Kevin Drum

The Elephant in the Room

| Mon May 3, 2010 2:45 PM EDT

Bloomberg reports on the course of financial reform:

A standoff over protecting consumers against shady lending practices is the biggest obstacle to Senate passage of the biggest redesign of U.S. financial regulations since the Great Depression.

Republicans have ended a logjam blocking Senate debate, and a federal fraud suit against Goldman Sachs Group Inc. gave new momentum for tougher Wall Street oversight. The most contentious issue remains a Democratic consumer-protection plan that Republicans say would give regulators unprecedented power over commercial lending and threaten economic growth.

It’s still “the elephant in the room” preventing a bipartisan agreement, said Tennessee Republican Senator Bob Corker. He has been involved in months of on-again, off-again negotiations with Democrats.

Huh. And here I thought resolution authority was the elephant in the room. Or was it derivatives reform that was the elephant in the room?

Or maybe it's really all three. There's always another elephant in the room, isn't there?

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Quote of the Day: Hiding the Housing Bubble

| Mon May 3, 2010 2:00 PM EDT

From Alan Greenspan, arguing in a 2004 Fed meeting that arguments about a possible housing bubble should be kept private:

We run the risk, by laying out the pros and cons of a particular argument, of inducing people to join in on the debate, and in this regard it is possible to lose control of a process that only we fully understand.

Italics mine. So how'd that work out for you, Alan?

UPDATE: I've been had. Greenspan wasn't talking about the housing bubble, he was talking about a discussion of the Fed's communication policy. Apologies.

The GOP and Immigration Reform

| Mon May 3, 2010 1:05 PM EDT

Ron Brownstein recaps how the explosive growth of nativism on the right has torpedoed any chance for immigration reform:

Just four years ago, 62 U.S. senators, including 23 Republicans, voted for a comprehensive immigration reform bill that included a pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens....In 2007, Senate negotiators tilted the bill further to the right on issues such as border enforcement and guest workers. And yet, amid a rebellion from grassroots conservatives against anything approaching "amnesty," just 12 Senate Republicans supported the measure as it fell victim to a filibuster.

....For months, Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., have been negotiating an enforcement-legalization plan that largely tracks the 2006 model with some innovative updates....Yet it has been stalled for weeks because Graham had demanded that a second Republican sign on as a co-sponsor before the legislation is released, and none stepped forward.

I remember being astonished by the collapse of the GOP on this subject in 2006. It wasn't an issue I followed closely, and I vaguely figured it seemed like a pretty good bet for passage. But then, seemingly out of nowhere (to a lamestream-media-reading liberal like me, anyway) opposition among the base just exploded. It was like watching the tea parties in action opposing healthcare reform during the 2009 summer recess. The Republican leadership caved in to rabid fearmongering, Hispanics defected en masse to the Democratic Party, and the entire topic has been radioactive ever since. If you want to know what's happened to the Republican Party over the last decade or so, this is it in a nutshell.

Bad News on Net Neutrality

| Mon May 3, 2010 12:30 PM EDT

Last month a federal court ruled that the FCC has no authority to enforce net neutrality rules on broadband internet providers. That was a setback, but hardly an insurmountable one: the FCC could overcome it simply by reclassifying broadband internet as a "telecom service," which would leave no doubt about its regulatory authority. Today that option became a lot less likely:

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski is expected to respond soon to the court ruling. Three sources at the agency said Genachowski has not made a final decision but has indicated in recent discussions that he is leaning toward keeping in place the current regulatory framework for broadband services but making some changes that would still bolster the FCC's chances of overseeing some broadband policies.

The sources said Genachowski thinks "reclassifying" broadband to allow for more regulation would be overly burdensome on carriers and would deter investment. But they said he also thinks the current regulatory framework would lead to constant legal challenges to the FCC's authority every time it attempted to pursue a broadband policy.

Well, reclassifying broadband would be more burdensome on carriers. That's the whole point. And investment in existing telecom companies doesn't seem to have suffered much from the FCC's heavy hand. After all, reclassified or not, the FCC is still allowed to show some discretion in which rules it applies and how it applies them.

