Bonds vs. Bankruptcy

Republicans have lately been floating the idea of a new law that would allow states to declare bankruptcy. The benefit, from their point of view, is that union contracts can be forcibly renegotiated in bankruptcy, which would allow states to roll back public sector pension plans and — not coincidentally — deliver a hammer blow to public sector unions. However, House majority leader Eric Cantor recently came out against the idea, and James Pethokoukis smells a rat. He thinks GOP pols are caving in to Wall Street interests:

Let’s try and connect a few dots....In 2010 election cycle, Wall Street campaign contributions shifted to Republicans from Democrats....Wall Street does not like the idea of states being given the power to file for bankruptcy....Overall, banks own some quarter-trillion bucks worth of state and local debt.

....Also, some Wall Street firms make a lot of money off the public pension system and don’t want to get on the wrong political side of the issue. Take the Blackstone Group, a private equity firm....Blackstone’s view on public employee pensions is clear and unambiguous: We believe a pension is a promise. Working men and women should not have to worry about their retirement security after years of service to their communities....Billionaire Blackstone CEO Steve Schwarzman is a big Republican moneyman...Many Republicans would love to cement their rekindled financial relationship with Wall Street heading into 2012 when they have a good chance of retaking the Senate.

I'd say Pethokoukis has this about right. Corporate and financial interests may hate unions, but they don't hate public sector unions. Why should they? Higher wages for public sector workers don't cause them any grief. Conversely, they do hate the idea that their bonds will ever be paid off at less than 100%, no matter how dire the emergency. They made that crystal clear during the 2008-09 financial crisis, and indeed, their counterparty obligations were paid off at 100% in virtually every case.

Put it all together and you have a pretty united financial/corporate stand against anything that might allow states to default on their obligations. That's a lot more important than a longshot attack on public sector unions they don't care about anyway. This is a bitter pill for Republicans, who'd love to take a shot at one of the Democratic Party's big funding sources, but it's the price you pay when you're a wholly owned subsidiary of corporate America. You do what they say whether you like it or not. And what they're saying is: don't even think about endangering our money. Capiche?

The Partisan Supreme Court

From the LA Times:

Justice Antonin Scalia's appearance at a meeting organized by the House Tea Party caucus and Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) on Monday provoked new cries from liberals and some academics that conservative justices are shedding the appearance of impartiality. The session, part of what Bachmann calls a series of constitutional seminars, was closed to the media. Lawmakers said Scalia advised them to read the Federalist Papers and to follow the Constitution as it was written.

University of Texas law professor Lucas A. Powe, a historian of the liberal Warren Court, said Scalia's appearance made the court look partisan. "He is taking political partisanship to levels not seen in over half a century," Powe said.

I'm on Scalia's side here, though probably not for reasons he'd appreciate. I think the notion that the Supreme Court is nonpartisan is so laughable that I'm surprised anyone even defends the idea any longer, and as long as it's going to be nakedly partisan, why shouldn't justices engage in partisan pep rallies? Might as well be honest about the whole thing.

The Voter ID Tap Dance

The incidence of actual voter fraud at the polls in America is indistinguishable from zero. Basically, it just doesn't happen. But that hasn't stopped conservative states from eagerly passing voter ID laws anyway, and Texas is in the vanguard. Oddly, though, they've decided there ought to be an exception in the new law they're considering:

In 2009, they were talking about requiring photo ID or two forms of non-photo ID; the 2011 bill does not have that non-photo ID option. It does, however, have an exemption from the photo ID requirement for those who are at least 70 years old at the start of 2012 and who have their voter-registration card when they go to vote.

Hmmm. Why make an exception for old people? The answer, obviously, is that lots of senior citizens don't have driver's licenses, and if they have to go to the trouble of getting a state ID card just to vote, they might decide not to bother. In other words, the photo ID requirement would create an artificial obstacle to voting among a group of perfectly law-abiding citizens.

It's good to see Texas Republicans tacitly admitting that. It's an excellent point, after all. There are other groups this applies to, though: students, poor people, and minorities, for example. But no exemption for them! I wonder why. What could possibly be the difference between senior citizens and these other groups? It's a poser, isn't it?1

1Kay Steiger provides the answer at the link, which is where I stole my snark from in the first place.

POSTSCRIPT: And just for the record, I've long supported a national voter ID card, aka a national identity card. See here and here for more.

Housing Bubble Still Bursting

Federal home-buyer tax credits expired last spring, and a few months later home prices started to sag again. As of November of last year, they're still sagging:

The 20-city index is now about 3 percent above April 2009 levels, "suggesting that a double dip could be confirmed before spring," David Blitzer, the index committee's chairman

....From October to November, prices fell in 19 of the 20 metro areas tracked by the Standard & Poor's/Case-Shiller index, widely considered a gauge of the housing market's health. The only exception was San Diego, where prices were basically unchanged.

My own guess is that house prices still have a ways to fall, but not a long ways. Still, even another 10% over the next year or so would continue to put a big drag on the economy. Prosperity may be somewhere around the block, but it's not quite around the corner yet.

