TAPPED

Lightning Round: Amazingly, Conservative Republicans Tend to Act Like Conservative Republicans.

2009-11-20T22:15:25Z

How is one to account for Barack Obama's precipitous drop to 49 percent approval in the latest Gallup daily tracking poll? Is is the grave pronouncements printed in British blog posts? Democratic legislators throwing temper tantrums because Obama isn't doing their job for them? No, as always, for every president, it's the economy. And has frequently been the case, it's instructive to compare Obama's approval to Reagan's, who came into office under similar economic conditions, and who also fell below 50 percent approval by November of his first year.

Should we be even remotely surprised that John McCain, whether due to electoral pressure or some other factor, is abandoning his climate change centrism? The "Maverick" shtick was always just a media concoction, and let's not forget that the maverick legislator in the first couple years of this decade was acting out of spite towards George Bush and the Republicans, who were back on touchy-feely terms by the time the 2004 election rolled around.

I'm shocked, just shocked, that the tea party movement, as it were, is riven with factions that don't really know how to organize themselves into an effective protest movement. The only thing that made the very real but ultimately incoherent passions of the don't tread on me crowd into something worthy of our attention were with organizational efforts of old pros who hoped to harness that energy to take back real power in Washington.

The problem with the belief that war with the government is inevitable is that it takes very little for this to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. If some band of "patriots" were to stand off against the federal government, the federal government would likely crush them, solidifying in the secessionist mind that the government is out to get them. Waco anyone?

Remainders: Things get interesting in the 2010 Florida Senate race; why are we in Afghanistan if al Qaeda is a second-tier threat?; right wing prays for Obama to go away, one way or another; things could have been worse for Democrats in next year's Senate races; and sometimes the majority of Americans are really stupid.

--Mori Dinauer

Friday Afternoon OH SNAP!

2009-11-20T21:47:28Z

So you don't normally expect a lot of snark about financial regulatory reform, but today is different, because House Financial Services Committee Spokesman Steve Adamske just sent out his fisking of a recent National Journal article on regulatory reform, which I've posted in full after the jump. Here's a sampling:

National Journal: What's going on with financial regulatory reform? I know that Dodd has a new plan and that Frank is expected to move his plan out of committee soon, but I still can't tell what the administration's plan is. Why so many plans? Well, for starters, this re-regulation of finance is huge, so it is natural that everyone would want to drive the train. Primarily, though, the many approaches reflect a strategic decision by the Obama administration. Rather than come out with a fully formed plan and guide the negotiations, the president's advisers decided to let Congress work out the details.
HFSC: This is 100% false. President Obama’s team did indeed produce a plan. They delivered to the House Financial Services Committee and to the Senate Banking Committee a 13 title bill totaling several hundred pages, complete with legislative language, and that language is serving as the base text for our deliberations.
...National Journal: It sounds like I should bet on this taking a lot more time. With big reforms, that's usually a good bet.
HFSC: We certainly wish the National Journal would take its time to do some quality reporting.

I can't link to the original article because it is subscription only, but you get a pretty good flavor from the excerpts in the release. This kind of response to a piece from a communications shop isn't the norm outside of campaigns, but National Journal represents a kind of distillation of bland conventional wisdom and is thus quite influential among members of Congress and staff, which no doubt motivated Adamske's to go after the article head on. National Journal does occasionally do in-depth reported pieces on esoteric issues like financial regulatory reform, but this isn't one of those pieces. The article entirely predicated on procedural nonsense -- Adamske's fact-checks are, on the whole, correct -- while ignoring the many substantial critiques of the bill. It's ultimate conclusion that Congress should take more time on the bill is just a silly regurgitation of Republican talking points. The problems faced by the committee can't be solved with more time, they'll be solved with negotiations and votes.

-- Tim Fernholz ]]> The Truth V. The National Journal: You have got to be kidding

Washington, DC — Today, House Financial Services Committee Communications Director Steve Adamske released the following statement after reading the Nov. 21 National Journal article, “End of the Beginning,” written by John Maggs:

“You have got to be kidding.”

On page 54 of the November 21 edition, reporter John Maggs invents a “question and answer” article that discusses the status of financial regulatory reform. The article has several errors and misrepresentations that have been corrected below:

National Journal: What's going on with financial regulatory reform? I know that Dodd has a new plan and that Frank is expected to move his plan out of committee soon, but I still can't tell what the administration's plan is. Why so many plans? Well, for starters, this re-regulation of finance is huge, so it is natural that everyone would want to drive the train. Primarily, though, the many approaches reflect a strategic decision by the Obama administration. Rather than come out with a fully formed plan and guide the negotiations, the president's advisers decided to let Congress work out the details.

HFSC: This is 100% false. President Obama’s team did indeed produce a plan. They delivered to the House Financial Services Committee and to the Senate Banking Committee a 13 title bill totaling several hundred pages, complete with legislative language, and that language is serving as the base text for our deliberations.

