Kevin Drum

Where Are Obama's Nominees?

| Mon Mar. 15, 2010 12:21 PM EDT

James Oliphant writes in the LA Times about President Obama's difficulty getting judges confirmed. Republican obstructionism is part of the problem, but so is Obama himself:

During President Obama's first year, judicial nominations trickled out of the White House at a far slower pace than in President George W. Bush's first year. Bush announced 11 nominees for federal appeals courts in the fourth month of his tenure. Obama didn't nominate his 11th appeals court judge until November, his 10th month in office.

Moreover, Obama nominees are being confirmed at a much slower rate than those of his predecessor, largely because of the gridlocked Senate.

....Other matters have clearly taken priority in the Obama White House, including healthcare and economy. Obama's top lawyer, Gregory Craig, who departed in November, was consumed with issues such as the Guantanamo Bay prison. The judicial nomination machinery has cranked up under his successor, Robert Bauer, and now the administration is trying to make up for lost time. The White House named two new appeals court judges just last week.

This is something I just don't get. Sure, the White House has been busy with stimulus and healthcare and climate change and financial reform. But judges get vetted by a whole different group of people. Did Craig, all by himself, really hold up things that much? Aren't there other staffers and DOJ folks who can keep this sort of thing rolling with only occasional input from the top folks?

What's more, it's not just judges. As Jonathan Bernstein pointed out a week ago, "The problem of unfilled executive branch positions is to some extent the Senate's fault, but to a much larger extent Barack Obama's fault. It's hard to blame the Senate for failing to confirm people who haven't been nominated....In my view, this has been Obama's biggest failure as a president to date."

So here's an assignment desk for our nation's press corps: stop writing profiles of Rahm Emanuel and instead give us a really good look inside the White House appointment process. Is Obama himself the problem? His staff? Is it really getting hard to find good people willing to serve, as goo-goo types have been warning about forever? What's really going on there?

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Healthcare, Typos, and You

| Mon Mar. 15, 2010 11:35 AM EDT

Apparently, when you're drafting a bill nowadays, you have to explicitly say that no federal funds may be used for abortion services in every single provision of the bill. Otherwise, who know? Maybe this provision or that provision is exempt! It's not, actually — HHS money is all subject to the Hyde amendment regardless — but that's not stopping the anti-abortion folks from leaping on a typo in the Senate healthcare bill as if it's evidence of a secret conspiracy. Nick Baumann has the story.

A Story About My Congressman

| Sun Mar. 14, 2010 8:33 PM EDT

Mike Konczal tells us about his appearance on NPR a couple of days ago:

There’s a really awesome moment in it. They asked me about the House’s CFPA exemptions that have been carved out by special interests, and I mention how auto loans have been exempted. I told them that it was put in by a congressman from California who owned a bunch of car dealers, but I wasn’t sure of the congressman’s name.

So they had two additional interviews lined up after me, Rep Brad Miller (D – NC) and Rep John Campbell (R – CA), congressmen they discuss issues with for Planet Money, and right before they start the interview with Campbell their producer figure out it was Campbell who put in the auto loan exemption! So if you listen you can hear him defend it after being called out as the pointman of the exemption I advised Planet Money to watch for. Heh.

Here’s my real problem, and it’s a serious one. Campbell asked for an auto loan exemption to be put into the CFPA, moving it into the direction of a crony corporate welfare bill....Follow this pattern, but in slow motion. It shows up in health care, the stimulus and everywhere else in 2009, but with financial reform it is very easy to see. Democrats wants a bipartisan financial reform bill. So they take a good CFPA and water it down and give all kinds of crony exemptions so Republicans like John Campbell will support it. Then Republicans vote against it anyway.

....As a machine, it’s amazing.

Yes indeed. And that's my congressman he's talking about. I'm so proud.

