Posts Tagged ‘politics’
Note to Congress: You Are Not the People You Serve
From a Washington Post article on proposed legislation to regulate overdraft fees:
“Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.) said he avoided overdraft fees with a credit line and asked if many of the problems could be eased with consumer education.”
Good on you, Spencer. You have a credit line — which many of your constituents can’t get — and you have it linked to your checking account — which many of your constituents wouldn’t even know how to ask for.
Nessa Feddis of the ever-helpful American Bankers Association added that “most consumers can easily avoid the fees by keeping track of their balances.” (That’s a quote from the Post article describing her testimony, not from her testimony itself.) Hear that everyone? Keep track of your balances, and just in case, get a credit line and link it to your checking account. Problem solved.
The people who are financially sophisticated already know how to track their balances and turn off overdraft protection if they don’t want it. They are not the people that financial regulation is supposed to serve. You can’t discharge your duty as a representative of the people just by wishing that the people were more like you.
By James Kwak
Financial Regulation on the Front Burner?
Nate Silver thinks that financial regulation will be the big political issue of the first half of next year. And for better or for worse, he thinks the central political issue — the “public option,” if you will — will be TBTF and breaking up banks.
I have been skeptical of this. I have been following the conventional wisdom that public anger has receded into confusion, health care has taken over the stage, and no one can get interested in financial regulation — it’s just too boring. Also, I thought the fact that financial regulation doesn’t break down along party lines hurts its popular appeal. In particular, it leaves liberal Democrats very confused (conservative Republicans have an easier time — oppose anything Obama wants). But I suppose I could see breaking up banks — now that it’s come back from several months in the wilderness — becoming a rallying issue. And health insurance is intrinsically boring, too. In any case, Nate Silver knows politics a lot better than I do.
(Also, according to Silver, we are “Volckerists” and the other side are the “Summersists.” We could do worse.)
By James Kwak
No, Wait! This Is What I Really Want!
I try not to comment on purely political issues, but sometimes they are just too infuriating.
Over the last few days, Max Baucus has been leaking “his” health care proposal, which should be made public. Regular readers will know I’m no fan of Max Baucus, whose main goals seem to be killing the public option (I know, it’s not as big deal as it’s made out to be, but it isn’t irrelevant) and cutting subsidies to poor people. But supposedly, the whole point of the Baucus/Group of Six approach was that it would result in a bipartisan bill that could clear the Senate. The tradeoff was very simple; a plan that isn’t as good as it could be, but one that could pass.
Yesterday, The New York Times reported two of the three Republicans in the Group of Six, Charles Grassley and Michael Enzi, are against the Baucus proposal, and even Olympia Snowe wants changes.
Consumer Protection Redux: The Lessons of History
For your Labor Day reading enjoyment, we bring you this guest post by Lawrence B. Glickman, who teaches history at the University of South Carolina and is the author of Buying Power: A History of Consumer Activism in America.
“We’re proposing a new and powerful agency charged with just one job: looking out for ordinary consumers,” said the president on June 17th. The centerpiece of his proposed overhaul of the nation’s financial system, the Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA), is designed to end what the president called “failure of…government to provide adequate oversight” by monitoring banking transactions, including mortgages, credit cards and checking and savings accounts. It did not take long for the predictable critics to denounce the agency with predictable rhetoric. “It’s bad for the consumers,” said Steve Bartlett, president of the Financial Services Roundtable, a lobbying group for banks. The institution will add “yet another regulatory layer” while advancing “the agenda of activist special interests,” according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The new agency represents “an unprecedented grant of power to mandate business practices” claims the American Bankers Association.