National Journal: But didn't Obama offer a comprehensive bill over the summer? It wasn't a bill; it was called a "blueprint." It was sketchy in its details, and many of its ideas have been changed or abandoned. House and Senate Democratic leaders, for example, now say that regulation by the administration's Consumer Financial Protection Agency should be limited to the largest 10 percent of banks. Other fundamental matters were left unmentioned, such as the way to discourage big banks from taking on too much risk -- how, exactly, to avoid fostering banks that are "too big to fail" and thus take reckless risks because they believe that the government will bail them out. No plan has settled on how to avoid this problem.

HFSC: 100% false again. As discussed above, while President Obama did release a blueprint in early June, he ordered his staff and the Treasury Department to produce a bill. They did. In addition, the National Journal is dead wrong to suggest that we abandoned the administration’s plan. To the contrary, we are implementing the administration’s plans.

The National Journal is also wrong to say that the House Financial Services Committee’s bill, H.R. 3126, limits the reach of the Consumer Financial Protection Agency to 10 percent of the banks. This is 100% false. All banks will be subject to the rules and regulations of the Consumer Financial Protection Agency. The committee only exempted independent examinations of community banks by the CFPA. In addition:

The CFPA will write the rules for all institutions on credit cards, overdraft fees, and all other aspects of financial consumer protection– none of the covered banks will be exempt in any way from these stringent new rules.

The CFPA will receive and monitor all reports on consumer exams done by the prudential regulators at a covered institution, looking for signs of non-compliance by the institution or problems in the regulator’s conduct of exams.

The CFPA may at its discretion send an examiner on any exam of a covered bank, thrift or credit union.
This examiner will participate in all aspects of the exam, from design to final report writing
In an unprecedented move, the CFPA will be able to remove the prudential regulator and take over the exams itself if it finds that the regulator is not adequately pursuing or enforcing violations, or that there are other consumer problems at the bank.

Finally, the CFPA retains complete control of the consumer complaint process, and has authority to investigate and enforce against violations at any institution based on those complaints.

National Journal: Isn't it typical to start with a blueprint? Isn't that how President Reagan did tax reform in the 1980s? Yes, but it's not typical to be as disengaged as the Obama administration seems to be this late in the game. The White House said all along that it wants to complete the reform process this year, and even though it has pushed Congress to vote on the legislation, it opposes some aspects of both chambers' bills. That rush apparently was at least partly responsible for a rift between Dodd and the top Republican on the Senate Banking Committee, Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama.

HFSC: 100% wrong again. The staff of the House Financial Services Committee has been in regular contact with White House staff and the Treasury Department. It is a complete lie to say the Obama administration has been disengaged.

National Journal: Why did the White House proceed this way, without firm positions? For reasons of style and necessity. On the style point, it should be clear from health care that in implementing his agenda, Obama seems to prefer leaving the details to Congress. His style simply differs from that of past presidents, who have led negotiations rather than let congressional leaders take charge. To cite Obama's predecessors, the Bush team was deeply involved in lining up votes and twisting arms to pass his 2001 tax cut; President Clinton did the same in ending Cold War trade restrictions on China. That doesn't seem to be how this White House likes to do things.

HFSC: Again 100% wrong. They have firm positions and they have worked with us every step of the way — the National Journal just never bothered to find out.

National Journal: What about necessity -- why did the administration have to start out that way? Because even as late as June, Obama's advisers hadn't decided what to do, and in many ways, they still haven't.

HFSC: Again 100% wrong. The administration brought to us a bill composed of 13 titles and hundreds of pages which has served as the base text. Of course we have changed things, but this is normal in the course of legislating. We have worked with them every step of the way.

National Journal: You've got to be kidding. As with every phase of the financial crisis, the government was improvising, trying to stay ahead of events. Arguably, Obama had good reasons for moving forward with something on financial regulation, even if the proposal was incomplete. He had to send the message to the global financial system that there was a plan, some process, to avert a recurrence of the kind of crisis that took hold in 2008 and shut down bank lending. Five months after the inauguration, after an $787 billion stimulus plan, and after deciding that health care would be his focus in 2009, it just wasn't possible to re-design financial regulation in a few weeks. On the other hand, deliberating for months internally, with rumors and details leaking out, could have destabilized the markets.

HFSC: No, you have got to be kidding. As has been discussed in several parts of this rebuttal, the Obama administration within five months of taking office produced a blueprint for reform, and two months after that, produced an extensive, 13 title bill that has served as the base text for our deliberations.

National Journal: Wasn't politics a big reason for the haste? Without some plan, Republicans would have spent the past five months complaining that "Obama is wasting time on socialist health care and neglecting financial reform." Of course politics was a big factor. History will have to judge whether Obama's push on health care led him to neglect more-important matters. With or without health legislation, however, it would have been impossible for Obama to decide fundamental questions of financial regulatory reform so quickly. For one thing, the financial industry was unprepared and hadn't sorted out what it would and would not accept. The White House couldn't take a final stand on matters without getting the banks and other financial institutions on board. The months since June have really been a feeling-out process for both sides.