The problem, though, is: what's the alternative to dealing with guys like Campbell? Mike thinks Sen. Chris Dodd did the right thing when he decided to give up on negotiating with Republicans over financial reform and go it alone, and I agree — even though Dodd on his own still isn't exactly a Wall Street banker's worst nightmare. But what happens then? Answer: Dodd finishes up his bill, it gets reported out of committee, and 41 Republicans vote against it. Financial reform fails.

In the end, I think this is worth it. It's better to make Republicans own their vote against regulating the industry than it is to pass the only kind of bill they'd support: one that's so watered down as to be useless at best and actively harmful at worst.

But we're still left with the question of how to keep 2008 from happening again. In the same way that they've convinced themselves that global warming is just a gigantic hoax, Republicans have also convinced themselves that 2008 wasn't really as bad as everyone made it out to be — and in any case, it was the CRA that sparked it and federal bailout action that poured fuel on the fire. If we'd just left everything alone, the free market would have sorted things out. This is fantasy thinking, but that's where we're at. What's the solution? I'm stumped.

The End of Tap Dancing?

| Sun Mar. 14, 2010 1:33 PM EDT

Doyle McManus writes today about a town hall meeting between Blue Dog Democratic congressman Jason Altmire and a group of tea partiers. The Senate healthcare bill, he told them, doesn't have a public option and doesn't raise income taxes:

But the conversation ran aground when he asked a fundamental question: Shouldn't the government help low-income people afford basic health insurance?

"No!" most of the visitors shouted.

"Some of you are never going to agree with me," Altmire said.

It's true! Some people are just never going to agree.

And that's OK, what with this being a democracy and all. But I'll say this: at least the tea partiers are being honest. Most elite conservatives — the ones who write for magazines or get elected to national office — like to tap dance around the question of the poor, pretending that things like tort reform or "more skin in the game" will make everything OK. They know perfectly well it isn't true, but it's politically incorrect to say that they don't consider this a big deal, so they don't.

But not the tea partiers. It's not that they don't understand that the poor often have to go without health insurance, it's that they just don't care. Not if fixing it requires the use of tax dollars, anyway. In a way, this is bracing. It's also, I fear, an attitude that going to become more openly acceptable among mainstream conservatives in the near future as they discover that a big part of their base applauds the idea of dispensing with the tap dancing. Fasten your seat belts.

Healthcare Countdown Begins

| Fri Mar. 12, 2010 8:03 PM EST

Things are looking up on the healthcare front:

House leaders laid plans to hold what Speaker Nancy Pelosi called a "historic" vote on health care as soon as late next week, aides said Friday, while President Obama pushed back an upcoming trip to Asia by three days to remain in Washington.

....Under the latest plan, which was still being developed this week, the House would accept the version of health-care reform that the Senate approved on Christmas Eve, with the promise that Congress would adopt adjustments to the new law soon after. The timetable under consideration would put the bill up for a final vote in the House on March 19 or 20.

That's only a week away. And it gets even better!

Democratic Congressional leaders struck a tentative agreement on Thursday that breathes new life into President Obama’s proposed overhaul of federal student loan programs. The deal would bundle the bill into an expedited budget package along with the Democratic health care legislation, which would allow for both measures to be passed by the Senate on a simple majority vote.

....The bill would end government payments to private, commercial student lenders, leaving the government to lend directly to students. It would also redirect billions of dollars to expand the Pell grant program for low-income students, and to pay for other education initiatives.

Now we're talking. A vote by next weekend, and while we're at it we'll also end the insane practice of paying banks billions of taxpayer dollars to make federally guaranteed loans that the federal government can make directly for a lot less. That's what we elected these guys for.

Earmark Peacockery

| Fri Mar. 12, 2010 7:41 PM EST

Bruce Bartlett isn't impressed with the budgetary implications of eliminating earmarks:

It's obviously true that earmarks are not a significant cause of rising federal spending; eliminating all of them will save at most one percent of the budget.

