Budget

Describes motivation process for creativity with emphasis on intrinsic motivation by Corey K Katir

Back in 2009, National Geographic assembled a panel of 437 well-traveled experts in a variety of fields from historic preservation, site management, geography, sustainable tourism, ecology, indigenous cultures, travel writing and photography, and archaeology.

An extremely rare airfare sale (today only!) gets travelers north to Montreal, Quebec at a round-trip rate of $310.46.

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) served on the Simpson-Bowles commission, is a member of the Gang of Six, and just published aThe Debt Bomb: A Bold Plan to Stop Washington from Bankrupting America.a We spoke last week in his office. This interview, which focuses on Americaas debt and growth problems, is the first in a two-part series. The second interview, which focuses on health care, will be published later this week.

Ezra Klein: So ataxmageddona is coming at the end of the year. Depending on how you look at it, itas an opportunity for Congress to trigger a massive and unnecessary fiscal crisis, or to actually get some serious legislating done on our long-term fiscal issues. Are you optimistic about the outcome?

Tom Coburn: No. But it depends on what the mix is. If President Obama is still president and weare in control of the Senate, I think youall see significant attempts to get something done. But I donat think theyall be much more successful than what we saw in August. And I wouldnat consider that very successful. If Romney wins and we win control in the Senate, we have to send a signal that weare going to fix it in order to take away all that potential risk to the economy. You have to say weall work all over the Christmas holidays to get it fixed.

EK: When you look at the Romney scenario, it seems Republicans have spent a few years now learning how to take tough votes on the budget, particularly on the Ryan plan. So if Republicans control the House and Senate, it seems to me that youad see quite dramatic action on those issues, as they can be passed with 51 votes through budget reconciliation.

TC: Well, you can. Ryan has a good plan. I donat think it goes fast enough. But the fact is heas got a plan. The president wonat put out a plan. The Senate Democrats wonat put out a plan. Itas kind of like boxing with a shadow. You canat ever hit it. But it doesnat matter if youare Democrat or Republican. The pain will get worse every year we donat fix these things. And there will come a time when it wonat matter if youare a Republican or Democrat. And I donat have much faith right now that weare up to the task of coming to agreement to fix this.

EK: I want to come back to the question of the plans in a second,. But your book opens by imagining a very dire fiscal crisis in 2014. And this goes to your contention that Ryanas plan doesnat bring down the debt fast enough. Where do you get the urgency of your schedule? I look at Treasuries and theyare selling with very low yields. So you can say thatas just the Federal Reserve manipulating prices. So then I look at credit default swaps on the United States, and there are no alarm bells there, either. I look at countries like Japan and England that have carried on with very high debt levels for a very long time. Weave seen other countries that control their own currency manage very high debt levels throughout the 20th Century.

TC: Well, you need to go study Japan. Theyare going to crash.

EK: People have been saying that for 20 years.

TC: You have two things coming together. This is the first year theyall be a net issuer of debt outside their country. Theyave totally financed all their debt internally. We havenat. Thatas one big difference. They also have a much lower birth rate. Seven births for every 1,000 people. So their population is shrinking and their demographic shift is much worse than ours. And this year, the postal system there that runs all their retirement accounts will not be buying any government debt. Zero. So the Japanese government, for the first time, is going into the international market. And the yenas value is going to decline against every major currency. Whether that happens this year or next year or in three years, itas going to happen. And theyave now had almost two decades of no real GDP growth. So Japan isnat going to make it. The reason they havenat had any problems is they havenat asked anyone else in the world to buy their debt. Now theyare going to have to.

The same thing ultimately will happen to us, but weall be the last person it happens to. The world still views this as the safest place. You see Greece, which will probably be out of the euro by the end of this year. Then you look at Spain and Italy and Portugal and Ireland. Europe is going to print money just like Ben Bernanke is printing money. And whatas the end result of that? Inflation.

EK Well, it depends how you manage it.

TC: How do you sterilize $3 trillion worth of debt?

EK: The difficulty for me when you say that is Iam a market-oriented guy. I trust the markets, more or less. And if you look at the marketas inflation expectations, theyare not high. They donat think what the Fed has done will lead to inflation.

TC: They donat now. But nobody ever does when you print money like that. If you study [Carmen] Reinhart and [Kenneth] Rogoff and what they said, they know whatas coming. Every country thatas ever been with a debt crisis and has printed money has ended up with an intentional inflation problem. Think for a minute that youare Ben Bernanke. Youare trying to control inflation, jumpstart the economy, and improve the unemployment rate. What do you think his long-term answer for this is?

EK: At the moment, I donat think he has one.

TC: His long-term answer is inflation.

EK: Not only do I think that would be an okay answer, but Reinhart and Rogoff do, too. Rogoff has been arguing for higher inflation for a long time. But Bernanke says he wonat permit that. And I donat see a reason he would allow inflation later but oppose it now, when it could really help. In fact, what heas been saying is he wonat do the monetary stimulus many want now specifically because he doesnat want to deanchor inflation expectations later.

TC: But 10 years from now, our bonds wonat be two percent. So what percentage of the total budget do interest costs become if you normalize back to the historical average? If you do that today, you add $650 billion to our annual interest costs. How long do you think he can keep two percent inflation? If he does, then weall continue to have two percent growth. In other words, if we start getting the growth, then weall see the inflation. The reason thereas no inflation now is thereas no velocity to the money. Weave got $2 trillion sitting on the sidelines with corporations in this country. Another few trillion in personal bank accounts. And the reason is no one has confidence in the future. And itas not so much the details of the plan to fix it as the psychological confidence it will get fixed. And thatas why I voted for Bowles-Simpson.

EK: When Bowles-Simpson went before the House, it was rejected by a huge bipartisan majority. Do you see there as being any possibility that one outcome of the taxmageddon period could, be a grand bargain in the Gang of Six/Simpson-Bowles vein?

TC: I donat know the answer to that, frankly. My hope would be we reach a grand compromise. But the vote in the House proves what I said in the book. You had a vote in the House on a plan that could solve our problems and the Democrats didnat vote for it because it touches Social Security and Republicans vote against it because of revenues. Both sides accentuated their differences rather than sending a signal to the international community that we could get together and cut $4.5 trillion over the next 10 years. Which raises the question: Why are they here? If youare here just to get reelected, youare worthless to the country.

EK: Youare searingly critical of Congress in the book. So let me ask you: How do you fix the Senate?

TC: Let the Senate operate the way itas supposed to. put stuff through committees. bring it up in regular order. Have an open amendment process. Iam the number one amendment offerer in the Senate in the last few years.

EK: Congratulations.

TC: Well, itas not necessarily a compliment. But the point is the Senate really could work if you let it work on the real issues. If you were to put Simpson-Bowles on the floor and really have a strong debate on that bill, it could get through the Senate.

EK: When I talk to the party tactician types, the senators trying to figure this out, their argument is that when you try to do this out in public, with 24-hour news media broadcasting every move and every possible compromise, the issue polarizes, the interest groups descend, the party bases descend, and solutions get taken off the table. In the end, they think there will have to be some big backroom deal. They think a more open process would make this harder, not easier.

TC: I just adamantly disagree. Thatas the sickness of Washington. What that really says is the politician doesnat want to stand up and debate and tell their interest groups no. We had the pharmacists in here earlier. They want a bill to protect community pharmacies. And I said, you know what, the market is changing, Iam not about to support a bill, even though you support me, that doesnat allow the market to work this thing out. I think the reason you get this kind of analysis is because people wonat stand up and do what they think is right because it hurts their political chances. And on our bonds, our bonds will be fine until theyare not, till that tipping point comes when they say crap, we canat get out of it.