This is the language of conservative populism, a mainstay of the Republican party from Ronald Reagan to Newt Gingrich to Karl Rove. Conservative populism, wrote Jonathan Chait in the New Republic last year, “dismisses any inference that the rich and the non-rich might have opposing interests” and defines elites in cultural rather than economic terms as “intellectuals and other snobs who fancy themselves better than average Americans.” Several decades of repetition have made this rhetoric familiar: federal efforts to help ordinary people–consumers–will inevitably hurt them; government is the problem rather than the solution; bureaucracy is “bumbling” (to use the words of a Crain’s New York Business poll about the proposed Agency); federal agencies designed to serve the public good actually serve narrow special interests. It has been, in no small measure, through the ready deployment of this language that the Republicans have positioned themselves as simultaneously the party of big business and working Americans while denouncing Democrats as representing both intrusive government and elitism. This meme has been devastating for liberals since any expansion of government services can be dismissed with a quip–Bureaucrat!, Red Tape!, Nanny State!– rather than an argument. Recently, for example, Senator Lindsay Graham said that the American people would never tolerate the public choice option in health insurance because “you’ve got a bureaucrat standing in between the patient and the doctor.” For similar reasons, Senator Kit Bond dismissed the CFPA proposal as a “bad idea.”
The Problem with Federalism
Paul Krugman and many others have been talking about the “fifty little Hoovers” – state governments forced by balanced-budget rules to cut spending and raise taxes in the face of a recession, eliminating services when they are most needed and deepening the economic downturn. James Surowiecki (hat tip Matthew Yglesias) expands the attack by arguing that federalism (the idea that power is balanced between the national and state governments) in general is a problem, at least in these economic circumstances. In addition to counter-cyclical state fiscal policy, he cites political issues such as the disproportionate allocation of road spending to areas with few people and coordination problems such as the difficulty building national transportation or energy networks.
It may seem as if the balance is tilted heavily in favor of the national government – it has an army, it prints money, and so on – but the Constitution leans more toward protecting state autonomy (see the principle that the federal government is one of enumerated powers, and the Tenth Amendment), and the trend of the Reagan Revolution and the Rehnquist Court was to favor states’ rights. (Of course, “states’ rights” are not necessarily a Republican or a Democratic issue, but tend to be favored by whichever side finds the argument convenient at the moment.)
When I was young (like in high school) I thought states were silly and we should just have a national government, like in France, where the departments are mainly just administrative units. When I got a little older and became a qualified fan of Edmund Burke, I decided that the current system worked well enough most of the time that it would have to be seriously broken to justify a major structural change.
I’m not sure it qualifies as seriously broken at the moment, but I think the current recession counts as evidence that it sure isn’t the system you would design if you were starting from scratch.
By James Kwak
Modeling Everything, Public Plan Edition
Ezra Klein and Paul Krugman are both highlighting Nate Silver’s analysis of campaign contributions and the public health plan option. The quick summary? Campaign contributions matter – in this case, by about nine senators. Mainly I’m impressed and encouraged that people can use publicly-available data to quickly whip together plausible models answering questions that otherwise we would all just pontificate about.
Coincidentally, I was getting my car inspected this morning and picked up an October 2008 copy of New York Magazine in the waiting room, which had an article about . . . Nate Silver. The article includes a picture of the presidential electoral map as Silver predicted on October 8, in which he called every state correctly except Missouri (which, remember, took a few weeks to figure out whom it had voted for). Most of the article is about how the empirical approach to baseball turns out to be useful in other areas, like politics and public policy.
Update: Mark Thoma points out this counterargument by Brendan Nyhan (who long ago wrote a blog with the brother of one of the best developers at my company). Nyhan says “studies have typically found minimal effects of campaign contributions on roll call votes in Congress,” and cites a Journal of Economic Perspectives paper as backup.
OK, Nyhan may be right. But he may not be.
You Don’t Get a Vote!
Barack Obama came to office as the conciliator, the bipartisanizer, the anti-Bush. But this is going too far.
The administration’s style has been to float policy proposals in public, listen to the responses (from other politicians, from the private sector, and from the blogs that Obama does not read), and adjust accordingly. When it comes to the financial regulation proposal that Tim Geithner is scheduled to deliver on Thursday, there may be little left after all the adjusting.
The Skirmish over Credit Cards
The Senate may be voting this week on a bill to tighten regulation of credit card issuers – or not, since you can never tell with the Senate. Despite an agreement between the ranking members of the Senate Banking Committee, there is a series of amendments from both sides to go through; Real Time Economics has a summary of the issues that were open as of earlier this week.