Bruce, you gotta read your own blog! Here's Stan Collender a couple of hours earlier: 

As Andrew notes and I've remarked on previously, eliminating earmarks doesn't actually reduce spending; all it does is change who makes the decision from Congress to an executive branch agency. Unless the appropriation is reduced at the same time the earmark is eliminated, which no one is suggesting, the amount that will be spent will remain the same.

This is, for some reason, one of those never-remarked aspects of earmarks. Everyone assumes that they raise spending, but they don't. They just redirect it. I don't understand why earmark opponents endlessly get away with pretending otherwise.

In fairness, if earmarks were eliminated and the related budget authority were eliminated too, it would cut spending a bit. But that's not what anyone is proposing. Until they do, the posturing is even worse than Bruce suggests.

(There are, of course, other reasons to eliminate earmarks, as both Bruce and Stan acknowledge. The primary one is a belief that federal funds ought to be disbursed by federal agencies using neutral guidelines, not handed out as rewards/payoffs by members of Congress to favored interests in their districts. My tentative view is here: cap earmarks, don't eliminate them. But I wouldn't mind eliminating them either.)

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Friday Cat Blogging - 12 March 2010

| Fri Mar. 12, 2010 4:03 PM EST

This morning everyone was pondering the great outdoors. On the left, Inkblot and his shadow peer out the sliding glass door wondering if it's safe to go outside. The hummingbirds are thick as flies these days, and they might attack! On the right, Domino peers out the bedroom window and watches the people go by. Her conclusion: it's time for a nap.

Don't forget: daylight saving time starts Saturday night/Sunday morning. One more hour of sunlight in the evening! Hooray! And don't try to use "I forgot to set my clock" as an excuse for missing church, either. Nobody's buying it anymore.

Earning Money the Old Fashioned Way: Stealing It

| Fri Mar. 12, 2010 3:44 PM EST

So why did Lehman Brothers collapse? A 2,000-page bank examiner's report released yesterday places a lot of the blame on plain old fraud:

The examiner, Anton R. Valukas, also for the first time, laid out what the report characterized as “materially misleading” accounting gimmicks that Lehman used to mask the perilous state of its finances....According to the report, Lehman used what amounted to financial engineering to temporarily shuffle $50 billion of troubled assets off its books in the months before its collapse in September 2008 to conceal its dependence on leverage, or borrowed money.

....A large portion of the nine-volume report centers on the accounting maneuvers, known inside Lehman as “Repo 105.” First used in 2001, long before the crisis struck, Repo 105 involved transactions that secretly moved billions of dollars off Lehman’s books at a time when the bank was under heavy scrutiny.

According to Mr. Valukas, Mr. Fuld ordered Lehman executives to reduce the bank’s debt levels, and senior officials sought repeatedly to apply Repo 105 to dress up the firm’s results. Other executives named in the examiner’s report in connection with the use of the accounting tool include three former Lehman chief financial officers: Christopher O’Meara, Erin Callan and Ian Lowitt.

More here from the Wall Street Journal and here from Reuters' Antony Currie. And just for some additional background fun, here's a short document on the general subject of "control fraud" written by Bill Black. He wrote the book on the subject (literally: you can buy it here) and handed out this short summary at a conference I attended last year. Enjoy.

Chart of the Day: Getting Rich in the Stock Market

| Fri Mar. 12, 2010 3:07 PM EST

CJR's Ryan Chittum points us to the chart below, which compares S&P 500 stock market returns over the past 50 years (blue bars) to those same returns after accounting for trading and management costs, dividend and capital-gains taxes, and inflation (red bars). It's part of a Bloomberg piece by David Wilson summarizing a report prepared by David Bianco, chief U.S. equity strategist at Bank of America Merrill Lynch. Once you take into account all the adjustments, the annual average return of the S&P 500 goes from 9.5% to 1.3%. Chittum comments:

Just remember when those financial advisers tell you to expect 8 percent to 10 percent annual returns that in real money over the last 50 years, you took home a measly 1.3 percent. As I wrote in January: "You have to wonder if there’s a connection to be drawn between the low savings rate and the idea that took hold in the last three decades, which still hasn’t been extinguished even after this miserable decade, that investing in stocks means you’ll get big returns on your money."