EK: As you just said, youare a market guy. You want the market to work things out. You believe in the marketas ability to work things out. So why do you think your view of our likely debt and inflation path is so much more dire than the marketas?

TC: Because the market is biased towards up. Why do you invest in the market? Not because you think youall lose money. Why do you invest in bonds? To make money. Where is the contrarian view?

Let me give you one example. Five weeks ago, Bernanke said there would be no QE3. What happened to the 10-year bond in four days? It rose 48 basis points. What the market said then is if thereas no more QE3, weare going to short the value of a bond. Thatas one little signal. What if you get 20 signals? How do you explain the Chinese getting rid $160 billion of our debt last year? Eventually, theyare not going to buy our debt. Who bought most of our debt last year? It was the Federal Reserve. Go out there and try and float $10 billion of our long-term debt. You canat. Thereas no market. Because the long-term market is saying, send us a signal that youall fix this. And so the reason we have the shortest debt maturity in our countryas history is first, because you canat sell long-term debt because no one wants to buy it, and second, because long-term debt makes the deficit look worse.

Look, I may not be right. But what I see and the people I read — all I do at night is read economic reports on peopleas view of us — and when you look at it, Spain, wonat make it, the European Central Bank will eventually print money. You agree?

EK: Iam hoping so.

TC: Theyall do that to buy time. And where I agree with Paul Krugman is you canat just have austerity. You need growth, The question is how do you get the growth. Do you get the government-driven growth, or do you get confidence and certainty so that the private money comes in and creates the growth? One costs you double. The other costs you half. So thereas a fourfold difference in where you get the growth from. When you borrow the money to spend $800 billion, you got that debt hanging on you, which Reinhart and Rogoff have proven without a doubt, when youare at 90 percent and above, and weare at 101 percent right now, debt-to-GDP, thatas at least a one percent cut to growth.

EK: To go back to Krugman, if he were sitting here, head say in this crisis thereas been no evidence anywhere that cutting deficits leads to growth. Weave not seen it in the euro zone or the UK. And head say the Reinhart/Rogoff story is a correlation story. It doesnat prove that high debt always and everywhere hurts growth.

TC: Go look at Sweden. Hereas what Sweden did. They cut their spending and their taxes. They have the best growth rate in Europe. They had a surplus this year. They had growth at six-plus percent. They actually did a Reagan style approach to their problem by cutting spending and cutting taxes. And theyare the fastest growing with a decline in their debt-to-GDP ratio.

EK: But correct me if Iam wrong, but if I recall, Swedenas monetary policy went towards a very sharp devaluation, theyave been driven by export growth, and alongside Israel, theyave been more aggressive than any other central bank in the world. Theyave done stuff that if we did it here, people would lose their minds.

TC: I think there are monetary parts to that. But their finance minister put in place tough stuff. They had people who left Sweden because of the tax ratio. Now theyave moved back. And itas not a perfect example, but itas an exception to the Krugman story.

EK: Is there anything we need but deficit reduction to get growth back on the right path?

TC: Itas signals. The number one thing, and I think most economists would agree, confidence matters. If you have negative confidence, then you get much lower growth. If you have positive confidence you get much better growth with the same set of numbers. I think people are so disgusted with Washington that if we send a signal weare actually going to fix this — with any combination of tax and spending, remember that I voted for Simpson-Bowles — weall get our mojo back when people have some confidence in the future and see their Congress solving their problems.

EK: It seems your view is that just as the market needs to have faith in your demographics and in the flexibility of your labor market and the competitiveness, it has to have faith in your political systemas capacity to deal with long and short-term threats. Do you see any reason for the market to have that faith right now?

TC: No. One of my biggest worries is what happens if Romney wins and Republicans control both chambers, do they have the courage to do what it takes to fix the country? Itas kind of their last chance. If theyare given the favor of control and they donat act on it, why should you ever trust them again? You shouldnat. Itall be the death knell of the Republican Party. They controlled it all for four years under Bush and grew the government. They created a new entitlement with no revenue. Went against the very tenets of what they said they believe.

One of the reasons I wrote the book was to show a whole lot of people how many stupid things we do. I donat really blame presidents too much. You gotta get appropriations. I say the problem is not that we donat get along. We get along too well. Government is twice the size it was 10 years ago. The president canat spend the money if we donat appropriate it. So itas not a president problem. Itas a congressional problem.

EK: On the other side of that hypothetical, letas say Obama wins, but Republicans hold the House and maybe even take the Senate. How do they act in that hypothetical? Are they more or less willing to compromise with Obama?

TC: I donat know. Iam not good at predicting that. If President Obama is president again, those problems are still there and we have to solve them. He knows that. Weave had conversations where heas told me heall go much further than anyone believes heall go to solve the entitlement problem if he can get the compromise. And I believe him. I believe he would.

The idea, admits tax lawyer Lee Sheppard, would prompt bankers to alook at you balefully, like you just ran over their dog.a

But advocates for higher taxes on Wall Street trading hope the proposal gets a second hearing–particularly since JPMorganas messy loss has raised new questions about the risks that big banks are still taking. They argue that a tax on trading would not only raise needed revenue, but also help curb some of the speculative, risky activities that make the markets so volatile–preventing, perhaps, the next aLondon Whale.a

The most popular proposal has been the Financial Transactions Tax, popularly known as the aRobin Hood Tax.a Itas already been implemented in 11 European countries–Britain, for example, has taxed stock trading since 1986–and the European Union is deliberating whether to impose it across the continent. An alternative proposal from the International Monetary Fund would tax tradersa net profits and wages–known as the Financial Activities Tax, or–oh yes–the FAT.

As it stands now in the U.S., atrading can be too cheap,a Sheppard said, speaking Friday at the Tax Policy Center. aEverything we have done since May 1975 in securities regulation has made trading cheaper and cheaper and cheaper.a Dodd-Frank has tried to restrict speculation and systemically risky trading through new rules, but taxes on trading arenat part of the legislation.

Advocates are now reviving their support for a bill that Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and Rep. Pete DeFazio (D-Ore.) introduced last November, which would impose a 0.03 percent tax on financial transactions. Congressas Joint Committee on Taxation, a nonpartisan group, estimated that their financial transactions tax would raise $350 billion over 10 years.

Thatas the other key argument for the tax–a much-needed source of revenue at a time when legislators are already grappling with the budget dilemma known as ataxmaggedon.a aThereas not enough revenue in the U.S. to pay the price of civilization,a Damon Silver, a policy director at the AFL-CIO, said at Tax Policy Centeras event. By comparison, President Obamaas latest proposal to reform Medicare to generate new revenue would raise $300 billion over 10 years.

The Obama administration, however, isnat a fan of the financial transactions tax. The White House believes it would be easy to evade, could hamper economic growth, and might make markets more volatile, not less so. Instead, Obama has proposed a new afinancial crisis responsibility feea on big banks, which would raise about $61 billion.

Even if there were the political will, itas unclear whether that such a tax would actually rein in risky derivatives traders like JPMorganas London Whale. Britain, for instance, doesnat tax derivatives and still opposes proposals to do so. And given the potential profit, a miniscule 0.03 percent tax might not be enough of a deterrent.

An earlier version of this story misstated the amount of the proposed financial transactions tax. The story has been corrected.

When gas prices rise, more people start taking the bus, train, or subway. Not everyone can do this a only about 54 percent of U.S. households have access to public transit, after all a but economists have found that the relationship is quite robust.

