ThinkProgress Logo

Economy

Will The House Republicans’ Regulation Plan Stay Silent On Derivatives?

By Pat Garofalo on Jun 4, 2009 at 8:35 pm

boehnerco.jpgReuters yesterday reported that the Obama administration “plans to unveil on June 17 its sweeping plan to overhaul financial regulation.” The plan will reportedly “serve as a framework for lawmakers as they embark on the thorny task of restructuring how banks, hedge funds, derivatives, and other financial firms and securities are policed.”

Not to be outdone, House Republicans are putting together their own proposal, to be released next week. Congressional Quarterly reports:

The GOP plan, which is still being finalized, would modify the bankruptcy code to deal with the failure of large financial institutions, reduce the Federal Reserve’s role in banking matters and begin the process of fully privatizing mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In those areas, it veers sharply from a regulatory overhaul being finalized by the Obama administration that will serve as a template for congressional Democrats as they turn to crafting legislation on the issue.

Most of this goes right along with the Republican’s misguided attempts to place blame for the financial crisis on Fannie and Freddie, but I was struck that derivatives aren’t mentioned anywhere in the write-up. Could the plan that Republicans are drawing up really not touch on derivatives, which undeniably played a huge role in the economic crisis?

Just today, CongressDaily reported that those favoring stronger regulation “have gained the upper hand in the debate” over derivatives, “placing banks and securities dealers on the defensive in their quest to have Congress apply a light touch to the multitrillion-dollar industry.” Also, the chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission told the Senate Agriculture Committee today that “all derivatives should be regulated in some manner.”

And then there was Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), who warned the same committee “against ‘vast, unintended consequences’ from overly stringent regulation of derivatives that he said could stifle the flow of cash through the market.” This epitomizes the conservative approach before the economic crisis, and it seems like not much is going to change.

Related Posts

Yglesias

All The Right Enemies

By Matthew Yglesias on Jun 4, 2009 at 8:23 pm

Mark Kleiman: “Hezbollah, Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, John Bolton, Hugh Hewitt, and the Republican Jewish Coalition, and John Boehner all disliked the President’s speech.”

And, look, it’s no coincidence. Extreme elements on both sides of a conflict are in a symbiotic relationship. Islamist violence against the west strengthens the hand of the nationalistic right in the United States. But nationalist militarism from the United States strengthens the hands of violent radicals in Muslim countries.

Update

I should say that I shouldn’t have followed Kleiman’s lead in lumping the Muslim Brotherhood in with Hamas and Hezbollah. The latter are violent organizations and the Brotherhood isn’t—the distinction is important.

Politics

Sessions gets annoyed with child crying during a hearing: ‘Enough with the histrionics.’

By Ali Frick on Jun 4, 2009 at 8:03 pm

Jeff SessionsYesterday, Sen. Pat Leahy (D-VT) held a hearing on the Uniting American Families Act, which would allow gay nationals to bring their foreign partners into the United States on the same basis as straight couples. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), the only Republican who bothered to show up, grew impatient during the testimony of Shirley Tan; she faces deportation back to the Philippines, though her partner of 23 years and her children are American citizens. The New Republic reports that Sessions mocked Tan’s child for crying:

[O]ne of Tan’s children started crying within seconds of the start of her testimony. … For most people, the sight of a 12-year-old boy in tears at the prospect of his mother being deported halfway around the world would invoke some sympathy. Unmoved, however, was Alabama Republican Jeff Sessions, ranking minority member of the Committee and the only Republican to bother to attend the hearing. At the sight of the weeping boy, according to a Senate staffer who was at the hearing, Sessions leaned towards one of his aides and sighed, “Enough with the histrionics.”

Watch the video here (though you cannot hear Sessions’ remark). Sessions opposes the bill because, he said, it would be “providing an additional avenue for abuse of the marriage preference for immigration into our country.” Perhaps he’s listening to his top aide, Brian Benczkowski, who compares gay marriage to pedophilia and bestiality.

Politics

The Day Marriage Equality Became A Reality In New Hampshire

By Guest Blogger on Jun 4, 2009 at 6:59 pm

The Right Reverend V. Gene Robinson is the ninth bishop of the Diocese of New Hampshire in the Episcopal Church in the United States of America.

robinson33 Yesterday was a historic day for the state New Hampshire, as it became the sixth state in the United States to grant marriage equality to its gay and lesbian citizens. I spent most of it at the State House in Manchester amid the throngs of supporters of LGBT rights.