HFSC: 100% wrong again. The Obama administration has been engaged on all issues of financial regulation reform, producing direction and producing a bill. The Obama administration has not neglected this effort.

National Journal: So banks are holding up this process? That's too simplistic. In our system, where banks and other moneyed interests finance every congressional campaign, banks have a seat at the table. There are other considerations, but it would be silly to pretend that such a large industry has no role. As with health care, the Obama team needed time to determine which parts of the financial industry could kill the process and which parts could be co-opted. For example, after the House's hearings it became clear that smaller banks, with a presence in every congressional district, weren't willing to go along with the consumer protection agency proposal. Administration officials could see that the largest 10 percent of banks accounted for 80 percent of lending, so they let the bottom 90 percent off the hook. It took time to make this judgment, and there are many more to make.

HFSC: 100% wrong again. Banks are not “off the hook” when it comes to consumer protection. As discussed above, all banks are subject to the rules and regulations of the Consumer Financial Protection Agency. We only exempted independent examinations of community banks and credit unions from the CFPA. All other rules apply to all banks.

National Journal: Well, where is the process now? Isn't the House going to be voting on the Frank bill in a few weeks? Obviously, the bill won't be finished this year, considering that the Senate plan was unveiled a week and a half ago and is fundamentally different from the House version. The question is whether the process is near the end or much closer to the beginning, and there are signs that it is much closer to the beginning.

HFSC: The House will vote on the reform in mid-December and the Senate is currently marking up their version.

National Journal: What signs? Among the differences between the chambers' proposals, the Senate plan is predicated on a really big change--taking all bank regulation away from the Federal Reserve Board and creating a powerful agency to assume the Fed's role in managing the stability of the financial system, both domestically and internationally. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke is against this, and so are Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and White House economics adviser Lawrence Summers. This conflict is too fundamental to sort out in routine conference negotiations. Other issues aren't as complicated -- whether to merge two small agencies or four, for example. But some other basic matters remain undecided.

HFSC: Issues are too fundamental to sort our in routine conference negotiations? Says who? You? How else will the differences between the House and Senate be decided?

National Journal: Such as? Such as the whole point of financial regulation. Before the crisis, the government implicity guaranteed that it would do whatever was necessary to prevent the collapse of the financial system. Today, that guarantee is explicit, and it will be codified in this financial regulatory overhaul. The problem is, no one has decided how to guarantee the solvency of giant banks without encouraging the kinds of risky behavior that caused the crisis. How do you prevent the emergence of banks that are too big? There are ideas -- Dodd would use an exotic kind of bond to keep banks in line -- but no decisions. Likewise on derivatives, the privately traded securities that allowed insurance giant American International Group to almost wreck the global financial system. To sum up the House and Senate action on derivatives, the government is still in the early stages of determining how derivatives will be regulated.

HFSC: On the too big to fail issue, I would encourage you to read the excellent coverage by Bill Swindell in today’s (Nov. 20) CongressDaily of our committee’s deliberations on the Kanjorski amendment, and continue reading CongressDaily on page 8 on the Gutierrez amendment. Our whole effort, from regulating subprime mortgages to reining in derivatives and ending bailouts, is to ensure that the taxpayers never again have to foot the bill for other people’s lousy business decisions.

National Journal: When is this going to get done? A bill could be enacted by June, but it is also easy to see action slipping past the fall 2010 election. Obama wants to get reform done to claim credit for Democrats, but Republican opposition is arguably as strong as it is on health care, and the GOP is confident that it will have larger numbers in 2011. The president was able to shorten the customary reform timetable when it came to health care, and perhaps he can do so on financial regulation as well. Big reforms usually take time, however -- Reagan embraced tax reform in 1984, but it was 1986 before it came to a vote. Ironically, as the financial system recovers, the pressure for reform lessens. Dodd, in a tough re-election fight, could be crucial if he seeks to finish action in time to impress voters. He might force a partisan vote this fall to get the issue off his plate, but that might hinder compromises in the final stages.

HFSC: Wrong. Chairman Frank and Chairman Dodd are committed to making financial reform a reality as soon as possible. The American people have waited long enough for meaningful reforms, and they do not deserve to wait any longer.

National Journal: It sounds like I should bet on this taking a lot more time. With big reforms, that's usually a good bet.

HFSC: We certainly wish the National Journal would take its time to do some quality reporting.

###

A Devil of a Job for Democrats.

2009-11-20T21:09:21Z

Terence Samuel explains why Democrats need to focus on jobs:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will win his motion to proceed on a health-care reform package that should shave $127 billion off the federal budget deficit over the next decade -- the legislation will come to the floor of the Senate before Thanksgiving. In practical terms, that means the Obama administration will likely get to mark its first year in office with a remarkable set of legislative triumphs that, in addition to health care, could include some kind of financial reform legislation and maybe even a climate change bill.

