JP Morgan’s $2 billion trading loss has renewed interest in the Volcker Rule, part of the Dodd-Frank financial reform law meant to prevent banks from engaging in risky trading with federally backed dollars. Wall Street banks have been lobbying to water down the rule. In fact, JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon helped open up a loophole that would allow the sort of trading that cost the bank billions.

House Republicans, of course, have been following Financial Service Committee Chairman Spencer Bachus’ (R-AL) directive to “serve the banks” by helping them in their efforts to water down and dismantle Dodd-Frank. In addition to preventing financial regulators from having the budgets necessary to do their jobs, the House GOP has been chipping away at Dodd-Frank, voting to repeal several important provisions.

But in the wake of JP Morgan’s mess, that effort has stopped, at least temporarily:

House Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas (R-Okla.) announced Tuesday that his panel would be postponing a Thursday markup of the bills, which would have repealed or altered provisions of the financial overhaul.

Lucas directly cited the high-profile losses of the nation’s largest bank as the reason for the delay, saying he wanted to make sure the bills would not inadvertently encourage Wall Street to take on risk haphazardly.

“As always, Washington has a tendency to overreact,” he said in a statement. “While the news of JP Morgan’s trading loss is unfortunate, the bipartisan legislation the Committee was scheduled to consider is unrelated to the cause of the trading loss. However, this Committee will take the time to gather all relevant information before we proceed to ensure there are no unintended consequences of the legislation that would encourage recklessness in our financial institutions.“

House Republicans have aimed to water down the derivatives section of Dodd-Frank, which would bring transparency to the opaque market that helped blow up the economy in 2008. However, JP Morgan’s woes have evidently made them think twice. Today, President Obama explained how JP Morgan’s trading loss shows “exactly why Wall Street reform’s so important.”

Our guest blogger is Michael Linden, Director for Tax and Budget Policy at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Federal spending is lower now than it was when President Obama took office. I’ll pause to let you absorb the news.

In January 2009, before President Obama had even taken the oath of office, annual spending was set to total 24.9 percent of gross domestic product. Total spending this year, fiscal year 2012, is expected to top out at 23.4 percent of GDP.

Here’s another interesting fact. Taxes today are lower than they were on inauguration day 2009. Back in January 2009, the CBO projected that total federal tax revenue that year would amount to 16.5 percent of GDP. This year? 15.8 percent.

One last nugget. The deficit this year is going to be lower than what it was on the day President Obama took office. Back then, the CBO said the 2009 deficit would be 8.3 percent of GDP. This year’s deficit is expected to come in at 7.6 percent.

The fact is that Obama inherited a disaster of a federal budget. Eight years prior, when President George W. Bush took the oath of office, there was a $281 billion surplus. By the time Obama was sworn in, he was facing a $1.2 trillion deficit. Inconvenient though it may be for conservatives (especially those who are running for president), the truth is that spending, taxes and the deficit are all lower today than when President Obama took office.

The right-wing has been lauding Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin for his decision to renounce his U.S. citizenship in order to avoid taxes. But he isn’t the only one who’s going to slash his tax bill in the wake of Facebook’s upcoming initial public offering: both CEO Mark Zuckerberg and the company itself will lower their tax bill for years to come.

While Zuckerberg will pay a hefty tax bill right off the bat if he follows through on his plan to sell $5 billion in Facebook stock options, as the New York Times noted, he may then never pay a dime of taxes on the rest of his Facebook wealth. “Instead, he can simply use his stock as collateral to borrow against his tremendous wealth and avoid all tax,” the Times reported.

And, as Citizens for Tax Justice has noted, Facebook may use the issuance of stock options to avoid corporate income taxes, instead receiving hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars in refunds:

The tax law says that if a corporation issues options for employees to buy the company’s stock in the future for its price when the option issued, then if the stock has gone up in value when employees exercise the options, the company gets to deduct the difference between what the employee bought it for and its market price.

When, as Facebook expects, the 187 million stock options are cashed in this year, Facebook will get $7.5 billion in tax deductions (which will reduce the company’s federal and state taxes by $3 billion). According to Facebook, these tax deductions should exceed the company’s U.S. taxable 2012 income and result in a net operating loss (NOL) that can then be carried back to the preceding two years to offset its past taxes, resulting in a refund of up to $500 million.

“When profitable corporations can use the stock option tax deduction to pay zero corporate income taxes for years on end, average taxpayers are forced to pick up the tax burden,” said Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI). “It isn’t right, and we can’t afford it.” This tax preference for corporations costs the U.S. about $2 billion in revenue per year.

In addition, Zuckerberg’s using a totally legal accounting gimmick to transfer money to his unborn children, thus avoiding the gift tax. He also — by virtue of accepting a $1 dollar salary and purely living off his wealth — could be eligible for the Earned Income Tax Credit, which is intended to benefit low-income Americans.

Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney will return to Iowa today for the first time since the state’s January caucuses, where he will highlight the national debt and target President Obama for “add[ing] more than $5 trillion to it” — ignoring that the majority of the added debt since Obama took office is the result of Bush-era policies.

According to excerpts of his speech, Romney will lay out America’s responsibility to address the “prairie fire of debt” that “threatens what it means to be an American”:

Today America faces a financial crisis of debt and spending that threatens what it means to be an American. Here in the heartland you know in your hearts that it’s wrong. We can’t spend another four years talking about solving a problem that we only make worse every day. [...]

A prairie fire of debt is sweeping across Iowa and our nation and every day we fail to act we feed that fire with our own lack of resolve. This is not a Democratic or Republican problem. That fire could care less if you have a donkey or an elephant in your front lawn, it’s still coming for your house. There’s plenty of blame to go around for both parties. But in my years leading businesses, an Olympics and a state, I’ve learned one simple principle of leadership that never falters: Leaders lead. I will lead us out of this debt and spending crisis.

There’s one major problem with Romney’s rhetoric: his economic plan makes the debt worse. Romney’s tax plan gives a 20 percent across-the-board tax cut to all Americans and repeals the Alternative Minimum Tax, costing $10.7 trillion over the next decade and reducing federal revenues to just 15 percent of GDP, according to Center for American Progress Director of Tax and Budget Policy Michael Linden. Romney hasn’t offered a plan to pay for those cuts, instead simply asserting that he will balance the budget.

But balancing the budget under those terms would be next to impossible. Even if Romney limits tax deductions for the richest Americans as he says he would, he would need 6.5 percent economic growth for the next five years to keep his plan from adding to the deficit. To put that in perspective, the best five-year period of growth since World War II was from 1961 to 1966, when the economy grew at 5.8 percent per year.

Last August, the nation narrowly avoided hitting its debt limit thanks to a last minute deal cut by Congress. House Republicans had threatened to push the country into a default unless Democrats agreed to spending cuts that were larger than the amount of the debt limit increase.

The episode is widely regarded as an embarrassment for good governance and a blow for the economy. Standard & Poor’s, even with the deal, downgraded America’s credit rating, citing the GOP’s complete intransigence regarding revenue increases. But it seems Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) is ready to write the sequel, as he will reportedly demand today that the next increase in the debt limit follow the same GOP criteria:

In a speech Tuesday, House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) plans to address the issue of national debt, which will once again be nearing its legal limit in January, just as the tax hikes and spending cuts are due to hit.

According to advance remarks provided to The Post, Boehner will insist that any increase in the debt limit be accompanied by spending “cuts and reforms greater than the debt limit increase” — the same demand that pushed the Treasury to the brink of default during last summer’s debt-limit standoff.

According to the Economic Policy Institute, the cuts demanded by the GOP in exchange for raising the debt limit will cost the economy 1.8 million jobs this year. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner already pushed back on Boehner’s remarks, saying, “this commitment to meet the obligations of the nation, this commitment to protect the creditworthiness of the country, is a fundamental commitment that you can never call into question or violate.”

JP Morgan Chase’s $2 billion trading loss is “exactly why Wall Street reform” is so important, President Obama said in his first interview since the bank announced the massive loss last week. Obama signed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act, which could ban risky trades like the one that hit JP Morgan, in 2010.

JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon announced the loss last Thursday, sparking stock losses and reminders of the 2008 financial crisis across Wall Street. In Obama’s interview, which will air this morning on ABC’s “The View,” the president referenced the federal bailout that resulted from that crisis and said a similar loss at a weaker bank may have caused yet another bailout, ABC News reports:

“JPMorgan is one of the best-managed banks there is. Jamie Dimon, the head of it, is one of the smartest bankers we got and they still lost $2 billion and counting,” the president said. “We don’t know all the details. It’s going to be investigated, but this is why we passed Wall Street reform.”

“This is the best, or one of the best-managed banks. You could have a bank that isn’t as strong, isn’t as profitable making those same bets and we might have had to step in,” Obama said. “That’s exactly why Wall Street reform’s so important.”

What Obama didn’t mention was how successful Dimon and JP Morgan were in watering down Wall Street reform. The bank has spent nearly $10 million since the beginning of 2011 on lobbying, focusing largely on the Volcker Rule, a regulation that would largely prohibit risky proprietary trading at federally-insured banks. The trade that caused JP Morgan’s losses would likely still have been legal under the Volcker Rule, but only because of a loophole that JP Morgan lobbied for.

Obama is right that JP Morgan’s situation demonstrates the need for Wall Street reform. But it also makes clear that the new rules need to be strong and immune from Wall Street’s lobbying influence if we don’t want a repeat of the 2008 crisis.