There is too much to tell in great detail, but here are a few snapshots from that exhausting and exhilarating day:

10:30 a.m. –- I address a marriage equality rally in front of the State House that is full of energy, excitement and anxiety. One supporter, a severely disabled gentleman in a wheelchair (with his partner of 37 years close-by), offers me his withered hand and thanks me for what I’ve been doing.

11:15 a.m. –- The NH State Senate (the only legislative body in America with a majority of female members, I might add!) votes 14-10 for marriage equality, sending it on to the House.

1:05 p.m. –- The House reconvenes with seven bills to take up before consideration of the marriage equality bill; the waiting is excruciating.

1:30 p.m. –- Ray Buckley, the openly gay Chair of the NH Democratic Party, and Mo Baxley, Director of the NH Freedom to Marry Coalition, tell me to sit down in my seat. A young man is standing by the entrance to the House gallery, with a holstered gun and holstered Bowie knife attached to his belt. They are worried for my safety.

3:45 p.m. –- House Bill 73 finally comes to the floor of the House. The air is electric with excitement and anxiety; the arguments against the bill are flimsy and poorly articulated. And then the vote. The longest 30 seconds I’ve ever experienced, while the legislators (over 450 of them!) push their red or green buttons.

4:15 p.m. –- The vote flashes up on the tote board — 198 for marriage equality, 176 against. The place goes berserk! The gallery is uncontrollable. I am reminded of Jesus saying that “even the rocks will shout.”

4:30 p.m. –- A joyous celebration outside begins. There are tears of joy everywhere. The disabled man in the wheelchair is weeping openly. Moms and Dads are calling their gay kids to let them hear the jubilation. Mo and I speak to the crowd and to the members of the press. The word comes that the Governor is going to sign the bill at 5:15 in the Executive Council chamber.

5:20 p.m. –- Governor John Lynch emerges from his office to tumultuous cheering. He delivers a great speech, stating that this bill represents the best of the American tradition: equality under the law and affirmation of the separation between church and state. He proclaims that marriage equality is not just about fairness in taxation, rights, benefits, and the like, but it’s also about respect for gay and lesbian people and their families. He also says that this should send a message to Washington — that it is time for the Federal Government to give to all LGBT people and families what NH has given them today.

I have dreamed about this day for quite some time. But no matter how much I think about it, hope for it, and work toward it, there is nothing like the reality of it. I still almost can’t believe it’s true. Marriage equality is now a reality in New Hampshire! Live free or die, indeed!

Security

Liz Cheney: Obama’s Language On Israel Goes ‘Much Further’ Than The Bush-Era Road Map For Peace

By Ryan Powers on Jun 4, 2009 at 6:40 pm

During his speech today, President Obama reiterated standing U.S. policy that the expansion of Israeli settlements in Palestine must be ended. “The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop,” he said.

On MSNBC this afternoon, former Vice President Cheney’s daughter, Liz Cheney, argued that Obama’s insistence that Israel freeze settlement expansion goes “much further” than the Roadmap to Peace negotiated by the Bush administration in 2002:

MITCHELL: Can you clarify at all a dispute some or among former Bush administration middle east experts and officials as to whether there was a secret promise or an agreement with Israel that Israel could proceed with settlement expansion to accommodate population growth?

CHENEY: It is a very complicated issue and the Road Map does talk about settlements. … But there’s the issue of, in existing settlements, if a family has a baby, are you allowed to build another room in the house? … I think there’s no question that this White House has gone much further in saying to the Israelis, “you must absolutely stop all of it.” And without, in my view, being as demanding of the Palestinians in terms of the security side of this equation.

Watch it:

Cheney is right to note that the Road Map to Peace — negotiated while she served in the Bush administration as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs — “does talk about settlements.” But she apparently doesn’t recall that when the Road Map talks about settlements, it is in the context of clearly stipulating that the Israeli government must freeze all settlement expansion — “including natural growth.” From the Road Map:

settlementfreeze

Cheney did not address a reported secret deal between former President Bush and Israel allowing some settlement expansion, despite being asked about it by host Andrea Mitchell:

Additionally, it is simply false to say that the Obama administration is not “being as demanding of the Palestinians” with regard to the security of Israel and its citizens. In his speech this morning, Obama made it clear that the U.S. would accept nothing less than full renunciation of violence in pursuit of political objectives on the part of the Palestinians:

Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and it does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America’s founding. This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia. It’s a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign neither of courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That’s not how moral authority is claimed; that’s how it is surrendered.

At another point in the interview, Cheney repeated Eric Erickson’s false claim that Obama equated conditions for Jews during the Holocaust with conditions in Palestine today.