These are big wins that will change our way of life significantly and constitute an admirable record of campaign promises kept. So it is no small irony that all this success may be of limited political value to Democrats as they go into the next election season: 2010 could be the year of the American job.

KEEP READING ...

What Can the Chinese Do To Our Economy? To Theirs?

2009-11-20T20:05:42Z

Matt Yglesias asks what, exactly, China is going to do to our economy if the U.S. government steps up its criticisms of their various human rights violations or lack of cooperation on issues like Iran or Afghanistan. The correct answer is, he notes, that they can do very little. I wrote about this in the spring when Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner made his own voyage to China:

But outside of the political sideshow, the much-hyped Chinese ownership of U.S. debt and the controversy over exchange rates (which has led some Americans to accuse the Chinese of currency manipulation) isn't likely to change in the near future.
"The truth is … China really has no choice," Michael Pettis, a professor at the Guanghua School of Management in Beijing, says in an e-mail. "China does not want to hurt its export sector (on the contrary, it is trying to prop it up), and since no one else besides the United States can run such large trade deficits, China has no choice but to keep buying dollars."

What's more interesting about the fuss isn't what China could do to the U.S. economy, but what they're doing about their own -- the current Chinese economic policy greatly advantages coastal elites over rural interests, and economic inequality is a big issue. Pettis, whose blog, "China Financial Markets," is really a must-read on these issues, thinks the larger concern is that the Chinese won't heed international advice to about balancing global trade (now, China is saving/investing too much, and the U.S. is overconsuming) because that would require greater household income growth in China, which obviously involves redistribution of income and probably increasingly broad political awareness.

But the insistence of the Chinese government that exports and investment are the way out of the global recession means that China's recovery is weaker than many realize, and could lead to more trade disputes as the Chinese continue to pursue their pro-export policy at the expense of the rest of the world. Ironically, the rebalancing policy that the Obama administration supports -- which would lead to less reliance on U.S. consumption -- is more broadly in the interest of the Chinese people than what Chinese leaders want, which is maintaining the current status quo between the two economies.

-- Tim Fernholz

Three Strategies for Real Economic Recovery.

2009-11-20T19:26:39Z

With the unemployment rate the highest it's been in 25 years, The Roosevelt Institute asked historians, economists and other public thinkers to reflect on the lessons of the New Deal and explore new, big ideas for how to get America back to work. TAPPED will be cross-posting the 10-part series with the New Deal 2.0 blog. In this installment, James Carr argues for targeting hardest-hit communities with job training and access.

As this month’s unemployment numbers confirm, the nation’s economy continues to suffer despite recent positive and relatively impressive productivity numbers. Unemployment now exceeds 10 percent for the general population. Unemployment for African Americans and Latinos exceeds 15.5 percent and 13 percent respectively. For Native Americans living on reservations, it is just below the fabled and feared 25 percent of the Great Depression. For all families out of work, the economy is in a depression. Unable to find a suitable job, more than a third of those out of work are classified as long-term unemployed. The longer they remain out of the labor market, the more difficult it will be for them to reenter the workforce. It also makes them less likely to regain a job paying the same or higher wages than the job they have lost, and more likely to run out of unemployment insurance and potentially end up on the streets with few, if any, options. In fact, prior to the recent extension of unemployment benefits, roughly 7,000 people per day were losing their benefits.

Many economists dismiss the bad news on the employment front arguing that unemployment is merely a lagging indicator. But a recovery without jobs is meaningless for families worried about paying their mortgages, purchasing food, affording health care, sending their kids to college, and saving for a decent retirement. And, a recovery without jobs presents the prospect for further damage to the financial system as growing numbers of households are unable to pay their debts. Most concerning, continued significant job losses open the door for a possible “double-dip recession” given the key role played by consumer spending.

More after the jump.

--James Carr

Roosevelt Institute Braintruster James H. Carr is Chief Operating Officer of the National Community Reinvestment Coalition.

]]> While there is legitimate concern over the size of the federal deficit, the threat to the economy of continued high levels of unemployment is more urgent. The foreclosure crisis -- which sparked the collapse of the credit markets and economy -- continues to grow. But unemployment is now the leading reason families are losing their homes. Moreover, more than $13 trillion of household wealth has been lost since the crisis began. While it’s hard to estimate how much of that wealth was an illusion, much of it was real savings. So, more must be done to help the nation recover from its sudden and dramatic loss. Creation, retention, and access to jobs must be a focal point for additional recovery spending, as well as management of current available recovery dollars. Employment strategies should focus on three major efforts:

