New START Primed For Passage

From National Review editor Rich Lowry:

Republican opposition to New START is collapsing. One Senate source just told me the vote for ratification could go as high as 75. Another said, “I don’t know if it will get that high, but it’s starting to tick up there.” As the sense builds that ratification is inevitable, Republicans are lining up to get on the “right side.”

In other words, a big chunk of the Republican caucus has known all along that New START was a good treaty but was holding out for strictly partisan purposes. If it had been close, and giving Obama a black eye had been a serious possibility, they would have voted no. But with that option gone, they're willing to vote yes. It's a real profile in cowardice.

This says nothing good about the modern Republican Party. Everyone expects partisan gameplaying in Congress, but over a nuclear arms treaty with Russia? Seriously?

Winners and Losers

Luke Johnson runs down the results of House districts gained and lost thanks to the latest census results:

Texas, where Republicans have a supermajority in the House and Senate and hold the governor’s mansion, gained four new House seats....Florida gained two seats....Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina, Utah and Washington all gained one seat.

New York and Ohio lost two seats each, representing the longstanding decline in growth in the Rust Belt. Iowa, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Jersey and Pennsylvania all lost one seat.

Michigan lost a seat too, according to Aaron Blake. Everyone else held their ground.

Stopping the Next Meltdown

Tyler Cowen is skeptical that vigilant bondholders can motivate banks to decrease their risk exposure. He's got a bunch of reasons that I agree with, including regulatory capture, the opacity of bank trading books, and the impossibility of making a no-bailout policy credible. But there's also this:

The net risk of a bank position is not determined solely by the bank's portfolio. Say a bank lends money to homeowners and then those homeowners increase their leverage. The bank is now in a riskier position, and de facto a more leveraged position, althoug it's measured leverage hasn't gone up a whit.

I think this gets to the heart of things. It's not practical to micromanage risk-taking in the financial sector, nor is it feasible to eliminate bubbles and bank crises entirely. But I really do believe that we could very substantially reduce the risk of bank crises without affecting the efficiency of legitimate banking operations. The way to do it is with very simple, very blunt leverage restrictions that apply to all financial actors over a certain size: banks, insurance companies, hedge funds, private equity, you name it. If you have assets over, say, $10 billion, then the rules kick in. Strict leverage limits (say, 10:1 or maybe 15:1) based on conservative notions of both assets and capital would be a pretty effective bulwark against excessive risk taking but wouldn't seriously interfere with the basic asset allocation function of the financial industry.

It wouldn't be perfect. Nothing is perfect. But if we got obsessed with leverage the same way that, say, the Fed is obsessed with inflation, we could all sleep a lot easier at night. Dodd-Frank and Basel III have gotten us part of the way there, but almost certainly not far enough. Maybe after the next global meltdown we'll finally do the job right.

Lame Duck Not So Lame After All

From The Hill:

Republican senators say privately they expect the Senate to ratify the New START treaty this week, which would hand President Obama his third major victory of the lame-duck session.

GOP senators — including those who plan to vote for the treaty and those who say they’ll oppose it — have told The Hill they expect it to pass easily. At least eight Republican senators have announced they either will vote to ratify the treaty or are leaning strongly toward doing so.

Hmmm. So Obama will have a tax deal, repeal of DADT, a food safety bill, approval of New START, and (maybe) the 9/11 first responders bill to his credit during the lame duck session. On the downside, the DREAM Act and the omnibus budget bill failed.

If this is how things turn out, that's a helluva lame duck session. Maybe we should have more of them?

Counterterrorism and You

Dana Priest and William Arkin have a big piece in the Washington Post today about the vast expansion of local counterterrorism efforts in the United States since 9/11. An excerpt:

At the same time that the FBI is expanding its West Virginia database, it is building a vast repository controlled by people who work in a top-secret vault on the fourth floor of the J. Edgar Hoover FBI Building in Washington. This one stores the profiles of tens of thousands of Americans and legal residents who are not accused of any crime. What they have done is appear to be acting suspiciously to a town sheriff, a traffic cop or even a neighbor.

....[For example, there's the question of whether a] man snapping a picture of a ferry in the Newport Beach harbor in Southern California simply liked the way it looked or was plotting to blow it up.

Suspicious Activity Report N03821 says a local law enforcement officer observed "a suspicious subject . . . taking photographs of the Orange County Sheriff Department Fire Boat and the Balboa Ferry with a cellular phone camera." The confidential report, marked "For Official Use Only," noted that the subject next made a phone call, walked to his car and returned five minutes later to take more pictures. He was then met by another person, both of whom stood and "observed the boat traffic in the harbor." Next another adult with two small children joined them, and then they all boarded the ferry and crossed the channel.

