ThinkProgress Logo

Economy

GOP Senators Pressured Bailed Out Banks To Not Compromise On Cram-Down Bill

ap090310021234.jpgYesterday, Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) announced that he plans to bring the long-delayed cram-down bill — which would allow bankruptcy judges to “cram-down” mortgage payments for troubled homeowners — to the Senate floor for a vote next week. However, it will reportedly be introduced only as an amendment, a form in which “it appears likely to lose.” In fact, Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) has gone so far as to pronounce cram-downs “dead.”

So what is happening to this common sense proposal to address the housing crisis? First, it has been caught in a web of special interest lobbying. Various banks and credit unions have been involved in the negotiations, with different parties walking away from the table at one point or another. One lobbyist opposing the bill crowed about the mess, saying that “chaos is good.” Republicans have also been staunchly opposed to the bill, spreading various falsehoods about its effects.

While not completely necessary, it would have been helpful for the banks to support cram-downs. But Republican senators apparently pushed bailed out banks — that are operating thanks to taxpayer money — to not accept any compromises on the measure. According to CongressDaily:

GOP senators had put pressure on three big banks that were left negotiating — Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo — not to give in, according to sources. They were concerned the three lenders might agree to a compromise like Citigroup did earlier with [Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL)], especially as they face pressure to strike a deal with Democrats because of other criticism leveled at them, including their use of Troubled Asset Relief Program funds, credit cards and mortgage lending practices. Citigroup is still feeling the wrath of GOP leadership.

JP Morgan, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo are all TARP recipients, and may have been enticed by Durbin’s offer to attach cram-downs to a bill raising the FDIC’s deposit-insurance limit. So which is worse here? Banks accepting taxpayer dollars while fighting against a measure meant to help taxpayers, or GOP Senators pushing them to continue doing so when a compromise is on the table?

Ending the tide of foreclosures is a key part of halting the economy’s slide. So as the New York Times editorial board wrote this morning, “Republican senators need to understand that a vote against this reform is a vote against economic recovery“:

As foreclosures add to the glut of unsold homes, house prices will continue to fall. That will lead to more foreclosures — declining equity is a risk factor for default — and more defaults and foreclosures will hamper the banks’ recovery and further constrain credit. And so on.

Politics

Rep. King: Jay Bybee ‘should be given a medal for what he did.’

This afternoon on Fox News, correspondent Brian Wilson reported that “left leaning groups and some Democrats” believe torture architect Judge Jay Bybee should be impeached. Responding to a question from Wilson, Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) said, “I think someone who writes a how-to memo on how to break the law should not be a federal judge.” The ultra conservative Rep. Peter King (R-NY) took the polar opposite view, telling Wilson that Bybee should be “given a medal” for authorizing torture:

KING: I think that Judge Bybee should be given a medal for what he did. But even if I disagreed with those memos, these are memos written in good faith. These well written, well reasoned memos. People may disagree with them, but he belongs on the bench. He should stay on the bench. And I think talk of impeaching him or going after him is again the worst type of political vindictiveness.

Watch it:

Please join our campaign calling on Congress to begin impeachment hearings against Jay Bybee.

Yglesias

Emmanuel Saez Wins John Bates Clark Medal

The John Bates Clark medal goes out to a promising young economist who often later finds himself burdened with a Nobel Prize. This year’s winner is Emmanuel Saez which is exciting for policy-oriented progressive bloggers since his specialty is inequality.

You would think that such an award-winning economist could find a computer program that makes pretty charts than this, but here’s the key portrait of growing inequality in the United States from his “Striking it Rich: The Evolution of Top Incomes in the United States”:

saezinequality

The ongoing crash will, one assumes, push the top one percent share down again. These imagines at least suggest the existence of a connection between sustainable economic growth and broadly shared economic growth.

Yglesias

India’s Role in Af-Pak

pakistansalute-1

Steven Walt observes that however scary a collapsing, Talibanized Pakistan may look to the United States, it looks way scarier to India:

So instead of its traditional goal of trying to weaken Pakistan, you’d think India would be going to considerable lengths to shore up the Zadari government. Pakistan’s military isn’t strong enough to pose a conventional threat to India, and New Delhi ought to be looking for ways to allow Pakistan’s armed forces to reorient their attention away from India and towards the real danger. This wouldn’t a concession on India’s part; it would be a smart strategy. But it would also require a level of foresight that few governments manage to display, so I ain’t optimistic.