The Virtue of Self-Control

This isn't too surprising, but a new study that tracked over a thousand children from the age of 3 to the age of 32 has found that the long-term effects of poor self-control are at least as important as intelligence and social class origin:

Childhood self-control predicted adult health problems....elevated risk for substance dependence....less financially planful....less likely to save and had acquired fewer financial building blocks for the future....struggling financially in adulthood....more money-management difficulties....more credit problems....more likely to be convicted of a criminal offense.

The authors suggest two different paths by which poor self-control creates problems later in life:

Adolescents with low self-control made mistakes, such as starting smoking, leaving high school, and having an unplanned baby, that could ensnare them in lifestyles with lasting ill effects....Thus, interventions in adolescence that prevent or ameliorate the consequences of teenagers’ mistakes might go far to improve the health, wealth, and public safety of the population. On the other hand, that childhood self-control predicts adolescents’ mistakes implies that early childhood intervention could prevent them....Early childhood intervention that enhances self-control is likely to bring a greater return on investment than harm reduction programs targeting adolescents alone.

The policy implications here remain to be worked out, but it's yet another indication that the benefits of intensive early childhood interventions go far beyond academic achievement. Even if early childhood programs have no lasting effect on school test scores at all, they might still be immensely valuable if they improve levels of self-control. The question is, what's the best way to do that?

The Mystery of Fact Checking

Megan McArdle comments on a book review that bemoans its target's many basic factual errors:

This is what fact checkers are for, and I don't understand why book publishers don't have them. They cost money, to be sure--but not that much money....A quarter of a million dollars a year would get you the world's finest staff of crack fact checkers.

....Presumably the answer is that it isn't economic: readers don't care, and indeed rarely learn; there's no money in preventing the occasional catastrophe []. But then one must turn the question around: why do magazines like The Economist, the New Yorker, and yes, The Atlantic, employ fact checkers? Our readers are the potential consumers of books like the one that the Economist is reviewing; do they care less about accuracy in their books than in their magazine articles?

Not that anyone at The Atlantic thinks about it that way; we employ fact checkers because it seems like the right thing to do. But why does this ethic prevail at so many magazines, and at no publishing house?

I have my doubts about this. When I think about the amount of work that MoJo's fact checkers put into the 4,000-word articles I write, and then multiply that by 20 for the entire magazine, that's a lot of fact checking. And it's probably less than you'd need for the average 300-page nonfiction book. At a guess (since no fact checkers are checking this blog), I'd say that fact checking a book would cost upwards of $5-10,000, and considering that most nonfiction books don't even make back their advances, that's a lot of money.

But there's another thing going on here as well: if a book has errors, people blame the author. They don't generally blame Random House or Simon & Schuster. But if there are errors in a magazine, people blame the magazine. So magazines simply have a stronger incentive to protect their brand than book publishers do.

Beyond that, I suppose it's just inertia: magazines have had fact checkers for a long time and book publishers haven't. Any other ideas?

The Myth of Slow Growth

Earlier this morning I suggested that policies aimed at economic growth, though obviously a good thing, aren't enough to raise middle class fortunes. You also need economic policies that focus on the middle class. Matt Yglesias counters:

I’m not really sure how separate they are. I think the specific fate of the very poor can become pretty unmoored from overall economic conditions, but certainly as a historical matter middle class incomes have risen the most at the same times America’s has had the most rapid economic growth—the 30 years after World War II and the late 1990s. You can construct some models in which this isn’t the case, but in practice the basic mechanisms for faster economic growth lead to rising middle class incomes, though not necessarily rising incomes for each individual middle class household.

This is a surprisingly hardy myth, and I'd like to help it die the grisly death it deserves. Here's a chart showing real per capita GDP growth in the United States over the past century. I've helpfully added a straight red line for the period from 1950 to the present day:

The past 30 years simply haven't been a low-growth period. In fact, economic growth has been about the same as it was in the 30 years before that. Our problem isn't growth, our problem is that the returns to growth have increasingly been skewed in favor of the very rich.

It's certainly true that middle class wages tend to rise in extremely tight labor markets, like the one we had in the late 90s. Mickey Kaus is fond of making that point. But this is pretty meaningless unless you have a plan to keep labor markets perpetually tight. If you do, then believe me, I'll be the first to sign up. But no one has such a plan. In the real world, we have to deal with the fact that real per capita growth is likely to be a pretty steady 2% per year over the long term and labor markets are going to fluctuate around a level that's (hopefully) snug but not perpetually at 90s-era tightness.

The prosperity of the middle class obviously depends on a growing economy. But just as obviously, it depends on more than that. For liberalism to mean anything at all, we need to support policies that are aimed both at overall economic growth and at ensuring that prosperity is widely shared. We haven't done a very good job of that over the past 30 years.

The GOP's Healthcare Non-Plan

The Republican mantra on healthcare reform is "Repeal and Replace." But replace it with what? Ross Douthat has some ideas, one of which is this:

Republicans should work to deregulate the new health care exchanges, so that high-deductible, catastrophic coverage can be purchased as easily as comprehensive plans.