All of this information was forwarded to the Los Angeles fusion center...[where] it would immediately be entered into the Guardian database, at which point one of three things could happen:

The FBI could collect more information, find no connection to terrorism and mark the file closed, though leaving it in the database.

It could find a possible connection and turn it into a full-fledged case.

Or, as most often happens, it could make no specific determination, which would mean that Suspicious Activity Report N03821 would sit in limbo for as long as five years, during which time many other pieces of information about the man photographing a boat on a Sunday morning could be added to his file: employment, financial and residential histories; multiple phone numbers; audio files; video from the dashboard-mounted camera in the police cruiser at the harbor where he took pictures; and anything else in government or commercial databases "that adds value," as the FBI agent in charge of the database described it.

Definitely read the whole thing. But here's one thing to keep in mind as you read: in the great debate over body scanners at airports recently, one of the most popular lines of criticism was that counterterrorism efforts should rely more on intelligence and police work and less on physical security. And maybe so. But at ground level, this is what intelligence and police work looks like: having your name stored in a central FBI database for years because you took a picture of the world's smallest ferry boat.

This isn't necessarily wrong. Maybe it's the price of living in the modern world. But it is what it is, and it's what we get if we insist in ramping up intelligence and police work to keep tabs on potential terrorists. We also, apparently, get legions of newly minted terrorism trainers like Ramon Montijo: "What he tells them is always the same, he said: Most Muslims in the United States want to impose sharia law here." Lovely.

So: more porno scanners or more local intelligence? Or both? Or neither? There don't seem to be a lot of easy choices here.

Simple Answers to Simple Questions

Doug Mataconis has a question about Sarah Palin's continuing mockery of Michelle Obama's public education campaign aimed at improving child nutrition:

Is Palin actually saying she’s against child nutrition and against providing information to parents? Or is she just taking cheap shots at Michelle Obama?

The latter. Thanks for asking.

Deadweight Losses Among the Super Rich

After reading a new paper on income inequality, Tyler Cowen says this is a "scream it from the rooftops" result:

....we find that a one percent increase in the net of tax share is associated with an 0.7 percent reduction in incomes earned by people in the top 0.1 percent of the income distribution, which would imply that if we were to raise top marginal tax rates further on these taxpayers, the increase in deadweight loss would be substantially larger than the increase in revenue raised [emphasis added]. However, we find essentially no evidence at all of any responsiveness of people below the top 0.1 percent...

The paper is here. I read it over the weekend, and since a lot of people probably saw Tyler's excerpt I thought it would be worthwhile to point out a couple of things:

  • The authors find a long-term elasticity of income with respect to tax rates of 0.72 for earners in the top 0.1%, "suggesting a high degree of responsiveness to incentives for income-earning efforts [] among those with the highest incomes." In other words, when tax rates go up, super high earners earn less and deadweight losses are large. However, elasticity for earners in the top 1% is -0.34. In other words, merely moving down from the top 0.1% to the top 1% apparently changes your responsiveness to tax incentives from +0.72 to -0.34. That's an extremely dramatic result and should make us very suspicious.
     
  • And sure enough, using a slightly different model that incorporates a six-piece spline, elasticity among super high earners changes to -0.27. The authors are unsure of which model is better, and acknowledge that the emergence of such a large change from a fairly small modification to their model "reduces our confidence in the conclusion that the decisions of high-income people about how much income to earn and report are highly responsive to tax rates."

I'd say a bit more. Even if you assume that the original number is correct, you have to ask yourself what it means. For someone earning a million dollars a year or more, why would their income go down because their tax rates went up? Because they decided to work less? That's highly unlikely, and the kind of people who earn money at this level — primarily CEOs, executives, and financial industry professionals — aren't paid based on how many hours they work anyway. Would Wall Street traders make fewer trades? That also seems unlikely, but even if they did it just means that someone else would do it. (Though who knows? Less trading might actually be a net benefit to society, not a deadweight loss.) Would they quit their jobs? Again unlikely, but in any case this would have no effect on society at large. Would they get lazy and drive their companies into a ditch, therefore lowering their bonuses? That hardly seems likely either.

The problem here is twofold. First, the calculation of elasticity is obviously very sensitive to the parameters of the model you use. Second, it's very difficult to conceive of an actual mechanism in which higher taxes on top earners translates into lower work performance and therefore deadweight loss to society. My guess is that super high earners respond to tax increases mainly via accounting strategies, not work effort, and in any case, any reduction in their earnings simply ends up going somewhere else anyway. In fact, if you take the original model in this paper seriously, an increase in high marginal tax rates reduces the earnings of the 99.9th percentile but increases the earnings of the 99.0-99.9th percentile. In other words, the total earnings of the top 1% probably go up on net.