Of course, your basic money market account is returning about 0% these days, give or take a few mils, so it's not as if we little guys have a ton of other great investment opportunities. Luckily, the Wall Street tycoon set is still doing well. It's not all bad news out there, my friends.

The Future of Healthcare Reform

| Fri Mar. 12, 2010 2:29 PM EST

Charles Pierce has some questions for me about healthcare reform:

I am not unsympathetic to the arguments made by Kevin Drum or Matt Y. here, even though I think the opprobrium heaped on Jane Hamsher is wildly disproportionate.....Ask me what I'd do, and I'd probably vote for the ongoing POS that is the Senate bill. However, I would like both Kevin and Matt [] to explain the "stepping-stone" argument to me. Why, precisely, should I believe that, that once we pass the POS, any opportunity to improve it, largely by the process of political evolution, will remain?

....After all, it's unlikely that the new system proposed in the ongoing POS will become so wildly popular, and so seriously armored by public approval, that there will be a substantial political risk to having opposed it in theory, or to opposing it in practice. Not by next autumn, anyway....Why shouldn't the Republicans run on a promise to repeal the new system, and then follow through by doing exactly that?....Can somebody explain to me how the surviving Democratic politicians, even if they hang onto their majorities, will muster the will and skill to move toward "further reform in the future," as Mr. Drum puts it, given what we've seen of their performance with overwhelming congressional majorities?....Again, everyone, please show your work.

Obviously there's no kind of geometric proof for this, but let's take a crack at it anyway. There are two separate questions here.

First, if healthcare reform passes, what's to stop Republicans from repealing it if they get control of Congress in November? That one is easy: Barack Obama's veto pen. As it happens, I also think that Republicans will find that it's far more difficult to repeal an actual existing bill with a bunch of popular provisions (pre-existing conditions, subsidies for the poor, etc.) than it is to make cheap, stemwinding speeches about onrushing socialism to tea party crowds, but that's really secondary. They couldn't muster 60 votes for repeal, and if they did, they certainly couldn't muster 67 votes in the Senate and 290 votes in the House to overturn a veto.

Second, what's the argument for longer term progress? This isn't quite as black and white, but the historical evidence is pretty clear. Look at virtually every other advanced economy in the world. They started off with small programs and grew them over time. Germany spent over a century getting to universal healthcare. France started after World War II and didn't finish until 1999. In Canada, national healthcare started in Saskatchewan in 1946, spread to the other provinces over the next couple of decades, and became Medicare in 1984. The trend here is pretty obvious: once people get a taste of universal healthcare, they like what they see and they don't stop until the job is finished.

But the United States is different! Fine. Take a look at social programs in the United States. Social Security provided meager benefits and only modest coverage when it was first passed. Over the course of the next 40 years it became a full-fleged universal pension plan. Medicare passed in 1965 with a limited payment structure and has been improved ever since. Prescription drug coverage wasn't added until 2003. You see a similar direction for things like federal home loan programs, civil rights measures, S-CHIP, gay rights, and practically every other social program ever passed. Progress is uneven, and sometimes even goes backward, but the general trend is pretty clear.

Once healthcare reform is passed, everyone will breathe a sigh of relief and move on to other issues. Republicans will huff and puff, but they don't have the votes to overturn it and they know it. (Why do you think they're resisting it so rabidly? They know perfectly well that entitlement programs practically never go away once they've been passed.) Then, down the road, future congresses will start to make changes. Maybe a Medicare buy-in. Maybe bigger subsidies. Maybe a public option outside of Medicare. It won't happen overnight, but within 20 or 30 years the current bill will almost certainly turn into de facto national healthcare. It's likely to be based on private health insurers in some way, but that's how they do it in Germany and the Netherlands too, and it works fine. Eventually it'll work fine here too.