Job training that translates directly into real jobs or careers: For those out of the labor market or marginally employed, we should create job-training programs in the form of apprenticeships that are directly linked with job placement and retention strategies or first-source hiring agreements with industry. Job training programs should also focus on long-term career opportunities (i.e. teach transferable skills, create opportunities for future training and education, technical assistance for those who want to start their own businesses), wrap-around services and ongoing case management.
Increased access to existing jobs for the hardest hit communities: Every agency within the federal government has annual contracting goals to increase the participation of small, disadvantaged, and women-owned businesses. Adherence to these goals varies greatly by agency with some key programs poorly enforced. The US Department of Housing and Urban Development estimates that for one of its largest programs (Section 3 requirements), only 25 percent of HUD funded recipients report their compliance and 80 percent of those reporting fail to meet the minimum requirements. Compliance with these types of guidelines consistently across agencies could channel tens of thousands of jobs to the hardest hit families and communities in America.
Rebuild the middle class - We should implement policies that encourage the creation of reliable and sustainable jobs that allow families to earn a living wage, receive reasonable benefits, build assets, and retire in dignity. Investing in clean energy and energy efficiency programs can replace many manufacturing jobs that have been lost over the past few decades and position the nation to be a leader in many industrial jobs of the future. Federal policies should also protect American workers from direct competition with countries that fail to respect worker rights and not reward firms that ship economic opportunities abroad.

Iran's Crisis of Resistance.

2009-11-20T18:30:49Z

Matthew Duss on Iran's legitimacy problem:

The "war on terror" was pretty great for Iran's hardliners. The Bush administration's 2002 inclusion of Iran in the "Axis of Evil" was a major blow to Iranian moderates, discrediting their calls for U.S.-Iran rapprochement and supporting the claims of Iran's hard-liners that engagement with America was pointless. The invasion of Iraq removed Iran's greatest enemy, Saddam Hussein, against whom Iran had fought a staggeringly destructive eight-year war. Iraq's postwar government included a significant number of Iran's former clients -- including eventual Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki of Iraq -- in top leadership positions.

The perceived success of Iran's Lebanese ally Hezbollah against Israel in 2006 -- in a devastating month-long combination of bombing and ground combat hailed by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as "the birth pangs of a new Middle East" -- also proved a huge boost to Iranian hawks. A 2007 poll of Egyptians placed Ahmadinejad and Hezbollah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah as the two most admired leaders in the region. The fact that two Shiite leaders topped an Egyptian poll, even as Iraq's sectarian civil war raged and Arab leaders like Jordan's King Abdullah warned of Shiite inroads into Sunni Arab lands, is a testament to Iran and Hezbollah's success in defying the West.

KEEP READING ...

Foreclosures Aren't Going Anywhere.

2009-11-20T17:52:01Z

A recent survey shows that more than 14 percent of borrowers are having trouble paying their mortgages, especially as unemployment starts to play a larger role than the subprime fiasco that helped kick off the recession. Meanwhile, 9.6 percent of borrowers are delinquent on payments, and 4.5 percent are involved in a foreclosure -- taken together, 7.4 million households, the highest level since 1972.

Especially given the problems with the administration's mortgage modification plan, this isn't welcome news. If anything, it should be another argument for using TARP funds to deal with unemployment rather than deficit reduction, as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other congressional Democrats, frustrated by the pace of real economic improvement, are urging Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner.

-- Tim Fernholz

Human Rights Groups: Military Commissions Still Touch-And-Go.

2009-11-20T17:00:20Z

Both the American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights First were at Guantanamo this week to observe the commencement of the new, revised military commissions. Both were present for the pre-trial hearing of Mohammed Kamin, and both organizations had similar takes on the proceedings.

ACLU:

Continuing the military commission proceedings against Kamin meant more of the same of what we've seen in other proceedings here: uncertainty about the rules, which the government is making up as we go along (even now, the Department of Defense is preparing new rules for the military commissions), and a judge frustrated by delays in the prosecution's failure to hand over fundamental evidence to the defense.

The usual chaos was compounded by uncertainty over where Kamin's case will ultimately be tried. Kamin is accused of a single crime, providing material support for terrorism—an offense that should have been prosecuted in established federal courts. While a military commission conviction for material support for terrorism could possibly be overturned on appeal because such a crime is not a traditional war crime, the offense is covered by the federal criminal law. And federal courts have a proven track record of obtaining convictions for material support for terrorism in numerous cases since 2001.

Human Rights First:

There is a making-it-up-as-we-go feel to these proceedings which is inevitable for a system of trials for which the Congress, courts and executive keep changing the rules. For example, there was discussion today of a new pre-trial hearing date in December in the Kamin case.

But officials said that the new rules for the military commission proceedings - which the Department of Defense needs to alter to conform with reforms passed by Congress on October 29 - have yet to be released by the Department of Defense. Officials with the Office of Military Commissions at Guantanamo acknowledged today that they have not even seen a draft set of the new rules.

I think most Americans aren't actually privy to how haphazard the military commissions are--they're essentially a new legal system invented from scratch to try detainees against whom we have dubious evidence or only intelligence information. The adjective "military" may give them a certain sense of authority for those who are unaware just how poorly the process has worked so far compared to federal courts, but this is misleading since the DoJ's civilian lawyers are actually more experienced in trying terrorism cases.