Related Posts

Climate Progress

The Audacity of Nope: George Will embraces the anti-environmentalism — and anti-environment — message of The Breakthrough Institute

By Joe Romm on Jun 4, 2009 at 6:19 pm

[Note:  I'd be very interested in hearing from environmentally-responsible Climate Progress readers about what you think of the claim by Will and Shellenberger and Nordhaus that you are just trying to make a statement, just trying to assuage your guilt.]

Two weeks ago I wrote, “I can’t imagine why any serious journalist would cite the work of The Breakthrough Institute (TBI) “” except to debunk it” (see “Memo to media: Don’t be suckered by bad analyses from TBI“).

But here comes George Will to show us all why a semi-serious anti-science journalist would cite TBI founders, Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus: They have the exact same worldview.  They are, to use the popular term, BFF.  Will’s piece, Green With Guilt, is an extended diatribe against all environmental action.  No surprise, then, that Will cites at length TBI’s New Republic piece, “The Green Bubble.”

Will loves the Shellenberger and Nordhaus piece, of course, and not for the reason you might think, namely that the S&N piece is a string of factually untrue, egregious statements just like his entire body of work.  No, oddly enough, even though most of the media treats TBI as if it were part of the environmental movement, uber-conservative George Will share S&N’s entire Weltanschauung, which I call “The Audacity of Nope.”

Will and Shellenberger and Nordhaus say “nope” to all those of you who are taking individual action to reduce your environmental impact and global warming emissions — and they also say “nope” to any major government effort to take collective action to reduce global warming emissions. Future generations — you are on your own!

Will and Shellenberger and Nordhaus are the anti-Obamas, quite literally:  Both Will and S&N have explicitly and repeatedly attacked Obama’s climate policies.

Note to media:  Perhaps now, after the Washington Post has gone to all the trouble of publishing this engagement announcement from George Will, you can stop pretending that Shellenberger and Nordhaus are part of the environmental movement.

Here is Will’s big wet kiss to Shellenberger and Nordhaus:

Read more

Health

Blue Dogs Willing To Accept Trigger Public Health Option

By Igor Volsky on Jun 4, 2009 at 6:10 pm

bluedogsupersizeToday, The Blue Dog Coalition — a group of fiscal conservative Democrats — “indicated it could accept a public health insurance plan but only if it is used as a fallback option in the face of inadequate competition and cost containment by private insurers.” In a statement, the coalition established certain conditions under which it would be willing to accept a public plan:

- The plan would not disrupt the ability of families to keep their health care coverage and see their doctor

- Medicare payment rates should not be used as the basis for reimbursement

- The public health care option would be financially stable, and that it be employed only in the absence of adequate competition and cost containment

At quick glance, the plan resembles Sen. Chuck Schumer’s (D-NY) public plan framework. But the Blue Dogs are saying that if private insurers fail to lower the growth of health care spending, then the government would allow a public plan to compete with private insurers. Their public plan would look something like this: 1) it would be self-sustaining, 2) would not accept tax revenue or appropriations from the government, 3) would pay doctors and hospitals more than what Medicare pays, 4) establish a reserve fund, and 5) provide the same minimum benefits as private insurers. (For more on how the actual trigger would work, click here.)

Most progressive reformers would certainly argue that this kind of structure does not go far enough. That is, if one of the purposes of health care reform is to lower health care costs, then we should allow the public option to use Medicare leverage to negotiate lower rates with providers. In other words, every plan should use its inherent advantage (the public plan would rely on its lower administrative costs and bargaining ability, private insurers would use their provider networks and greater responsiveness to consumer demand) to provide applicants with the highest value services at the lowest possible prices. After all, if the public plan is forced to pay prevailing market rates and act like a private insurance plan, then why have it?

Moreover, Ezra Klein points out here, and I argued here, this is precisely the kind of competition that is (should be) at the heart of the Blue Dog’s conservative fiscal values. As Klein explains, “The idea here is that the public plan will adopt effective reforms that will then lower its costs and improve its quality. In response, the private market will follow suit”:

But this deal won’t be around forever. The public plan is an effort to institute reforms through a market mechanism. But if it fails, and the health industry doesn’t manage to bend the cost curve on its own, it’s fairly likely that it will end up on the business end of some serious new regulations. And at the point that costs become a crisis, those regulations will need to work fast. That means they’ll be implemented in the government’s way, not the market’s way.”