But as Jon Cohn points out, PPACA already supports high-deductible plans:

Look closely at the standards for coverage in the insurance exchanges: The minimal, or bronze, insurance option allows out-of-pocket spending of up to $12,500 for a family of four. The actuarial value is 60 percent, which means, very roughly, that the plan only covers about 60 percent of the average person's medical bills. Those are some pretty high deductibles!

Ross's second idea is to limit subsidies for low-income workers, which, needless to say, guts the entire point of the bill. His third is to tweak the individual mandate in ways that, as Jon Chait says, are probably sensible. Unfortunately:

There's little reason to believe either that these objections represent the right's real problem with the Affordable Care Act or that they're willing to consider any tweak to improve the law.

The conservative base has simply been whipped into such a frenzy on this issue that it's impossible to imagine Republicans making any change that isn't designed to lead to full repeal. There's a reason why conservative magazines and writers keep repeating the slogan "Repeal" endlessly. It's more a point of honor than policy. The Affordable Care Act has become, in the right wing mind, a monstrosity, a completely illegitimate assault on American freedom, and an emotional wound that conservative elites work very hard to ensure never heals.

Of course, it's very helpful for conservative elites like Matthews and Douthat treat the right's objections to the individual mandate (a policy tool Republicans either supported or had little objection to up until 2009) at face value. Eventually conservatives will make their peace with health scare reform, and either put their policy imprint on it or not. But in the meantime the overwhelming conservative impetus is to sabotage the law by any available means. A reform to the law that satisfies objections to the individual mandate, but that does not satisfy the urge to repeal the bill, will be seen by most Republicans as untouchable.

Is there any serious argument that Jon is wrong about this? Republicans have never taken universal healthcare seriously, after all. In fact, as near as I can tell, they're philosophically opposed to the whole idea, regardless of how it's implemented. Wonky healthcare proposals from various corners of conservativedom should mostly be thought of not as serious plans, but as useful window dressing that allows conservatives to claim on Sunday chat shows that they do too have constructive ideas about healthcare. But the plain fact is that none of these comprehensive proposals could get the support of even a quarter of the Republican congressional caucus. Maybe not even that much. Republicans have had plenty of time to think about this, and if they seriously thought that a Douthat-esque plan was a good idea they would have proposed it long ago. They didn't, and they're not going to this time around either.

Filibuster Reform is Dead

Over the weekend a reader asked me whatever happened to Democratic plans to reform the filibuster at the beginning of this year's Senate session. It's still in progress, I said, but I hadn't heard anything specific. However, that was because I didn't read the paper on Saturday. Paul Kane reports:

To the dismay of a younger crop of Democrats and some outside liberal activists, there is no chance that rules surrounding the filibuster will be challenged, senior aides on both sides of the aisle say, because party leaders want to protect the right of the Senate's minority party to sometimes force a supermajority of 60 votes to approve legislation.

Instead, rank-and-file lawmakers will receive pitches from Sens. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), who have been negotiating more limited changes, such as with "secret holds" that allow an anonymous senator to slow legislation. In addition, some modifications could be made to the way confirmations are handled for agency nominees who do not have direct roles in policymaking.

Unsurprisingly, no one wants to seriously muck around with the filibuster. Republicans are opposed because they're the minority party and Democrats are unenthusiastic because someday they might be the minority party:

While liberal groups such as MoveOn.org and some unions such as the Communications Workers of America are supporting the Udall effort, the liberal coalition is far from united on the issue. Some large members of the AFL-CIO have been noticeably silent, while some abortion rights groups have publicly declared their opposition to changing filibuster rules. That, some Democratic aides said, is because in the 1990s and in the early days of the George W. Bush White House - when Republicans controlled both ends of the Capitol - these groups relied on their Senate Democratic allies and the 60-vote threshold to protect key rights such as Davis-Bacon wages for federal works projects and the Roe v. Wade abortion decision.

So there you have it. We'll get some minor changes at best, but nothing serious.

Please Don't Be Offended

I might be the last person to notice this, but I still sort of wonder what it says about us. I was over at Dave Weigel's place a few minutes ago, and he linked to a Twitter post by Jim Geraghty, who I don't happen to follow. When I clicked the link, it included the following message:

This Tweet is from someone you're not following. The media they're mentioning could be anything, even something you might find offensive.

It could be anything! We can't have that, can we? Best to hide it from sensitive eyes.

This is, obviously, no big deal, and you can change your default setting pretty easily to see everything automatically. Still, it seems a little dismaying that we're so delicate these days that even when we actively click on a link, we apparently need to be protected from the mere possibility of getting a fleeting glimpse of something we might find offensive. Buck up, America!

And while we're on the subject of why not a single Republican has announced a presidential candidacy yet — yep, that's the subject — isn't the answer obvious? It's because they all know Barack Obama is as good as a shoo-in in 2012. Unless something cataclysmic happens, the only reason for any Republican to run is either as a vanity candidate or to get practice for 2016.