But if you still want a "scream it from the rooftops" result from this paper, try this one instead:

The real income growth rate for non-financial executives in the top 0.1 percent was 7 times as large as for non-financial executives in the 99th to 99.5th percentile range....The heterogeneity in income growth rates across professions within the top one percent, and the divergence in incomes within professions in the top one percent, both suggest that the causes of rising top income shares cannot just, or even primarily, be things that are changing in similar ways over time for everyone within the top one percent, such as federal marginal income tax rates.

According to the authors, skill-biased technical change and globalization are unlikely candidates too, and the superstar effect is too small to have a significant impact. It has to be something else. Something that's driving enormous changes not just at the top, but at the very tippy top. The financialization of the U.S. economy, along with changes in norms of corporate governance, seem like the best guesses to me. Anybody got a better one?

Quote of the Day: McConnell on START

From Republican minority leader Mitch McConnell, explaining why he opposes the New START treaty:

All of a sudden, we're once again trying to rush things right here before Christmas Eve. I think that was not the best way to get the support of people like me.

Translation: he's pissed that Democrats successfully repealed DADT and is bound and determined to get back at them. The childishness that passes for politics these days is endlessly astonishing.

Innumeracy on the Street

The New York Times inadvertently explains the financial crisis today: Wall Street traders, it turns out, are innumerate. Many firms doubled base salaries and eliminated bonuses for midtier employees after the crash, and apparently this is causing panic among the troops:

One executive, whose firm prohibited discussing the topic with the news media, said the bump in base salaries had confused people, even though their overall compensation was the same. “People expect a big bonus,” this person said. “It is as if they don’t even see their base doubled last year.”

Dealing with the Zeros can be complicated. “It’s a real headache,” said another senior banker, who asked not to be identified because the topic is so volatile at his company.

But not to worry. The Zeros might be confused by this financial trickery, but the industry as a whole is still doing great:

In terms of overall profit, Wall Street is on track for one of its best years ever, although it will trail 2009, which was pumped up by federal bailout money and the rebound from the financial crisis. In the first three quarters of the year, Wall Street earned $21.4 billion, putting it on track to easily outpace 2006, when the economy was booming, and well ahead of the New York City government’s initial estimate of $20.6 billion for profit in all of 2010.

Chief executives, says the Times, will continue to get paid the old-fashioned way, "with bonuses climbing into the stratosphere as the shock of the financial crisis fades and pay for the top tier climbs back toward historical averages." Good to hear.

Obama After Two Years

Jonathan Bernstein has a question for us left-leaning types:

Think back to what you were thinking in November 2008, and in January 2009. As the 111th Congress winds down, what's your biggest disappointment of the things you expected to happen? Not your wish list, but the things you really expected to happen. What's your biggest happy surprise?

This is fairly easy for me, since I wrote a blog post on November 3, 2008, saying that I'd consider Obama's first term a success if he got three things done: (1) withdrawal from Iraq, (2) real healthcare reform, and (3) carbon pricing. "Get something serious done on those issues, and Obama's administration will be a big success. Fail on them, and it's not clear to me that any combination of other new programs will be enough to salvage it."

This leaves me in a pickle. Withdrawal from Iraq appears to be proceeding apace, and healthcare reform did indeed get passed. Carbon pricing, obviously, didn't. On the other hand, we can add a modest stimulus bill, a modest financial reform bill, and repeal of DADT to Obama's list of accomplishments. Does that make up for the failure of the carbon bill? Two years ago I said I didn't think any combination of other new programs would be enough to make up for failure on one of the big three, and that's a tough statement to walk back. So I guess I'd say I consider Obama's first term a success, but not a big success. How's that for weaseling?

As for happy surprises, I'm not sure I have any. I didn't expect miracles, but I did expect more from Obama, and I can't think of anything significant he passed that I wasn't expecting. Partly this was due to epic levels of Republican obstructionism, and partly it was due to Obama's native economic conservatism. On the other hand, I can think of two big disappointments that I didn't fully expect: the size of the buildup in Afghanistan and Obama's failure to rein in some of the civil liberties excesses of the Bush era. Again, I didn't expect miracles, but neither was I expecting 140,000 troops in Afghanistan or almost complete acquiescence to the national security posture of the Bush/Cheney administration.

So there you have it: on net, I'd call Obama a successful president, but not a hugely successful president. But he's still got six years left. There's still time to surprise us.