Update

DownWithTyranny! highlights the fractures in the Blue Dog Coalition:

One, Maine’s Mike Michaud, immediately broke with the caucus’ approach and endorsed the need for the real health care reform that Obama and progressives are trying to pass. Another, Patrick Murphy (D-PA) also distanced himself from the extremist and corrupt Blue Dogs, putting out a press release reiterating that he “stands with President Obama in supporting the inclusion of a public option in health care reform legislation.”

Politics

Graham: Approving Torture Techniques That Are ‘Clearly Illegal’ Are ‘Not Criminal Mistakes’

By Ali Frick on Jun 4, 2009 at 5:39 pm

This morning on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal, a caller asked Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) why he would not support a possible criminal investigation into the Bush-era torture program. Graham defended the Bush administration by saying they “overreacted” “out of fear,” but insisted that Bush’s “mistakes” were “not criminal mistakes”:

GRAHAM: The reason I don’t want to go back any more than we have already done is because I know what happened. Out of fear, we overreacted. … They took a view of the law that I think was aggressive, and I would not have approached it that way. Right after 9/11, we all thought we were going to be hit again. So as we go back and try to hold people criminally liable. I think we’re doing a lot of damage to the country, because their mistakes were not criminal mistakes. They were mistakes made out of fear.

Watch it:

The Bush administration approved, among other gruesome techniques, the use of waterboarding; waterboarding is torture, and torture is a crime. And it’s not just retired military experts, presidents, presidential candidates, and 71 percent of Americans who say so: Graham himself declared, in October 2007, that waterboarding “is clearly illegal under domestic and international law”:

GRAHAM: I am convinced, as an individual senator, as a military lawyer for 25 years, that waterboarding…does violate our war crimes statute and is clearly illegal under domestic and international law. … I don’t think you have to have a lot of knowledge about the law to understand this technique violates Geneva Convention Common Article Three, the War Crimes statutes, and many other statutes that are in place. So I do hope that he will embrace that.

Apparently for Graham, if you approve something that is “clearly illegal,” it’s not “a criminal mistake” — so long as you are acting out of fear.

Climate Progress

‘Bizarre’: Prominent Science Journalist Rebukes NYT’s Profile Of Climate Denier Freeman Dyson

By Brad Johnson on Jun 4, 2009 at 5:30 pm

Mike Lemonick
Mike Lemonick

In an article for Yale’s Environment 360, prominent science journalist Michael D. Lemonick rebukes the New York Times for its credulous 8,000-word profile of climate denier Freeman Dyson. As the Wonk Room previously noted, in March the New York Times Magazine ran a fawning cover article about Dyson by Nicholas Dawidoff, a baseball writer. Lemonick, who noted climate scientists describe Dyson’s ideas about global warming as “clueless,” “appallingly ill-informed,” and “flat-out wrong,” took particular umbrage at Dawidoff. When asked by NPR’s On the Media if whether it mattered if Dyson was right or wrong, Dawidoff answered:

Oh, absolutely not. I don’t care what he thinks. I have no investment in what he thinks. I’m just interested in how he thinks and the depth and the singularity of his point of view.

Lemonick responds with a sharp critique of Dawidoff and the New York Times:

This is, to put it bluntly, bizarre. It matters a great deal whether he’s right or wrong, given that his views have been trumpeted in such a prominent forum with essentially no challenge.

Lemonick, the senior writer at Climate Central and a twenty-year veteran science journalist for Time Magazine, interviewed Dyson, who freely admitted, “I have no credibility” on climate science or policy:

I have two great disadvantages. First of all, I am 85 years old. Obviously, I’m an old fuddy-duddy. So, I have no credibility. And, secondly, I am not an expert, and that’s not going to change. I am not going to make myself an expert.

Dyson’s happy explanation that his decades as a theoretical physicist should not substitute for actual knowledge raises into question the judgment of Dawidoff and his editors at the New York Times Magazine.

Update

The New York Times’ Andrew Revkin writes in to agree with Lemonick:

I find it hard not to echo my old friend Mike’s reaction to the NPR interview (we cut our teeth in journalism together in science magazines in the 1980s).

The only reason I grind away at the ugly interface of climate science and policy year after year — believe me, I’d way rather write about pythons or songwriting — is to provide some reliable sense of what we know, don’t know, need to know, and can’t know (the fundamental uncertainties) and what real-world choices are left based on that mix.

I certainly want to know, and convey, the motivation of sources as much as possible, but primarily to help reveal for readers why someone may be taking a certain stance. To have that as the only goal is, well… what’s Mike’s phrase?


Update

,In a related saga of journalistic embarassment, George Will pens another gibberish column attacking the “green bubble.”

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up