I wrote a post on The Hearing earlier describing the debate as one between two economic perspectives: classical economics (credit card issuers should be able to offer any terms they want; if people accept them, that by definition means it increases their utility) and behavioral economics (people suffer from cognitive fallacies, like thinking that they will never pay any of those fees threatened in the credit card agreement, so regulations should help people make better decisions and protect them from bad decisions).
Looking back over that post, it was far too balanced. There is a plausible theoretical argument that tighter restrictions have the effect of limiting the supply of credit to marginal customers, but that’s not what’s going on here. First of all, there isn’t much demand for credit these days. Second, it’s really about whether credit card issuers will be able to use increased interest rates and fees to partially offset their increased default rates. And of course, this isn’t going to be decided by economics, but by power. The more relevant question is the one that Simon was asked on MSNBC: “Do the banks own the Senate?”
The Importance of Battlefield Nuclear Weapons
I’ve been writing a lot about the game of chicken recently, most often in connection with the GM and Chrysler bailouts. On the Chrysler front, the game is in its last hours. Even after a consortium of large banks agreed to the proposed debt-for-equity swap, some smaller hedge funds are holding out for more money, and even the extra $250 million that Treasury agreed to kick in seems unlikely to keep Chrysler out of bankruptcy.
The problem is that bankruptcy is the only weapon Chrysler and Treasury have in this fight, and it’s a strategic nuclear weapon. Bankruptcy is the only threat that can get the bondholders to agree to a swap; but because a bankruptcy carries some risk of destroying Chrysler (because control will lie in the hands of a bankruptcy judge – not Chrysler, Treasury, the UAW, or Fiat), and taking hundreds of thousands of jobs with it, everyone knows that Treasury would prefer not to use it. The bondholders are betting that they can use Treasury’s fear of a bankruptcy to extract better terms at the last minute. (And it’s even possible that the large banks agreed to the swap knowing they could count on the smaller, less politically exposed hedge funds to veto it.) But Treasury may still press the button, because it needs to make a statement in advance of the bigger GM confrontation scheduled for a month from now.
But there’s a much bigger, slower game going on at the same time, and the administration’s basic problem is the same: all it has is strategic nuclear weapons that it absolutely does not want to use. The New York Times had an article today about how “a growing number of banks are resisting the Obama administration’s proposals for fixing the financial system.” It didn’t have a lot of new information, but it summarized the outlines of the game.
Guest Post: Too-Big-To-Fail and Three Other Narratives
This guest post is contributed by StatsGuy, one of our regular commenters. I invited him to write the post in response to this comment, but regular readers are sure to have read many of his other contributions. There is a lot here, so I recommend making a cup of tea or coffee before starting to read.
In September, the first Baseline Scenario entered the scene with a frightening portrait of the world economy that focused on systemic risk, self-fulfilling speculative credit runs, and a massive liquidity shock that could rapidly travel globally and cause contagion even in places where economic fundamentals were strong.
Baseline identified the Fed’s response to Lehman as a “dramatic and damaging reversal of policy”, and offered major recommendations that focused on four basic efforts: FDIC insurance, a credible US backstop to major institutions, stimulus (combined with recapitalizing banks), and a housing stabilization plan.
Moral hazard was acknowledged, but not given center stage, with the following conclusion: “In a short-term crisis of this nature, moral hazard is not the preeminent concern. But we also agree that, in designing the financial system that emerges from the current situation, we should work from the premise that moral hazard will be important in regulated financial institutions.”
Over time, and as the crisis has passed from an acute to a chronic phase, the focus of Baseline has increasingly shifted toward the problem of “Too Big To Fail”. The arguments behind this narrative are laid out in several places: Big and Small; What Next for Banks; Atlantic Article.
The Missed Opportunity
For a snapshot of what’s wrong with our banking policy, look at the front page of the business section of today’s New York Times. On the left side: “U.S. in Standoff with Banks over Chrysler.” On the right side: “Banks Show Clout on Legislation to Help Consumers.”