Still, Genachowski might be right. Quite possibly, neither classification is really ideal given the existing state of the industry. That's why the best bet is, as it always has been, to have Congress step in. I don't know if they should change the classification rules set down in the 1996 Telecommunications Act, but they could certainly impose net neutrality rules across the board without touching them if they wanted to. They should get cracking on this.

Mickey and the Unions

| Mon May 3, 2010 12:05 PM EDT

Some guy named Robert "Mickey" Kaus has an op-ed in the LA Times today. Apparently he's "a blogger and the author of The End of Equality," as well as "a candidate for U.S. senator in the Democratic primary." How about that.

And guess what? To go along with the more decorous name, we also have a more decorous Mickey. The op-ed is basically his usual anti-union spiel, but pitched to persuade the median liberal LA Times reader. For example, check this out:

I don't mean we should embrace the right-wing view that unions are always wrong. Unions have done a lot for this country; they were especially important when giant employers tried to take advantage of a harsh economy in the last century, not only to keep down wages but to speed up assembly lines and, worse, force workers to risk their lives and health. If you think about it, unions have been the opposite of selfish. By modern standards they've been stunningly altruistic, lobbying for job safety rules and portable pensions and Social Security and all sorts of government services that, if they were really selfish, they might have opposed, because if the government will guarantee that your workplace is safe and your retirement is secure, well, then you don't need a union so much, do you?

Huh. It's been a while since I've heard Mickey make any concessions like that. What's more, when he's in this mode, I don't even find very much to disagree with in the rest of his piece. Union work rules did explode out of control in the 50s and 60s. Teachers shouldn't be effectively impossible to fire. Pensions for California state employees, especially public safety workers, are pretty rich. On the other hand, he also writes this:

When I was growing up in West L.A., practically everyone went to public schools, even in the affluent neighborhoods. Only the discipline cases, the juvenile delinquents, went off to a military academy. It was vaguely disreputable. Now any parent who can afford it pays a fortune for private school. The old liberal ideal of a common public education has been destroyed. And it's been destroyed in large part not by Republicans but by teachers unions.

You know, the first area of the country to ditch public schools en masse was....the South. And the area of the country with the weakest teachers unions is....the South. It wasn't teachers unions that drove parents out of public schools in LA. It was mostly a combination of court-ordered busing, massive growth in the number of low-income students, and plain old racism. If unions played a role, it was a pretty modest one.

Still, I agree that job protection regs got out of hand long ago. Ditto for work rules and public sector pensions. If you stick to that stuff but maintain strong and genuine support for the role of unions in bargaining for wages, benefits and basic working conditions in the private sector, then I'm pretty much on board. Unfortunately, the union bashers never stop there. No matter how reasonable they sometimes sound, what they really want is the end of unions. And I'm not on board with that.

Ethics Hearings for Ensign?

| Mon May 3, 2010 11:13 AM EDT

It's not clear to my why this has taken so long, but apparently Senate Democrats are at least considering holding ethics hearings on Sen. John Ensign (R–Nev.):

“If it is true that indeed he did make these payoffs and all that kind of stuff, then I would think the honorable thing would be to resign,” Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) said in an interview.

....Harkin’s public declaration — the first of its kind by a sitting senator — comes as Ensign’s Senate colleagues stand to make life more difficult for him. The bipartisan Senate Ethics Committee is not ruling out holding public hearings in the case, a move that some believe could help drive Ensign from office. A number of senators signaled to Politico they’d be supportive of seeing Ensign sit before a public forum to address the allegations, something that has not been done since the Keating Five scandal in 1991.

....Other Democratic senators are supportive of such a step. West Virginia Sen. John Rockefeller, who backed public hearings on Packwood, said he “would have to be consistent” with Ensign. “Situations change, but people don’t,” he said.

A third Democratic senator, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said he’d back public hearings on Ensign as well, “but I would hope he would do the right thing before then, which is to [resign].”

The craziness of the 90s gave both sides pause about the use of ethics charges as political weapons, and I get that nobody is thrilled about diving into that particular cesspool again. But come on. This isn't just an affair or an undeclared golf trip or something like that. There's considerable evidence to suggest that Ensign not only had an affair with an aide's wife and covered it up, but that he deliberately paid off the aide in a way calculated to evade IRS disclosure laws and then used his influence to try and get his aide outside employment. This is crazy bad stuff. If the ethics committee can't hold hearings on that, they might just as well disband themselves.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Hispanics and the GOP

| Sun May 2, 2010 9:34 PM EDT

Least surprising headline of the day:

Conservative Latinos Rethink Party Ties

"Many Hispanic-Americans," says this WSJ story about Arizona's new immigration legislation, "say they feel stung by a law they allege invites racial profiling, incites hatred and discriminates against all Latinos." Ya think?