I think an Indian would tell you that the real problem with this proposal isn’t that India isn’t farsighted enough to do it, it’s that Pakistan is the aggressor in the India-Pakistan conflict. If Pakistan would stop trying to take over Indian-controlled Kashmir, the conflict would go away and Pakistan could focus its energies on its domestic radicalism problem. But Pakistan has historically preferred to focus its energy on India. India can—and should—try to give Pakistan some reassurances on this score. But recent blowups in the India-Pakistan relationship have all been caused by Pakistan. India is just trying to maintain the status quo.

Security

Orientalism In Defense Of Torture Is Unnecessary

water-torture.jpgAs has probably been the case since the beginning of human existence, groups under threat tend to impute all manner of strange and frightening characteristics to their enemies. The Greeks told scary, fantastic stories about the vile Persians, as did the Ottomans about the hated, unwashed European barbarians. Allied soldiers and citizens during the First World War were taught to fear the uniquely barbarous German Hun. During the Cold War, Americans were raised to believe that, in the immortal words of Gen. Jack D. Ripper, “your Commie has no regard for human life, not even his own.”

Similar sorts of exceptionalist arguments have been a standard part of America’s post-9/11 political discourse, running the gamut from Michael Rubin’s theologically questionable presentation of the Iranian regime as “religiously sanctioned” liars to Marty Peretz’s outright racist assertion that the mass atrocities taking place in Iraq are “routine in their [Arab] cultures.”

One such example that has cropped up recently in relation to the torture debate is the idea that, in addition to being especially resistant to torture because of their religious commitment, Al Qaeda detainees actually require the application of torture in order to the help them fulfill their religious obligation to resist.

Pivoting off of a statement from Abu Zubaydah in the released CIA memos (“Brothers who are captured and interrogated are permitted by Allah to provide information when they believe they have reached the limit of their ability to withhold it in the face of psychological and physical hardships”), former Bush administration speechwriter Marc Thiessen rationalized in the Washington Post that “the job of the interrogator is to safely help the terrorist do his duty to Allah, so he then feels liberated to speak freely.”

In Thiessen’s world, not only does torture help protect America, it helps our enemies to be better Muslims.

Cliff May picked up this argument today in NRO’s The Corner, writing that “Islamists [sic] believe their religion forbids them to cooperate with infidels — until they have reached the limit of their ability to endure the hardships the infidel is inflicting on them.”

In other words: Imagine an al-Qaeda member who would like to give his interrogators information, who does not want continue fighting, who would prefer not to see more innocent people slaughtered. He would need his interrogators to press him hard so he can feel that he has met his religious obligations — only then could he cooperate.

But just try to get anyone in the “anti-torture” camp to seriously debate any of this.

I think the reason why May is having trouble getting anyone in the anti-torture camp to seriously debate this is because it’s not a very serious argument. It’s pretty safe to say that a member of Al Qaeda “who does not want continue fighting and who would prefer not to see more innocent people slaughtered” has effectively given up his membership in Al Qaeda. The idea that such a person — having already abandoned the key tenets of Al Qaeda’s jihad — would then continue to hold out simply in order to be able to check the “resist torture” box is extraordinarily weak stuff. But then, so is the argument for torture.

The idea that Al Qaeda detainees pose some special interrogation challenge by virtue of their religious belief is likewise pretty weak. All detainees operate under a certain code governing what information they may and may not reveal (American servicemen are famously only allowed to reveal their name, rank, and serial number when captured) and I haven’t seen any evidence that Al Qaeda members are any more or less resistant to interrogation simply on the basis of their faith. And certainly not to the extent that would justify the United States’ violating its prohibition on torture.

Politics

Ben Nelson to oppose OLC nominee Johnsen because of her ‘outspoken pro-choice views.’

nelson251.jpgGreg Sargent reports that centrist Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson (NE) — who voted to confirm both Sam Alito and John Roberts — will oppose Dawn Johnsen’s nomination to lead the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. Nelson says he opposes Johnsen, a noted legal scholar and outspoken critic of the Bush administration’s torture program, because of her pro-choice views:

Senator Nelson is very concerned about the nomination of Dawn Johnson, based on her previous position as Counsel for NARAL. He believes that the Office of Legal Counsel is a position in which personal views can have an impact and is concerned about her outspoken pro-choice views on abortion.