But what happens when gas prices start sinking back down a something thatas happening right now? Evidence suggests that many of those riders will keep taking transit anyway. One 2011 study of New York City, for instance, found that transit ridership aseems to respond to rises in gasoline prices, but not to falls.a A 2009 study in Philadelphia found a similar phenomenon. aThis sustained growth,a the authors of the latter study note, acould be evidence that once prices compel people to form new transit habits, some find a reason to keep them.a

This research is all discussed in a new policy brief (pdf) by the American Public Transportation Association, which notes that the United States appears to have entered a new era of oil volatility. (Theyare not alone in thinking so!) And that means that demand for public transportation is likely to keep surging. If gas prices spike, more people will try to ride the bus or train to work. If gas prices then settle down again, many of those people will stick with transit.*

Why does this matter? Because, APTA argues, public transportation systems are expected to add some 200 million new trips this year aeven as gas prices fluctuate by as much as 50 cents per gallon.a On the bright side, that means fewer emissions and congestion on the road. But on the downside, most transit systems are poorly equipped to deal with this surge.

Weave seen plenty of evidence of that already in cities like Pittsburgh. Ridership on trains and buses keeps swelling, even though many agencies have had to make cuts because of budget shortfalls. APTA estimates that 71 percent of transit agencies around the country have either cut services in the past year or are currently considering it. Some 39 percent of transit agencies had reported that aovercrowded conditions were such that they were turning away passengers.a

So is there a good policy solution here? Transit advocates tend to say more money is the answer. One problem, though, is in the peculiar way that the federal government provides money. Transit is funded through a dedicated fraction of the gas tax. And that can create havoc: Whenver oil volatility pushes people away from driving and toward transit, that means thereas less gas-tax revenue available. Weave seen this during the current recession a driving has plunged, which means gas-tax collections have fallen, which means Congress is bickering about whether to cut money for transit systems.

For its part, APTA still wants transit to be funded through a dedicated portion the gas tax a theyare worried that theyad get even less money otherwise. But the current set-up doesnat appear to be sustainable in the very long term.

—-

* Specifically, APTA estimates that if gas prices spiked from $3.50 per gallon to $4 per gallon, overall transit trips would increase by around 289 million trips. But if gas prices then sunk back down to $3.50 per gallon, overall transit trips would still be 200 million higher than they were originally. Thereas a ratcheting effect.

aAnyone who tells you that America is in decline or that our influence has waned,a said President Obama in his 2012 State of the Union address, adoesnat know what theyare talking about.a

It was a arah-rah America!a applause line for a president who needed to get the assembled Republicans out of their seats a few times over the course of the evening. But the line works literally, too. Whenever someone tells me that the United States is in decline, I have no idea what theyare talking about. And neither, I tend to think, do they.

The claim is maddeningly vague. What does it mean for the United States to be in decline? Are we talking about our geopolitical influence relative to other world powers? Our standard of living relative to other nations? Our current standard of living compared with some assumption about its appropriate rate of improvement?

Letas flip the question: What does it mean for the United States to be on the rise? If itas growing at a perfectly respectable 3.5 percent a year while China is growing at 8.5 percent a year, enabling Chinaas economy to surpass the U.S. economy in a decade or so, does that mean the nation is in decline?

My hunch is thatas how most Americans define decline. Which is a problem.

Consider a different scenario: Letas say the United States is growing at 3 percent annually, and Chinaas growth slows to 4 percent. In that case, China wonat surpass the United States for decades, forestalling American adecline.a Yet thatas a worse outcome for everybody. It means more impoverished Chinese and more impoverished Americans a who will, incidentally, be competing with those low-wage Chinese workers who still canat afford to buy American-made goods and services. It means fewer life-improving innovations will be developed in both countries. It may also mean less geopolitical stability as the Chinese people channel their frustrations against their political system, or their political system tries to distract them by channeling their frustrations against competitor nations.

If American preeminence relies on the continued immiseration of Brazil, China and India, then, even in the most selfish terms terms, Iam not sure that itas worth having. Yet it seems that some Americans would prefer to be the only superpower in hell than the foremost member of a more prosperous G20 in heaven.

A world in which global growth slows so much that countries with three or four times our population never surpass the United Statesas economic output is a world in which much is going wrong. Even now, many Chinese think that 8 percent annual growth is necessary for their society to remain stable. If growth falls to 4 percent, the Chinese system could crack, with untold geopolitical and human consequences. Perhaps it would lead to a more pluralistic, open political system. But I wouldnat bet on it. More likely, it would lead to increased nationalism, xenophobia and internal repression.

If hundreds of millions of Chinese and Indians continue to be stuck on unproductive farms or in unskilled jobs rather than being freed to develop their human capital, the rest of the world will be denied access to the endless innovations they otherwise might have developed. Put another way, the sun may now set on the British Empire, but the average British citizen lives much better because of the medical and computer technologies developed in Britainas former colonies. If those colonies hadnat grown rich and strong enough to throw off the mother countryas yoke, the result would be a worse world for everyone a including the British.

My worry, in fact, is not that athe resta are rising too fast, but that they may not be able to sustain their rise for much longer.

Yes, the United States has its problems. But I wouldnat trade our problems for anyone elseas. Europe, China and Japan face immense demographic challenges. All three are aging rapidly and, for cultural and political reasons, immigration is unlikely to swell their workforces. Japan, with a median age of 44.6, is one of the oldest countries in the world. In China, the birth rate has fallen from 2.6 births per woman 30 years ago to 1.56 today.

Political challenges loom equally large. The euro zone looks irredeemably flawed a perhaps even unsalvageable. Itas unclear how Chinaas political system will evolve as the country grows richer, or how it will survive if the rapid growth of the past few decades slows dramatically. As for India, its political system makes the euro area look like a model of farsighted governance.

Then there are the economic challenges. Brazil, China and India are becoming middle-income countries. Historically, that is a harbinger of slower growth. Ruchir Sharma, head of emerging markets at Morgan Stanley and author of the book aBreakout Nations,a says the agold medalists of growtha all experience a similar fate. aJapan and Korea and Taiwan, at a similar stage to where China is today in economic development, all slowed down,a he says. aItas much easier to grow from a low base. Once your base becomes bigger, itas much more difficult to grow.a

If Europe gets back on track, and if Brazil, China and India manage to sustain their high growth rates, then itas true that more nations will be vying for influence on the world stage: The unquestioned geopolitical dominance of the United States could decline. At that point, ensuring that the values the country has imperfectly promoted a liberal democracy, human rights, open capitalism a continue to hold sway becomes a matter of statecraft. Diplomacy will have to achieve what being the only superpower on the block once assured. But thatas why we have the State Department, not to mention a military budget larger than those of the next few nations combined.

The problems associated with expansive global economic growth are real, but theyare problems in the context of an improving world. Conversely, if the BRICs canat rise out of poverty, and Europe and Japan canat right their economies, thatas a worse world beset by problems we may not be able to solve. Those who yearn for a form of American preeminence that can only exist due to economic stagnation elsewhere really do not know what theyare talking about.

Are you sitting down? Because you’re not going to believe this. The Senate actually got something done yesterday. Something big! They confirmed both Jeremy Stein and Jerome Powell to the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors. That means, for the first time since 2006, there are no vacancies on the Fed’s Board.

Stein, a Harvard economics professor, was confirmed 70-24. Powell, a banker who served in George H.W. Bush’s Treasury Department, was confirmed 74-21. Neither seems evidently more qualified than Nobel laureate Peter Diamond, who Republicans filibustered last year. But the Obama administration’s ‘Noah’s Ark’ strategy — nominate one Republican and one Democrat — worked. Furthermore, the predicted collapse of the confirmation process after Obama recess appointed Richard Cordray to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau hasn’t happened. So that’s another piece of good news.