Behind the Scenes at Copenhagen

| Sun May 2, 2010 6:58 PM EDT

In yet another case of politicians forgetting to turn off a microphone, it turns out that some of the private negotiations on the final day of the Copenhagen summit were accidentally recorded. All the big guns were there: Barack Obama, German chancellor Angela Merkel, French president Nicolas Sarkozy, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, and a Chinese negotiator, He Yafei. From a story in last week's issue of Der Spiegel, here's part of the conversation:

"The IPCC report comes to 2 degrees," said Merkel. "And it also says that we have to reduce (carbon dioxide emissions) by 50 percent."

She wanted to make it clear to Chinese delegation leader He Yafei and Indian Prime Minister Singh that they also had to do their part to achieve the 2-degree target. "Let us suppose there is a 100 percent reduction — (e.g.) no CO2 in the developed countries anymore," even then you would have to "reduce carbon emissions in the developing countries" in order to reach the 2-degree goal, the visibly irritated chancellor said. "That is the truth."

When the Indian leader absolutely refused to accept any concrete targets in the Copenhagen Protocol, Merkel dropped the diplomatic etiquette. "But then you do not want legally binding!" she yelled at the leader of a nation with over a billion people. Singh literally shouted back: "That's not fair!" His Chinese colleague, Deputy Foreign Minister He Yafei, added calmly and in polished English: "The current formulation would not be agreed."

And here, via Google Translate, is the rest of the conversation in this week's issue:

Then Sarkozy reacted sharply and accused China lack of will for climate protection. "In aller Freundschaft" and "with all due respect to China," the West has committed to cut greenhouse gases 80 percent. "And in return, China, which will soon be the largest economy in the world says to the world: engagement apply to you, but not for us." Then Sarkozy, added: "That is not acceptable!" This is about the essentials. "We must respond to this hypocrisy."....[He Yafei responded]: "I heard President Sarkozy to talk about hypocrisy. I avoid such concepts."

I'll bet American politicians wish they could just airily dismiss criticism by saying they "avoid such concepts."

In any case, this recording suggests that the initial reports were more or less right: the Chinese and the Indians were just flatly not willing to make any commitments. As a result, according to the story from last week, Merkel has pretty much given up on climate change:

The collapse of the Copenhagen summit has permanently shaken up Merkel. She [...] left Denmark feeling frustrated. She had rarely experienced such a humiliation. She won't let that happen to her again, she has told herself ever since. Irregularities committed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) also annoyed the chancellor. Although these errors have not altered the urgent and key messages, she has angrily said among her close advisers that the IPCC's poor communication has made it more difficult to promote climate protection.

Yeesh. Things are really grim on the climate front all over. (Via David Roberts on Twitter.)

CBO vs. CMS on Healthcare Reform

| Sun May 2, 2010 5:13 PM EDT

Last week the CMS actuary released a report about the cost of healthcare reform that seemed to come to more negative conclusions than the CBO. I didn't post about it because, to a first estimate, it seemed pretty similar to the CMS actuary's report from last November. We already went through a big left-right brouhaha about what it meant back then, and I didn't really feel like going through it again.

But Jim Lynch, a professional actuary who I've corresponded with before, was annoyed that no one was really trying to compare the CMS and CBO reports on an apples-to-apples basis, so he went ahead and did it himself. Result: contrary to what you may heard, it turns out they both pretty much agree with each other. He's got the overall results in both table and chart form, so naturally I'm reproducing the prettier chart here. You can click the link for the whole story, but here's the meat of it:

The table tells you that the two arbiters were within 1% on the cost of new coverage — stuff like Medicaid and CHIP expansion. CBO saw things slightly rosier than the Office of the Actuary. It also tells you that the actuarial office projected more cost savings and a lower net cost than the CBO did,

....If anything, the Office of the Actuary seems to like the bill more than CBO. This is particularly true if you look at coverage cost by year, as the following chart does....The table shows that the costs don’t really start building until 2014. For the first two years, the actuaries project higher costs, as the red line is above the blue one. But starting in 2016, the actuaries project lower costs. That’s why the red line falls below the blue one.