Nelson is buying into the right-wing’s war against Johnsen. Outspoken anti-choice Republican Rep. Chris Smith (NJ) said Johnsen has a “a prejudice against motherhood, the family and a fundamental respect for all human life.” The National Review’s Andy McCarthy claimed she would be a “culture-war agitator.” Republicans have threatened a filibuster against her.

Update

Nelson had opposed the use of the filibuster on John Bolton and former Bush EPA adminstrator Stephen Johnson. “Nelson generally opposes the filibuster on nominees, even if he doesn’t like the candidate,” notes Brian Beutler. It remains to be seen whether he will filibuster Johnsen.

Yglesias

Muscle Fatigue

It’s shocking how easy it is to be shocked all over again by browsing through Jay Bybee’s memo. For example: “These procedures, as discussed above, involve the use of muscle fatigue to encourage cooperation and do not themselves constitute the infliction of severe physical pain or suffering.”

It’s not pain, it’s just muscle fatigue. And it’s not severe. It’s just bad enough to compel you to cooperate.

Climate Progress

Sen. Warner: “We know clean coal is not around the corner.” I will be on 60 Minutes this Sunday on that very subject.

60 Minutes this Sunday takes on clean coal — or lack thereof (see “Is coal with carbon capture and storage a core climate solution?“).

The reporter, Scott Pelley, and the producers definitely know their stuff.  They interviewed me for about an hour a few months ago, so I have no idea what parts they’re going to use.  Jim Roger of Duke will be on it.  I think Hansen also.

Interestingly, on the House panel today with Gore, former GOP Sen. Jim Warner of Virginia dissed the coal industry’s clean coal ads and said, “we know clean coal is not around the corner.”

Warner urged passage of Waxman-Markey and said “future generations will look back” on what Congress does here:

This is serious business. This particular moment in history is crucial.

Hear!  Hear!

Politics

Gore tells GOP deniers they’re victims of ‘the Bernie Madoffs of global warming.’

Vice President Al Gore, testifying to Congress, told GOP global warming deniers that they are the victims of “the Bernie Madoffs of global warming.” After Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) mocked global warming as being responsible for the woes of the Dallas Cowboys, Gore said that he and other climate change deniers have been receiving bad information. He pointed out that a front-page story in today’s New York Times reveals that the largest corporate polluters in the United States censored their climate scientists in 1995:

The largest corporate carbon polluters in America, 14 years ago, asked their own people to conduct a review of all of this science. And their own people told them, “What the international scientific community is saying is correct, there is no legitimate basis for denying it.” Then, these large polluters committed a massive fraud far larger than Bernie Madoff’s fraud. They are the Bernie Madoffs of global warming. They ordered the censoring and removal of the scientific review that they themselves conducted, and like Bernie Madoff, they lied to the people who trusted them in order to make money.

Watch it:

Gore concluded, “These corporations ought to apologize to the American people for conducting a massive fraud for the last 14 years.”

Transcript: Read more

Economy

Another Energy Lie: Vitter Falsely Claims 271,000 Oil And Gas Jobs Lost Under Obama’s Green Economy Plan

We were quite surprised to see a Center for American Progress report being cited on the Senate floor by Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) yesterday. Unfortunately, what he said was just another in a string of “fuzzy math” and distortions defending the broken energy status quo and push for more of the same failed Bush-Cheney energy policies that caused the average family’s spending on gasoline end electricity to skyrocket by more than $1,100 per year.

Vitter said:

“According a preliminary estimate based on the Center for American Progress data, 271,000 oil and gas jobs would be destroyed annually by the administration’s proposed new taxes and fees on energy.”

Watch it:

This is a totally fabricated distortion of our 2008 report, “Green Recovery: A New Program to Create Good Jobs and Start Building a Low-Carbon Economy.”

We wondered where Vitter got it — it turns out this talking point has been circulating for some time, appearing in a document put out by the American Petroleum Institute, in a messaging memo from the oil-backed group Freedom Works, and on a set of talking points hosted on ConocoPhillips’ web site.

The point is a complete distortion of our data (nothing new for conservatives when it comes to energy policy). Our “Green Recovery” report shows that a two-year $100 billion federal investment in a green recovery program, including investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy, would create approximately 2 million jobs. The same amount of money invested in the oil industry would create 542,000 jobs over two years or…271,000 per year.

Apparently, they’ve taken this to mean that President Obama’s energy plan would cost 271,000 lost oil and gas jobs every year, which is simply not what the report says. Read more

Older

Newer

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

Sign Up