The next question is whether Stein and Powell will exert any influence on the Fed, and if so, in what direction. That remains to be seen. Right now, the Federal Reserve seems in the unusual position of admitting that it has missed terribly on its mandate to maintain full employment, swearing that there is more it can do if need be, and yet not doing anything more. Given events in Europe, though, they may not be able to resist escalating for very much longer.

Wonkbook dashboard:

The Senate is, right now, debating what may be the most important piece of health policy it passes all year.

Itas not the Republican plan to replace Obamacare, supposedly in the

works. Itas not even anything related to Obamacare. Instead, itas the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act, or FDASIA. This law could play a big part in determining the safety of drugs in the United States, as well as how quickly we get access to them a and it could start moving through Congress as soon as this evening.

FDASIA is a new acronym, not to mention a pretty clunky one (congressional staffers are, reportedly, still trying to figure out how to pronounce it). Its policies, however, stretch back to the mid-1990s, when pharmaceutical firms were getting frustrated with the long wait times for drug approvals. The FDA said it didnat have enough resources to move any faster. So pharmaceuticals settled on a system in which they would pay a auser feea to help expedite the process.

Research suggests that the resulting law a known as the Prescription Drug User Fee Act a has worked: The FDA increased its reviewer staff by 77 percent and drug approval times dropped from 27 months to 14 months over the first eight years of the act, according to the GAO. Drugs in the United States now get reviewed two months faster than in Canada or Europe, according to a study published in this weekas New England Journal of Medicine.

FDASIA is the Senateas latest incarnation of that user-fee legislation, which must be reauthorized every five years. Funding for the current law runs out in September. (The House has a separate bill thatas relatively similar.)

Both bills preserve whatas already happening in pharmaceutical regulation while making some key additions. FDASIA would, for the first time, assess a $1.5 billion user fee over five years on generic pharmaceutical makers, meant to pay for more reviewers for their products (while most new drugs are reviewed in 10 months, it takes three times as long to move a generic through the system).

The bill would also require drug manufacturers to notify the federal government of an impending slowdown in drug production, meant to address the number of drug shortages that has spiked in recent years.

FDASIA isnat without its critics: Consumer groups have contended that some of the patient safety measures, specifically for medical devices, are too weak, potentially allowing unsafe devices to be marketed, although they have been swayed by new protections added in the course of the congressional debate.

The user-fee legislation looks to have a lot of momentum right now: The House version passed out of the Energy and Commerce Committee unanimously last week and, just today, the Senate bill, co-sponsored by Sens. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) got an endorsement from the White House. The Office of Budget and Management put out a statement noting that it astrongly supportsa the bill. For all the talk of Congress not doing much, it looks to be on the verge of passing a crucial health policy provision that just about every legislator thinks is a good idea.

I got a weird e-mail from John Boehneras office yesterday. aNo Reason to Wait,a it said. aLetas Address Spending-Driven Debt Now.a

So whatas aspending-driven debta? Iam not exactly sure. But there are a whole lot of references to it in my inbox. Later that same day, I got another e-mail from Boehneras office about athe spending-driven debt that threatens job creation and economic growth.a And on May 4, I got an e-mail from Boehneras office saying athose looking for work canat find it because ObamaCare, our spending-driven debt, and the threat of tax hikes are making it harder for small businesses to hire.a

I tend to think Iam pretty up on the budget lingo. But aspending-driven debta is a new term for me. In fact, it seems to be a new term period. The first mention I can find on Lexis-Nexis is from Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) who, on Feb. 14, 2011, told CNNas Gloria Borger that awe have a spending-driven debt crisis that is harming job growth in America and frankly, threatens the American dream for our children.a

(Itas a common tic of political speech, but donat you love the afranklya in that sentence? As if Hensarling is telling Borger a secret? aFrankly, Gloria, my political opponents are doing a bad job governing the country. Whew! Feels better to finally get that off my chest. Honestly really is the best policy.a)

I canat find an actual definition of aspending-driven debt.a But I assume it means debt driven entirely by new spending. And we can actually calculate what percentage of our debt is driven by new spending.

The Pew Fiscal Analysis Initiative recently assessed the various drivers of our national debt. They broke the drivers of debt into three categories. Thereas new spending. Thereas new tax cuts. And thereas economic and technical changes a so, what happens when the economy collapses, or the population ages.

New spending accounted for 41 percent of our debt since 2001. So if aspending-driven debta is all that Republicans want to address, theyare leaving most of our debt problems alone.

If you break it down by policies, the term becomes even more absurd. The single largest debt-producing policy passed since 2001 was the Bush tax cuts. Itas followed by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In recent years, the driver has been the economic aftereffects of the financial crisis and, to a lesser extent, the policies, like TARP and the stimulus, that were passed to ameliorate them.

So if you read the chart carefully, you would say we should reverse the tax cuts, stop launching so many deficit-financed wars, and make sure we regulate the financial sector so it doesnat blow up again. But thatas not exactly the Republican agenda right now.

What will the economy look like in 2013? A great deal depends on what Congress decides to do at the end of this year. Remember, the Bush tax cuts are expiring, the payroll tax holiday will sunset, and a bunch of new spending cuts under the debt-deal asequestera are scheduled to kick in. Coming all at once, thatas a potentially big drag on growth.

Jared Bernstein passes along a chart from Goldman Sachs that tries to map out a couple of different scenarios here. The dotted line shows what could happen if Congress canat reach an agreement and lets all tax cuts expire and spending cuts kick in. If that happened, the U.S. economy would grow at least 3 percentage points less than its potential for each of the first three quarters of 2013:

To put this in perspective, the Federal Reserve expects the economy to grow at a roughly 2.9 percent pace in 2013. If Congress does nothing at the end of this year, much of that growth could be wiped out, and thereas a strong possibility that the United States could lurch back into recession. (Granted, a lot could depend on how the Fed reacts in this situation.)

On the flip side, as Ezra discussed in Thursdayas Wonkbook, letting all of the tax cuts expire and spending cuts kick in would also cut the U.S. deficit considerably: aPublic debt falls from 75.8 percent in 2013 to 61.3 percent in 2022.a

Meanwhile, note that, according to the Goldman Sachs chart, fiscal policy will likely be holding back the economy a bit in 2013 no matter what Congress does. The stimulus is finally winding down and overall government spending is expected to shrink next year (pdf), thanks to tighter budgets. There’s a baseline austerity built into the budget that will subtract roughly 1 percentage point of GDP growth next year, even if Congress extends all the Bush tax cuts and avoids the sequester.

Indeed, this drag has been going on for some time, and it may help explain why the recovery has been so anemic. By contrast, during Ronald Reaganas first term, when the economy was hauling itself out of the 1982 recession, federal and state governments were expanding and helping to boost GDP growth. Now, the oppositeas happening. As Jared Bernstein puts it, aWeare actively applying leeches.a The only real question is how big the leeches are going to be.

For more on Congressa end-of-the-year choices, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has a note on the aeconomics of the fiscal cliff.a They note, among other things, that the spending cuts from the sequester would actually have the biggest impact on growth in 2013, even though theyare smaller in dollar terms than the Bush tax cuts.

Related: aTaxmageddona in one table.

According to Tim Geithner, we won’t hit the debt ceiling until a few months into 2013. By that time, either the Bush tax cuts will have already expired and the automatic spending cuts will have already begun or the parties will have come to some big fiscal deal and the debt ceiling will have been raised along the way.

I laid out some of the possible scenarios along these lines yesterday. But one thing I didn’t mention as clearly as I should have: In the no-deal scenario, our deficit problem is pretty much solved by the time we hit the debt ceiling.

According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, if there’s no deal on anything in the new year, the scheduled tax increases and spending cuts “would reduce ten-year deficits by over $6.8 trillion relative to realistic current policy projections a enough to put the debt on a sharp downward path but in an extremely disruptive and unwise manner.”