On the left side, a consortium of banks holding Chrysler debt is refusing to agree to the current restructuring plan, which involves bondholders holding $6.9 billion in secured debt getting about 15 cents on the dollar – roughly where the bonds are currently trading, according to the Times.* The banks are playing the ongoing game of chicken with the government, betting that the government will cave and give them a better deal rather than take a risk on a bankruptcy.
On the right side, the banks are using their lobbying clout to block the administration’s proposals to help consumers and households, including the mortgage cram-down provision (which would allow bankruptcy courts to modify mortgages on first homes) and added consumer protections for credit card customers. They currently have all 41 Republican votes in the Senate tied up, which means nothing can pass.
The banks leading the charge over Chrysler: JPMorgan Chase and Citigroup. The banks opposed to cram-downs: Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo. The banks blocking credit card protections: American Express, Bank of America, Capital One Financial, Citigroup, Discover Financial Services, and JPMorgan Chase. All or almost all are bailout beneficiaries. But don’t blame them: they’re just doing what they can to maximize their profits at the expense of the taxpayer, which is perfectly legal (and even ethical, depending on your conception of shareholder rights). Instead, you should be wondering why they are in a position to be maximizing profits at the taxpayer’s expense.
A View from the Inside
If you haven’t picked up on one of the dozens of recommendations from other blogs, I recommend reading Phillip Swagel’s long and detailed account of the view of the financial crisis from his seat as assistant secretary for economic policy at the Treasury Department. It’s particularly useful for people like me who make a habit of criticizing government officials.
The writing is dry, but much of the subject matter is fascinating. It often explains or defends Treasury’s actions during the crisis, but Swagel certainly owns up to plenty of mistakes or shortcomings. For example, discussing the emergency guarantee program for money market funds, he writes, “Nearly every Treasury action there was some side effect or consequence that we had not expected or foreseen only imperfectly.”
Our Fate Is in Their Hands?
Last month, Representative John Shimkus spoke out against regulating carbon dioxide emissions on the grounds that carbon dioxide is plant food. “So if we decrease the use of carbon dioxide, are we not taking away plant food from the atmosphere?” Shimkus is on the House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, which means he has a vote on these issues.
In the wake of a financial and economic crisis of at least generational magnitude, our government will be rewriting the rules of the financial industry. And “our government” includes not just the pedigreed scholars in the executive branch (Larry Summers, Christina Romer, Austan Goolsbee, etc.), but Congressional representatives like John Shimkus – “like” in the sense that they were selected for their jobs, and for their committee seats, in exactly the same way that Shimkus ended up discussing the crucial role of fossil fuels in sustaining plant life on this planet. And when it comes to legislation, Summers, Romer, and Goolsbee have exactly zero votes between them; Shimkus has one.
$3.5 Million or $5 Million?
In the midst of a severe economic crisis that is, among other things, depressing federal tax revenues and adding to the national debt, the debate over the estate tax has flared up again. The basic question is whether the exemption will be raised from $1 million – where it was in 2002-03 and where it is scheduled to return after the Bush tax cuts expire – to $3.5 million (Obama) or $5 million (Lincoln-Kyl) per person; there is also disagreement over whether the marginal rate should be 35% or 45%. (Note that even with Obama’s proposed 45% tax rate, the average effective tax rate on estate would be 19%, because of the $3.5 million exemption.)
There is plenty of debate over this already, so I will confine myself to three points.
Economics, Politics, Outrage, and the Media
Warning: This is a post about economics and politics; it is a reader response post; but (here’s the warning), it’s also one of those annoying self-referential posts you only see on the Internet discussing a debate among the commentariat.
Last week went something like this:
- We learned about the $165 million in retention bonuses at AIG Financial Products.
- A lot of people, up to and including President Obama, got mad.
- Various commentators, including Ian Bremmer (on Planet Money, around the 14-minute mark) and Joe Nocera, said, in Nocera’s words, “Can we all just calm down a little?”
Their argument is basically that $165 million is small change, the government should be working on bigger issues, and the demonization of AIG is making it harder to solve the real problems.