Not to belabor the point, but from a practical point of view, why would you want to put Khalid Sheik Mohammed through this kind of shaky process rather than a civilian trial in the Southern District of New York, which has already handled plenty of these types of cases? A civilian trial is still far less of a roll of the dice than the military commissions, even after the revisions.

-- A. Serwer

Is It Time for Malpractice Reform?

2009-11-20T16:43:51Z

Joanne Kenen lays out some progressive solutions to the malpractice problem:

Year after year, Republicans try to pass legislation that would limit medical malpractice awards. Fix the tort system, they argue, and we fix rising health-care costs. And year after year, Democrats resist placing arbitrary caps on awards to people who may have suffered from an egregious medical error. The fight plays out like a predictable old Western -- good guys versus bad guys. Depending on your politics, the villain is either the greedy doctor or the greedy trial lawyer.

Health reform invites a fresh look at malpractice. The Republican tort-reform agenda hasn't magically fixed what ails American health care in states that have tried it. But progressives can test new models of medical malpractice reform because -- done right -- they may lead to a more consistent, more timely, and more equitable approach to compensating people who have been harmed.

KEEP READING ...

Jesse Jackson Learns It's Not the '80s Anymore.

2009-11-20T15:50:12Z

The other day, Jesse Jackson said Rep. Artur Davis of Alabama wasn't black because he voted against health-care reform:

At a CBC dinner on Wednesday night, the famed civil rights leader denounced Davis's vote, saying, "We even have blacks voting against the health care bill from Alabama. You can't vote against health care and call yourself a black man."

Jackson then walked it back:

Days after insisting it was impossible to be both black (which Davis is) and vote against health care reform (which Davis did), Jackson said he called the Alabama gubernatorial candidate to "assure him of my abiding admiration."

It's a good sign that even someone who has been associated with civil rights as long as Jesse Jackson can't get away with publicly questioning someone's ethnic loyalties based on their politics without embarrassing himself and having to apologize. If only we could somehow get this dynamic going within the American Jewish community.

-- A. Serwer

More Conservatives Line Up Behind Holder.

2009-11-20T15:17:35Z

Following somewhat in the footsteps of the Constitution Project and former State Department official John Bellinger, former Bush Department of Justice officials Jack Goldsmith and Jim Comey have backed Eric Holder's decision to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed and the other alleged 9/11 conspirators in civilian court. Goldsmith famously withdrew the administration's torture memos, and Comey backed then Attorney General John Ashcroft's decision not to certify the NSA wiretapping program.

Goldsmith and Comey don't go as far as the Constitution Project in pushing against preventive detention, and they're fine with the two-tiered system of justice for suspected terrorists. In fact, they're painfully honest about it:

It is more likely that Holder decided to use a commission system still learning to walk because the Cole case is relatively weak and will benefit from the marginal advantages the commission system offers the government. It is also likely that the Justice Department will decide that many other terrorists at Guantanamo Bay will not be tried in civilian or military court but, rather, will be held under a military detention rationale more suitable to the circumstances of their cases.

Meanwhile, Charles Krauthammer fufills his weekly duty by resurrecting the conservative strawmen of the past week and marching that zombie army across the Post op-ed page. The only valid criticism he raises of the decision to try KSM in a civilian trial is that "whatever the outcome of the trial, KSM will never walk free." It's hard to see this criticism as based on his concern for due process however, since he's angry that "receive the special protections and constitutional niceties of a civilian courtroom." The more honest version of this argument is that conservatives don't believe that people accused of terrorism should be given a presumption of innocence -- which undermines the whole "fair trial" thing. That's exactly the point, but you can't just come out and say "I don't believe in fair trials" so you dissemble as above, or in the Obama administration's case, you just tell everyone what a good job you're doing adhering to the rule of law even as you assure people that the accused will be executed.

Krauthammer also fears, like other conservatives, the unhinged rants of KSM. There's really nothing more self-implicating than the chattering teeth of Republicans in the face of a terrorists' rants -- in a military commissions trial, KSM's indictment of the United States might have some resonance, particularly in the Middle East. Placing him in a civilian courtroom is a propaganda coup for the U.S., not the other way around. When people get hysterical over what KSM might say, it makes me wonder how much of what they think he might say is actually true. Spencer Ackerman has another theory: Seeing Al Qaeda terrorists being brought low before a court of law demystifies them for a fearful public, diminishing the political currency of terrorism-based fearmongering.

I can see why the GOP would be afraid of that.

-- A. Serwer

Harry Reid, and What Happened to the Public Option.

2009-11-20T14:53:37Z

First there was Medicare for all 300 million of us. But that was a non-starter because private insurers and Big Pharma wouldn't hear of it, and Republicans and "centrists" thought it was too much like what they have up in Canada -- which, by the way, costs Canadians only 10 percent of their GDP and covers every Canadian. (Our current system of private for-profit insurers costs 16 percent of GDP and leaves out 45 million people.)