The Congressional Budget Office agrees. They’ve sketched the no-deal scenario out in their “current law” baseline. Public debt falls from 75.8 percent in 2013 to 61.3 percent in 2022. That’s as fast as Paul Ryan says it will fall under his budget.

For all sorts of reasons, simply doing nothing isn’t a desirable way to reduce deficits. It would probably throw us back into recession in the first half of next year, for instance. But it would be very odd for Republicans, in those circumstances, to refuse to raise the debt ceiling because America’s budgets are on an unsustainable path. The country would, at that very moment, be in the midst of the sharpest bout of deficit reduction in its history.

Wonkbook dashboard:

The line you often hear in Washington is that Republicans wonat talk taxes and Democrats wonat talk entitlements. The two parties, the thinking goes, are similarly irresponsible, albeit on opposite sides of the budget.

But at the Peter G. Peterson Foundationas 2012 Fiscal Summit, there was a clear difference between Democrats and Republicans: Democrats talked constantly about how they should be talking about entitlements. Republicans reiterated their position that they wonat talk taxes.

aOur partyas problem is, we are always reluctant to give up the gains of the past to create the future,a Bill Clinton told the audience at the Pete Petersonas fiscal summit. aDemocrats are reluctant to commit to longer-term health-care savings; they donat want to touch Social Security.a

Clinton went on to attack Republicans for becoming a far more extreme and ideological party, making compromise nearly impossible. But he brought up the same point time and again: aMy party is not blameless.a

Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.), a former member of the supercommittee, echoed the same sentiments at Petersonas deficit-reduction confab. In responding to legitimate fears that Republicans would privatize or eliminate social services,amaybe Democrats worked too hard to protect those programs from devastating cuts and in doing so, perhaps that has kept us from trying to come up with a smart budget,a Becerra admitted.

Democrats say they took these criticisms to heart during the supercommittee negotiations, initially proposing $400 billion in savings from Medicare a half through benefit cuts and half through provider cuts. Democrats point to such proposals as evidence of their partyas willingness to compromise and incorporate a diversity of views, blaming Republican intransigence for the deficit-reduction talksa ultimate failure. aWe have a lot of people in our party who will not be drummed out if they depart from the conventional wisdom,a Clinton explained.

For all that the Democrats tried to show they were willing to talk entitlements, you didnat hear any Republicans at Petersonas fiscal summit saying that they should be willing to compromise more by considering tax increases.

Even when asked point-blank how the GOP was to blame for the deficit crisis, Sen. Rob Portman a Bushas budget director and another supercommittee alum a avoided any mention of taxes. Yes, he said, the Bush administration could have paid more attention to the long-term fiscal picture. But it was because aafter 9/11, particularly … more was spent on homeland security, defense,a Portman explained. He added that Bush should have vetoed costly appropriations bills from Congress and cut more social spending. What he didnat bring up: the Bush tax cuts a which have added more than $1.8 trillion to the deficit, more than any single other program under his presidency or Obamaas.

When Republican discuss a fresh approach to taxes, they cast it as atax reforma that excluded any tax hikes. aWhat also doesnat count as acuts and reformsa are tax increases,a said Speaker John Boehner, declaring that the GOP would refuse the lift the debt-ceiling a once again a until equivalent acuts and reformsa were passed. (Read Boehneras full speech.)

CNNas Erin Burnett prodded Boehner further to see whether Republicans were, in fact, completely unwilling to compromise on the issue. After all, closing tax loopholes and carve-outs a something that the House speaker did promise to do a would presumably result in some people paying more, right?

Boehner stuck to the script, insisting that alowering rates and broadening the basea was the only acceptable answer. Burnett pressed the question again: aBroadening the basea meant closing loopholes, which meant taxes for some would go up, right? Boehner equivocated. aYeah, some may pay more and some may pay less,a he said quickly.

So, under duress, Republicans signaled a tiny bit of wiggle room on taxes. Sen. Pat Toomey suggested as much during the last gasp of the supercommittee negotiations, with a proposal that would save $250 billion through limiting tax deductions and write-offs.

But unlike the Democrats, Republicans are much more reluctant to self-flagellate. And they certainly werenat going to question the partyas ano tax increasesa line on stage at the Andrew Mellon auditorium, with TV cameras rolling.

Planet Moneyas Lam Thuy Vo charts how our governmentas spending habits have changed in the past five decades:

The clearest development has been the growth of health-care costs a 50 years ago, Medicare and Medicaid didnat even exist. Today, the two programs account for about a quarter of all federal spending. Defense spending, meanwhile, has gone from half of the federal budget to a quarter.

Itas also worth noting that federal spending has, over the past 50 years, grown at a pretty similar rate to the rest of the economy. In 1962, the federal government spent $707 billion, accounting for 18 percent of GDP. By 2011, federal spending had inched up to account for 24 percent of the economy or, in dollar figures, $3.1 trillion.

On Tuesday, Speaker John Boehner took the stage at the Peter G. Petersonas 2012 Fiscal Summit and outlined his intentions to again threaten the Obama administration with default in order to extract concessions on spending. I wrote a bit about why Boehner is adopting this strategy in Wednesdayas Wonkbook. But hereas his full speech:

Itas truly an honor to be with you in the historic Mellon Auditorium. It was here in the spring of 1949 that the United States and our closest allies gathered to sign the North Atlantic Treaty, giving birth to NATO.

On that occasion, President Truman declared that people awith courage and vision can still determine their own destiny. They can choose freedom or slavery.a

In our time, all of these great nations face a grave threat to freedom, one from within, and that is debt. It is shackling our economies and smothering the opportunities that have blessed us with so much.

Once again the world looks to the United States for what it always has: an example. It is the example of a free people whose hard work and sacrifice make up the sum total of thriving towns and a vibrant economy. Itas a humble government that lives within its means and unleashes the potential of first-rate ideas and world-class products. Itas a nation never content with the status quo and always on the make.

I got a glimpse of this example growing up working at my dadas tavern just outside Cincinnati, and then lived a piece of it running my own small business.

Instead of this shining example, what does the world now see?

A president on whose watch the United States lost its gold-plated triple-A rating for the first time in our history;

A Senate, controlled by the presidentas party, that has not passed a budget in more than three years;

And, earlier this month, another unemployment report showing that the worldas greatest economy remains unable to generate enough jobs to spur strong and lasting growth.

If you should know one thing about me, itas that Iam an optimist.

Yes, times are tough, but our future doesnat need to be dark. We donat have to accept a new normal where the workplace looks more like a battlefield and families have to endure flat incomes, weak job prospects, and higher prices in their daily lives.

We have every reason to believe we can come out of this freer and more prosperous than ever. And we will, if we confront our challenges now while we still have the ability to do so.

For the solution to what ails our economy is not government a itas the American people.

The failure of astimulusa a a word people in Washington wonat even use anymore a has sparked a rebellion against overspending, overtaxation, and overregulation.

Americans, who take pride in living on a budget, recognize we canat go on spending money we donat have, and that our economy is stuck in large part because itas stuck with debt.

Nationwide, weare seeing a groundswell of support for bold ideas that reject small politics, cast off big government, and return us to common sense and first principles a the kind of ideas that will restore prosperity and substantially improve the trajectory of our economy.

In March, as part of our Plan for Americaas Job Creators, the House passed an honest budget with real spending cuts, pro-growth tax reform, and serious entitlement reform. Itas a far-reaching effort to control governmentas worst habits and capitalize on the American peopleas best. This budget gets our fiscal house in order AND promotes long-term growth. Far from settling for stability, it offers a true path to prosperity.

