control over the resources. This is a pretty stupid way of thinking about how raw materials markets function, and it's going to encourage some obvious policy responses by the rest of the world. Non-Chinese production of rare earths will explode over the next five years as countries throw subsidy after subsidy at spurring production. Given China's behavior, not even the most ardent free-market advocate will be in a position to argue otherwise.

More importantly, China's perception of how economic power is wielded in the global political economy is going to have ripple effects across other capitals. If enough governments start reacting to China's economic statecraft by taking similar steps to reduce interdependence with that country, then China will have created a self-fulfilling prophecy in which geopolitics trumps economics. Another possibility is that the rest of the would will operate as before in dealing with each other, but treat China differently, developing CoCom-like structures and fostering the creation of explicit economic blocs.

China has developed its economy pretty shrewdly over the past three decades, but over the past year or two they've become suddenly far clumsier and almost comically menacing. It's not down to any single thing — getting into tiffs with neighboring countries over barren rocks in the China Sea has been going on forever — but it becomes more apparent when you look at everything put together. Chinese leaders seem to be panicking: over demographics in the long run, managing an increasingly fractious middle class in the medium term, and over a global economic meltdown that finally seems to be seriously affecting them too in the short run. This is a potentially toxic combination, especially since, as Dan implies, all the evidence suggests that China has been gearing up for a sustained resource war with the West for a long time. The battle over rare earths is just a minor skirmish in all this, but it's a telling one precisely because it's so minor and so transparently dumb. It's not the kind of thing a smart, confident leadership pulls off.