So the compromise was to give all Americans the option of buying into a "Medicare-like plan" that competed with private insurers. Who could be against freedom of choice? Fully 70 percent of Americans polled supported the idea. Open to all Americans, such a plan would have the scale and authority to negotiate low prices with drug companies and other providers, and force private insurers to provide better service at lower costs. But private insurers and Big Pharma wouldn't hear of it, and Republicans and "centrists" thought it would end up too much like what they have up in Canada.

So the compromise was to give the public option only to Americans who wouldn't be covered either by their employers or by Medicaid. And give them coverage pegged to Medicare rates. But private insurers and ... you know the rest.

So the compromise that ended up in the House bill is to have a mere public option, open only to the 6 million Americans not otherwise covered. The Congressional Budget Office warns this shrunken public option will have no real bargaining leverage and would attract mainly people who need lots of medical care to begin with. So it will actually cost more than it saves.

But even the House's shrunken and costly little public option is too much for private insurers, Big Pharma, Republicans, and "centrists" in the Senate. So Harry Reid has proposed an even tinier public option, which states can decide not to offer their citizens. According to the CBO, it would attract no more than 4 million Americans.

More after the jump.

--Robert Reich

]]> It's a token public option, an ersatz public option, a fleeting gesture toward the idea of a public option, so small and desiccated as to be barely worth mentioning except for the fact that it still (gasp) contains the word "public."

And yet Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson mumble darkly that they may not even vote to allow debate on the floor of the Senate about the bill if it contains this paltry public option. And Republicans predict a "holy war."

But what more can possibly be compromised? Take away the word "public?" Make it available to only twelve people?

Our private, for-profit health insurance system, designed to fatten the profits of private health insurers and Big Pharma, is about to be turned over to ... our private, for-profit health care system. Except that now private health insurers and Big Pharma will be getting some 30 million additional customers, paid for by the rest of us.

Upbeat policy wonks and political spinners who tend to see only portions of cups that are full will point out some good things: no preexisting conditions, insurance exchanges, 30 million more Americans covered. But in reality, the cup is 90 percent empty. Most of us will remain stuck with little or no choice -- dependent on private insurers who care only about the bottom line, who deny our claims, who charge us more and more for co-payments and deductibles, who bury us in forms, who don't take our calls.

Not The Reset Button Again!

2009-11-20T13:57:06Z

Something is fishy about this article on the U.S. relationship with Afghan President Hamid Karzai. Apparently, the White House is hitting the ol' reset button beginning at a recent meeting with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton :

But instead of revisiting old disputes, Karzai brought in several cabinet ministers to talk about development and security. He explained details of a new effort to address graft. And halfway through a meal of lamb stew, chicken and rice, he looked across the table and said he had decided that the United States would be a "critical partner" in his second term, according to a senior U.S. official familiar with the meeting.

I'm glad he's decided that the U.S. is a "critical partner," but that's not exactly his decision, is it, given the whole U.S.-military-keeps-him-in-power thing? While Rajiv Chandrasekaran's piece suggests that Karzai's efforts are a result of "top diplomats and generals ... abandoning for now their get-tough tactics with Karzai and attempting to forge a far warmer relationship," I just don't think the chronology adds up. It was only a week ago that Ambassador Karl Eikenberry was arguing that the U.S. shouldn't send more troops specifically to have more leverage over Karzai, leading the president to reject all of his staff's proposals. I doubt that things have since turned around dramatically since then.

Reading on, the change in dynamic seems to be this: The new approach "will entail more engagement with members of Karzai's cabinet and provincial governors, officials said, because they have concluded that the Afghan president lacks the political clout in his highly decentralized nation to purge corrupt local warlords and power brokers." Essentially, U.S. officials have realized Karzai is inept and are bypassing him, which is much better explanation of why he's suddenly decided the U.S. ought to be his critical partner.

That's not to say there is no merit in Chrasekaran's analysis, which does show that the U.S. has pushed Karzai pretty hard throughout the election cycle, and made some diplomatic missteps that led Karzai to seek unsavory allies. But the article concludes with a quote from a senior official saying that Karzai isn't obstructionist, just inept, and with mention that at Clinton's feel-good meeting, she also delivered the news that further U.S. aid would be contingent on the Afghan government hitting certain benchmarks, not exactly a message Karzai wants to hear. Maybe the U.S. is taking a warmer tone with Karzai, but that's because they've realized how ineffectual he is, which in turn has led him to emphasize his value to the American project. The combination of the U.S. dealing with the facts on the ground and Karzai being cooperative might be a very good outcome indeed.

-- Tim Fernholz

Lightning Round: The Value of Presidential Amnesia.

2009-11-19T22:50:52Z

Some conservatives are open about their reverence for the Bush administration's policies. But others, perhaps not wanting to associate themselves with the worst presidency of modern times try to pretend the last eight years didn't happen by comparing Barack Obama to History's Greatest Monster, Jimmy Carter, or pretending that foreign policy initiated by the Bush administration, left to fester for years, is now proof that Obama has "lost" the war in Afghanistan.