Various bipartisan commissions and coalitions have devised ambitious plans as well. The math and the mix are different, but the goals are mainly the same.

And of course, there are summits like these that bring together people who just get it. Of course, while Iam happy to be here and Iam sure we all enjoy each otheras company, we can also agree that weave talked this problem to death.

Itas about time we roll up our sleeves and get to work.

For all the focus on Election Day, another date looms large for every household and every business, and thatas January 1, 2013.

On that day, without action by Congress, a sudden and massive tax increase will be imposed on every American a by an average of $3,000 per household. Rates go up, the child tax credit is cut in half, the AMT patches end, the estate tax returns to 2001 levels, and so on.

Now, it gets a little more complicated than that. What will expire on January 1 is cause for concern a as is what will take effect. That includes:

Indiscriminate spending cuts of $1.2 trillion a half of which would devastate our men and women in uniform and send a signal of weakness;

Several tax increases from the health care law that is making it harder to hire new workers;

As well as a slate of energy and banking rules and regulations that will also increase the strain on the private sector.

But a| it gets even more complicated than that.

Sometime after the election, the federal government will near the statutory debt limit.

This end-of-the-year pileup, commonly called the afiscal cliff,a is a chance for us to bid farewell a permanently a to the era of so-called atimely, temporary, and targeteda short-term government intervention.

For years, Washington has force-fed our economy with a constant diet of meddling, micromanagement, and manipulation. None of it has been a substitute for long-term economic investment, private initiative, and freedom

Previous Congresses have encountered lesser precipices with lower stakes, and made a beeline for the closest lame-duck escape hatch.

Let me put your mind at ease. This Congress will not follow that path, not if I have anything to do with it.

Having run a business, I know that failing to plan is planning to fail. The real pain comes from doing nothing a| aausteritya is what will become necessary if we do nothing now. Weall wake up one day without a choice in the matter.

Thereas also no salvation to be found in doing anything just to get by, just to get through this year.

aNothinga is not an option, and aanythinga is not a plan. To get on the path to prosperity, we have to avoid the fiscal cliff, but we need to start today.

To show my intentions are sincere, Iall start with the stickiest issue, and that of course is the debt limit.

On several occasions in the past, the debt limit has been the catalyst for budget agreements. Last year, however, the president requested a quote-unquote acleana debt limit increase a business as usual.

Well Iave run a business, and thatas no way to do it. Itas certainly no way to run a government either, especially one that has run up a debt bigger than the entire economy. Business as usual will no longer do.

So last year around this time, I accepted an invitation to address the Economic Club of New York. I went up there and said that in my view, the debt limit exists in statute precisely so that government is forced to address its fiscal issues.

Yes, allowing America to default would be irresponsible. But it would be more irresponsible to raise the debt ceiling without taking dramatic steps to reduce spending and reform the budget process.

We shouldnat dread the debt limit. We should welcome it. Itas an action-forcing event in a town that has become infamous for inaction.

That night in New York City, I put forth the principle that we should not raise the debt ceiling without real spending cuts and reforms that exceed the amount of the debt limit increase.

From all the way up in Midtown Manhattan, I could hear a great wailing and gnashing of teeth. Over the next couple of months, I was asked again and again if I would yield on my aposition,a what it would take, if I would budgea|

Each and every time, I said anoa a| because it isnat a apositiona a itas a principle. Not just that a itas the right thing to do.

When the time comes, I will again insist on my simple principle of cuts and reforms greater than the debt limit increase. This is the only avenue I see right now to force the elected leadership of this country to solve our structural fiscal imbalance.

If that means we have to do a series of stop-gap measures, so be it a but thatas not the ideal. Letas start solving the problem. We can make the bold cuts and reforms necessary to meet this principle, and we must.

Just so weare clear, Iam talking about REAL cuts and reforms a not these tricks and gimmicks that have given Washington a pass on grappling with its spending problem.

Last year, in our negotiations with the White House, the president and his team put a number of gimmicks on the table. Plenty of thought and creativity went into them a things like counting money that was never going to be spent as savings.

Maybe in another time, with another Speaker, gimmicks like these would be acceptable.

But, as a matter of simple arithmetic, they wonat work.

They wonat work, and as I told the president, weare not doing things that way anymore.

What also doesnat count as acuts and reformsa are tax increases. Tax hikes destroy jobs a especially an increase on the magnitude set for January 1st. Small businesses need to plan. We shouldnat wait until New Yearas Eve to give American job creators the confidence that they arenat going to get hit with a tax hike on New Yearas Day.

Any sudden tax hike would hurt our economy, so this fall a before the election a the House of Representatives will vote to stop the largest tax increase in American history.

This will give Congress time to work on broad-based tax reform that lowers rates for individuals and businesses while closing deductions, credits, and special carveouts.

Eyebrows go up all over town whenever I talk about this, but when I say abroad-baseda tax reform, I mean it. We need to do it all a| deal with the whole code, personal and corporate itas fairer and more productive for everyone.

Thatas why our bill to stop the New Yearas Day tax increase will also establish an expedited process by which Congress would enact real tax reform in 2013. This process would look something like how we handle Trade Promotion Authority, where you put in place a timeline for both houses to act.

The Ways Means Committee will work out the details, but the bottom line is: if we do this right, we will never again have to deal with the uncertainty of expiring tax rates.

Weall have replaced the broken status quo with a tax code that maintains progressivity, taxes income once, and creates a fairer, simpler code.

And if we do THAT right, we will see increased revenue from more economic growth.

Again, change doesnat need to be sudden or painful.

Last fall, when I addressed the Economic Club of Washington, I said that making relatively small changes now can lead to huge dividends down the road in terms of debt reduction. As we approach the issue of the debt limit again, we need to continue to bear this in mind.

As you know, we could eliminate all of the unfunded liabilities in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid tomorrow, and the effect within the Congressional Budget Office 10-year window could be minimal.

Thatas because changes to these programs take time and are phased-in slowly.

For example, when Congress last increased the retirement age for Social Security, the increase a a mere two years a was scheduled to fully take effect 40 years after the law was enacted.

Another example: take the House Budget Resolution and its assumptions for Medicare reform. Those would not even begin until after 2022.

Smart and modest changes today mean huge dividends down the line.

Now, I can already hear the grumbles a| partisans getting all worked up or people saying, eh, letas wait until after the election.

We canat wait. Employers large and small are already bracing for the coming tax hikes and regulations, which freeze their plans. The markets arenat going to wait forever; eventually theyare going to start reacting.

We now know that we ignore these warnings at our own peril.

Thatas why the House will do its part to ease the uncertainty surrounding the fiscal cliff. And I hope the president will step up, bring his partyas Senate leaders along, and work with us.

Because if thereas one action-forcing event that trumps all the rest a even the debt limit a itas presidential leadership.

Ladies and gentlemen, I believe President Obama cares about this country and knows what the right thing to do is. But knowing whatas right and doing whatas right are different things.

The difference between knowing whatas right and doing whatas right is courage, and the president, Iam sorry to say, lost his.

He was willing to talk about the tough choices needed to preserve and strengthen our entitlement programs, but he wasnat ready to take action.

As it turned out, he wouldnat agree to even the most basic entitlement reform unless it was accompanied by tax increases on small business job creators.

We were on the verge of an agreement that would have reduced the deficit by trillions, by strengthening entitlement programs and reforming the tax code with permanently lower rates for all, laying the foundation for lasting growth.

But when the president saw his former colleagues in the Senate getting ready to press for tax hikes, he lost his nerve. The political temptation was too great. He moved the goalposts, changed his stance, and demanded tax hikes.

We ended up enacting a package with cuts and reforms larger than the hike. But it could have been so much more.