To summarize: The actuaries project lower coverage costs overall, and they project costs to decelerate faster than CBO does.

It's worth noting that a big part of the supposed disagreement between CBO and CMS involves the question of whether the cost saving measures in the healthcare bill will work. But that's an issue where neither agency really has any more expertise than anyone else. It's mostly a question of pure political will, and on that score your guess is as good as mine — or theirs.

In any case, the bottom line is that there's very little disagreement here. Roughly speaking, we'll see a trillion dollars in increased costs and half a trillion dollars in cost savings. The remaining cost is paid for via a variety of taxes and fees. Pretty simple.

Working in the Cloud

| Sun May 2, 2010 12:54 PM EDT

So I've been reading more about cloud computing and just generally thinking about the whole thing, and for some reason I've gotten sort of intrigued with it. Here in the U.S., our web infrastructure sucks so badly that I don't think it's really very feasible as a full-time lifestyle yet, but it's getting there. Eventually we'll have routine access to, say, 10mbs wireless everywhere and 100 mbs in most places, and then it becomes a real option.

As part of all this, I've been trying to figure out if I can do away with all desktop applications except my browser. A few years ago this wouldn't have been anywhere near feasible, but I'm not much of a power use these days and my needs are simpler. (Plus browser-based apps have gotten a lot better.) So I started simplifying, and to my surprise it turned out to be easier than I thought it would be. My email is already browser-based since I use Opera, and of course my RSS feeds are too (Google Reader). Google Maps replaced my mapping software a long time ago. I turned off TweetDeck and loaded HootSuite instead. I got rid of Word and Notepad and set up Google Docs. I started using Pixlr as a replacement for Photoshop. I'm still saving documents locally, but changing that would obviously be an easy task.

So how's it working out? I've only been doing this for a few days, but it's (a) suprising how easy it was and (b) frustrating that the web apps all have some drawbacks. HootSuite basically works fine, but its use of real estate is atrocious and it doesn't have an option to pop up a window when new tweets come in. But maybe that's a crutch I don't need anymore. We'll see. Google Docs is Google Docs, and basically works fine — though it lacks features here and there that you get in Office. And if all I want to do is to make a quick note, it takes a lot more clicks and a lot more time than just powering up Notepad for a few seconds. Pixlr is an amazing program, built to look and act like Photoshop and with a pretty stunning array of features. I'm sure it lacks some of Photoshop's advanced features, but so far I haven't found a single thing I need that it doesn't do — and one or two minor things that it does better. Unfortunately, it's Flash-based. As a demonstration of what you can accomplish with Flash it's pretty amazing, but hey — it's still Flash. So it crashes my browser whenever I save an image. And it has no access to the clipboard. Until I figure out what's going on, I'll have to stick with Photoshop. [Update below.]

So what does that leave? Video editing, which I haven't checked into yet. And general media manipulation (iTunes/Media Player), which I also haven't checked into yet. But I assume browser-based versions of both are available, especially for the simpleminded kind of work I occasionally do.

All in all, I was surprised at just how competent all this stuff was. Pixlr, in particular, is pretty stunning if I could just figure out how to keep it from crashing. But it looks to me like anyone who's not a power geek — and maybe even the geeks — could use free online apps for a surprising amount of their daily routine. At this point, then, I guess the next step is to check into online storage. I've had an ADrive account forever, but I really only use it when I need to send friends files that are too large to email. Ideally, especially while I'm still experimenting, I suppose I'd like some way to replicate my directory structure somewhere and save files simultaneously both locally and remotely when I work on them. I'm not sure yet if anyone provides a simple way of doing that.

Right now I'm just playing around, trying to see how well life with just a browser works. I'm so deskbound that this doesn't matter much in a practical sense, but if I were a mobile user it would. So how's all this stuff working out for you road warriors out there?

UPDATE: Hey, pretty good tech support from the Pixlr creator! Turns out I needed to install a new version of the Flash viewer, and after that everything worked fine. So I'll be road testing it for the next week or so after all.