I agree with Robert Farley that basing your foreign policy exclusively on worst-case scenarios is arguably the worst thing you can do, which I think is related to the another common refrain in foreign affairs: portraying your would-be adversary in the personalized terms of a madman who cannot be negotiated with, and who is unwavering in his commitment to destroy you. Fortunately, the Obama administration has opted to return to a fairly conventional carrots-and-sticks approach which gives the United States more leverage than mindless saber-rattling and demonization ever could.

Needless to say, Republicans did not provide the leadership which led to passage of the Civil Rights Act, but what's most telling about these remarks is that most Republicans probably believe this. As we all know, the only racists left in this country are liberals, whose insistence on big government creates dependency for minorities who would otherwise pull themselves up by their own bootstraps and become successful small business owners under the proven deregulatory policies of Republicans.

Remainders: Voters sour on the stimulus, don't understand recession economics; Michael Tomasky tries to unravel the Blue Dog enigma; the fundraising war continues apace; and the Senate deludes itself into thinking that it can legislate away teenagers' hormones.

--Mori Dinauer

Clean Energy and Good Jobs Go Hand in Hand.

2009-11-19T22:27:11Z

With the unemployment rate the highest it's been in 25 years, The Roosevelt Institute asked historians, economists and other public thinkers to reflect on the lessons of the New Deal and explore new, big ideas for how to get America back to work. TAPPED will be cross-posting the 10-part series with the New Deal 2.0 blog. In this installment, Phaedra Ellis-Lamkins argues for clean energy investments that will create 1.7 million jobs for the people who need them the most.

It’s difficult for most Americans to accept data indicating an end to the recession for a simple reason – they don’t see the light at the end of the tunnel. Despite a quarter of growth, the unemployment rate has topped 10 percent, the highest it has been since 1983. Among people of color, the rates are even higher, with Latino unemployment exceeding 13 percent, and unemployment in the African-American community just shy of 16 percent. Economic growth does not mean that Americans experience economic relief; without stable jobs for everyday Americans, this cannot be considered a recovery. Recovery necessitates that jobs be created – jobs that provide stable employment for years, not months.

Green shoots of an employment recovery are showing through the investments made under President Obama's Recovery Act, which is already producing impressive innovation and the beginnings of job and wealth creation in green industries. Clean-energy sectors, which hold the promise of being major engines of job growth, are creating opportunities for those communities hit hardest by the recession: low-income communities and communities of color.

Portland, Oregon, for example, is using Recovery Act investments to launch a revolving loan fund that will help residents pay for energy-efficiency improvements to their homes. This program will save energy, save money and create 10,000 local jobs. A groundbreaking Community Workforce Agreement will further ensure that those jobs are available to workers from low-income and other disadvantaged communities.

In New York City, Recovery Act investments are helping the Community Environmental Center (CEC) hire more workers and weatherize more buildings. The largest Weatherization Assistance Program provider in the state, CEC is a union shop providing good wages and benefits. And thanks to a partnership between the union (the Laborers Local 10) and Non-Traditional Employment for Women, women and historically disadvantaged workers have the opportunity to win those jobs.

These local examples reinforce what larger, national investigations have shown. In our report Green Prosperity, Green For All, the Political Economy Research Institute and the Natural Resources Defense Council showed that clean-energy investment creates roughly three to four times as many jobs as comparable investment in fossil fuel industries. The report estimates that investing $150 billion (public and private) in clean energy will create a net gain of 1.7 million jobs. Renewable energy and energy efficiency replace the damage done to our environment by fossil fuels with good, sustainable jobs for American workers. Building a green economy involves more than a shift to clean energy – it will provide a shift to a more skilled and labor-intensive economy.

More after the jump.

-- Phaedra Ellis-Lamkins

Phaedra Ellis-Lamkins is the CEO of Green For All, a national organization working to build an inclusive green economy strong enough to lift people out of poverty.]]>

The Recovery Act is promising – but it is only a beginning. Congress and the President must take the next step: enacting strong climate and energy legislation. The Clean Energy Jobs Act, just reported out of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, will invest public money in clean energy. But moreover, it will also encourage private investment and innovation by sending a clear message: clean energy is the future of our economy. Those who invest early and robustly will be reap the benefits.

There are ways, though, that the Clean Energy Jobs Act can be made even stronger. We must to increase clean-energy investments while fully protecting low-income consumers from price hikes. We must protect two key provisions: the Green Construction Careers Demonstration Project and funding for the Green Jobs Act. These provisions ensure that the bill not only creates jobs, but that all of America's workers have access to and are ready for these jobs — particularly the workers impacted most severely by the economy’s downturn.

An economic recovery, after all, is not a percentage point noted in a press release. A real recovery is one in which Americans can be confident that, regardless of where they live or what they look like, they have an opportunity to succeed in the economy. We must measure our true progress by a different metric: the number of career-track, green jobs that we create for those Americans who need them most.