The letdown was considerable. And, in turn, our nationas credit rating was downgraded for the first time.

Well it should also be the last time that happens, which is why I came here today.

If the president continues to put politics before principle a or party before country, as he often accuses others of doing a our economy will suffer and we may well miss our last chance to solve this crisis on our own terms.

But if we have leaders who will lead a| if we have leaders with the courage to make tough choices and the vision to pursue a future paved with growth, then we can heal our economy and again be the example for all to follow.

Iam ready, and Iave been ready. Iam not angling for higher office. This is the last position in government I will hold. I havenat come this far to walk away.

All my life, Iave operated by a simple code: if you do the right thing for the reasons, good things will happen.

Well, NOW is the time to do the right thing.

Letas do it for the right reasons a we donat need to be dragged kicking and screaming. Thatas not the American way. Letas summon the courage and vision to choose freedom, to choose prosperity, and to determine our destiny.

Then weall not only have succeeded in solving this crisis a weall be worthy of that success.

Thank you all.

“We shouldnat dread the debt limit,” said Speaker John Boehner at the Peter G. Peterson Fiscal Summit. “We should welcome it. Itas an action-forcing event in a town that has become infamous for inaction.”

These comments have been the occasion for much wailing and gnashing of teeth, as if anyone, anywhere, believed that the Republicans’ 2011 debt-ceiling antics were some sort of one-off. But Boehner was clear on Tuesday. “I will again insist on my simple principle of cuts and reforms greater than the debt limit increase,” he said.

Of course he will. For one thing, it worked well for him in 2011. Republicans got more than $900 billion in immediate spending cuts, as well as $1.2 trillion in triggered spending cuts — though they don’t much like the $500 billion or so of those cuts scheduled to fall on the Pentagon. They also drove President Obama’s approval ratings beneath 40 percent. And while I’m not one who thinks Republicans intentionally tank the economy to undermine Obama, there’s little doubt that the effect of the debt-ceiling debacle was to set back the recovery, brightening Republican prospects and darkening Democratic ones. The fact is that it’s easier to be sanguine about economic showdowns when you’re not the ones in charge.

For another, it’s Boehner’s only option in 2012. The Democrats, for once, have nothing but fiscal leverage. They’ve got the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, which all Republicans would hate and many Democrats would welcome. They’ve got the aforementioned spending trigger, which Republicans really have begun to fear for its cuts to defense spending. They can do nothing — or, more likely, offer Republicans a deal they can’t accept — and the resulting paralysis will swing fiscal policy far, far, far to the left. Threatening to default on the national debt is Boehner’s only piece of counter-leverage.

So of course Boehner will try and use the debt ceiling as leverage again. And again. And again. It’s pretty clear that, at this point, there’s no going back to the time when debt-ceiling increases came smoothly. If I were the market, I’d take the fact that the leader of one of the two parties has publicly said that he “welcomes” debt-ceiling showdowns as evidence that the United States is almost certain to default on its debt — if only temporarily — within the next decade or so.

The question is what, aside from complain, Democrats and the business community will do to stop him. Somehow, the debt ceiling needs to be taken off the table once and for all, either because Republicans forced a default in a way that they were blamed for the consequences and scared into never doing it again or because the president successfully pulled off one of the more creative maneuvers suggested during last year’s showdown (Bill Clinton, for instance, argued that Obama should invoke the Fourteenth Amendment — which says “the validity of the public debt of the United States … shall not be questioned” — to raise the debt ceiling unilaterally).

Wonkbook dashboard

RCP Obama vs. Romney: Obama +1.8%; 7-day change: Obama +1.6%.

RCP Obama approval: 48.0%; 7-day change: +0.7%.

Want Wonkbook delivered to your inbox or mobile device?A Subscribe!

Top stories

1) Boehner threatened another debt-mageddon “Washington braced Tuesday for a replay of last summeras tense battle over the burgeoning national debt as House Speaker John A. Boehner threatened again to block an increase in the federal debt ceiling without significant new cuts in spending. Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner and other senior Democrats quickly blasted the Ohio Republican, arguing that his ultimatum could put the nationas credit rating — and the broader economy — at risk early next year, when the debt is expected to hit its $16.4 trillion limit.” Lori Montgomery in The Washington Post.

@damianpaletta: Boehner’s debt ceiling “line in the sand” is very similar to what he said last year; Definitely got the attention of White House and D’s

@ObsoleteDogma: Shorter Boehner: Regulatory uncertainty is bad. But default uncertainty is good.

INTERVIEW: Sen. Tom Coburn on defusing the debt bomb.

READ: Mitt Romneyas remarks on the debt.

@MichaelSLinden: As a fiscal policy analyst, I’d like to thank Mitt Romney for offering no specifics whatsoever so I can go home at a normal time tonight.

2) Greece failed to form a new government, triggering new elections. “The threat of a full economic collapse in Greece escalated Tuesday after warring political factions here failed to forge a new government, triggering fresh elections and heightening chances that this rudderless Mediterranean nation could be forced to abandon the euro…A nation in danger of running out of cash to operate the government, and where fearful residents in recent days have been rapidly withdrawing more of their savings from Greek banks, faces uncertain new elections next month. Opinion surveys have shown that Syriza, a party that wants to break the terms of Greeceas bailout deal and that came in a surprise second in the last vote, is polling in first place…European finance ministers — whose taxpayers have largely funded the bailout for Greece — were quick to push back Tuesday. Given the potential shock waves if Greece is forced to leave the euro zone, there have been suggestions in recent days that European officials might show more lenience with Athens.” Anthony Faiola in The Washington Post.

Surging bank withdrawals in Greece sparked fears of a bank run. “Greek depositors withdrew a!700 million ($898 million) from the country’s banks on Monday, fueling fears of a bank run amid the growing political disarray. With deposits falling, Greek banks become even more dependent on the European Central Bank to meet their funding needs, exposing the central bank to potentially huge losses if Greece leaves the euro area. Greek President Karolos Papoulias told the country’s political leaders that bank withdrawals plus buy orders received by Greek banks for German bunds totaled some a!800 million on Monday, a transcript of his comments said. A central bank official confirmed the figures…Monday’s deposit withdrawal far outpaced Greek banks’ steady decline in deposits since the start of the country’s debt crisis in 2009, as depositors withdraw cash and transfer funds overseas.” Brian Blackstone and David Enrich in The Wall Street Journal.

@grossdm: So, Greece is seeking to solves its economic problems through QE — quantitative electioneering

3) The Senate will vote on several GOP budget proposals today. “The Senate on Wednesday will hold six hours of debate and votes on four different Republican budget resolutions, in an apparent attempt to demonstrate that they will not be supported in the Democratic-led Senate. A fifth budget measure up for a vote, from Senate Budget Committee ranking member Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), is based on President Obama’s budget and is seen as an attempt to embarrass the White House. But Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said Tuesday that debate and votes on the GOP proposals would show there is little appetite for these plans. He also said it would give the country a chance to understand that last year’s Budget Control Act already sets spending caps for Congress. Democrats have been under fire for failing to pass any budget resolution…One of the four GOP budget resolutions to be debated Wednesday is H.Con.Res. 112, the budget resolution approved by the House in March.” Pete Kasperowicz in The Hill.

4) The Justice Department started a criminal probe into JPMorgan Chase’s loss. “The Justice Department has initiated a criminal probe into the $2 billion trading loss at JPMorgan Chase, a law enforcement representative familiar with the situation said Tuesday. The inquiry is at a very early stage, said the person, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the matter is private. Many details about the loss at JPMorgan are murky, so it is unclear what laws, if any, may have been violated. But the attention from federal officials indicates that regulatory pressure is rising on JPMorgan, and its chief executive Jamie Dimon, to explain what exactly led to the bankas multi-billion dollar misstep. That, in turn, has rekindled questions about whether government regulators are equipped to monitor banks making risky, complex trades…Dean Boyd, a Justice spokesman, declined to comment.” Jia Lynn Yang and Sari Horwitz in The Washington Post.

Too big to fail banks have gotten bigger. “JPMorgan Chaseas $2 billion blunder is throwing the spotlight on an awkward truth for President Barack Obamaas promise to end the era of big bank bailouts: The same institutions that were deemed ‘too big to fail’ before the financial collapse are even bigger now. Efforts to manage the size of such institutions were at the heart of the Dodd-Frank financial law passed in July 2010. But nearly two years later, many of the lawas regulations remain in limbo, as federal agencies muddle through long rule-making processes against stiff industry opposition…All the while, the countryas biggest financial institutions continue to grow. The five largest, which controlled $6.1 trillion in assets before the collapse, by the end of 2011 had assets worth $8.5 trillion — equal to more than half of U.S. economic output, according to Federal Reserve data.” Patrick Reis in Politico.

@BCAppelbaum: This whole JPM story underscores one reason we don’t have effective financial regulation: Our public officials don’t understand finance.

Top op-eds

1) PORTER: It’s time for the euro to come to an end. “Social upheaval across the euro area suggests that it may be time to call it quits and try to work out an orderly process to re-establish national currencies throughout the bloc. Europe would be in much better shape if the euro didnat exist and each member country had its own currency. Monetary union has shackled together nations with vastly different economies, depriving them of an independent monetary policy that can help them through rough times. The interest rate and exchange rate that serve Germany also have to serve Spain, though that country has more than four times Germanyas joblessness. The main problem is that while leaders eagerly embraced the monetary bond, they rejected its necessary complement: a central budget that would transfer money from successful regions to underperforming ones, as the United States government sends tax dollars collected in Massachusetts to pay for unemployment benefits in Nevada.” Eduardo Porter in The New York Times.

2) FROST: The FDIC shouldn’t protect investment banks. “I suggest that we divide the two functions into separately owned, managed and regulated entities. That’s the only way we can ensure that their riskier businesses don’t undermine the insured deposits that are the foundation of a stable and healthy economy. Taxpayer safety-net programs, such as the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), should be available only to banks in business to provide insured deposits. Financial institutions that provide primarily investment, hedging and speculative services don’t deserve protection either by the FDIC’s explicit guarantees or by an implicit understanding that taxpayers will bail them out because there is no other alternative. Indeed, this kind of protection is a perversion of capitalism and can distort its good outcomes…We need a real and impregnable firewall that keeps one part of the banking system–and the economy–from being consumed when the other goes into flames.” Tom Frost in The Wall Street Journal.

3) ROSEN: Competitive bidding can hurt patients. “On the face of it, competitive bidding sounds like a very good idea. If one supplier can provide power wheelchairs or oxygen masks for 30 percent less than another, itas hard to argue for contracting with the more expensive supplier, especially at a time when everyone is looking for ways to save money. A one-year experiment with expanded competitive bidding that was recently conducted by Medicare yielded cost savings of 42 percent, without reducing the quality of care, and was hailed as a great success. But as a doctor working with patients on the ground, I have doubts about that quality-of-care measure, and I worry that those savings obscure a potentially serious problem…If competitive bidding is predicated on supplying equipment at the lowest possible price, something has to give. And more likely than not, that something will be patient care.” Dennis Rosen in The New York Times.

4) ORSZAG: Want good news on jobs? Look to big businesses. “Big business, we keep being told, has been so hampered by regulatory uncertainty over the past few years, it has been reluctant to hire workers. So it is surprising to read the results of a little-known survey from the Bureau of Labor Statistics: Very large businesses, it turns out, have been expanding their domestic workforces relatively rapidly. If, since January 2011, businesses of all sizes had hired at the same rate as those with 5,000 or more employees, we would have almost 4 million more jobs today…The JOLTS data highlight the importance of exploring how the continuing deleveraging process and resultant sluggish growth in demand is affecting smaller businesses in particular. With the percentage of working Americans stuck at a depressed level, we sure could use those extra 2 million to 4 million jobs.” Peter Orszag in Bloomberg.

5) ALEXANDER: Washington should take over Medicaid and let states handle education. “Staring down steep tuition hikes, students at the University of California have taken to carrying picket signs. As far as I can tell, though, none has demanded that President Barack Obama accept a Grand Swap that could protect their education while saving them money. Allow me to explain. When I was governor of Tennessee in the early 1980s, I traveled to meet with President Ronald Reagan in the Oval Office and offer that Grand Swap: Medicaid for K-12 education. The federal government would take over 100% of Medicaid, the federal health-care program mainly for low-income Americans, and states would assume all responsibility for the nation’s 100,000 public schools…If we had made that swap…states would have about $92 billion a year in extra funds, as they’d keep the $149 billion they’re now spending on Medicaid and give back to Washington the $57 billion that the federal government spends per year on schools.” Lamar Alexander in The Wall Street Journal.

Cover interlude: Screaming Females play Sheryl Crow’s “If It Makes You Happy” for the AV Club.

Got tips, additions, or comments? E-mail me.

Still to come: Free trade with Colombia is in effect; Catholic bishops are close to suing over birth control; backlash against tests is growing; energy independence is within reach; and a puppies’-eye view of life.

Economy

The Senate will vote on two Fed nominees on Thursday. “Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) today set up a procedural vote for Thursday on two nominees to join the Federal Reserve whose nominations have stalled because of opposition from Sen. David Vitter (R-La.)…Vitter blocked attempts in March to quickly confirm Harvard University economics professor Jeremy Stein, a Democratic nominee, and former private-equity executive Jerome Powell, a Republican nominee…Asked whether he was confident that he would have the 60 votes to invoke cloture on the nominations, Reid said, ‘Well I sure hope so, weave been waiting months and months.’…Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said he believes there is bipartisan support for the nominees…Without the two nominees in place, the Federal Reserve Board will remain short-handed as it attempts to support the economic recovery” Humberto Sanchez in Roll Call.

The dip in gas prices eased inflation. “The recent slide in gasoline prices in the U.S. has pushed the nation’s annual rate of inflation to its lowest level in more than a year, easing some economic strains on consumers. The consumer price index, which measures what Americans pay for everything from breakfast cereal to doctor visits, was unchanged from March to April, ending three months of increases, the Labor Department said Tuesday. A 2.6% drop in the gasoline-price index helped offset rising costs for many other items. Overall prices are now running 2.3% higher than a year ago, the smallest increase since February 2011…The inflation figures have mixed implications for the recovery. Lower gasoline and utility costs are keeping a lid on household expenses, effectively boosting Americans’ spending money. However, prices are climbing broadly, most notably for food, but also medical care, rents, autos and airfares.” Josh Mitchell in The Wall Street Journal.

States are using foreclosure prevention funds to plug budget gaps. “Hundreds of millions of dollars meant to provide a little relief to the nationas struggling homeowners is being diverted to plug state budget gaps. In a budget proposed this week, California joined more than a dozen states that want to help close gaping shortfalls using money paid by the nationas biggest banks and earmarked for foreclosure prevention, investigations of financial fraud and blunting the ill effects of the housing crisis. California was awarded more than $400 million from the banks, and Gov. Jerry Brown has proposed using the bulk of that sum to pay the stateas debts. The money was part of a national settlement valued at $25 billion and negotiated with five big banks over abuses in their mortgage and foreclosure processes…As part of the settlement, the banks agreed to pay the states $2.5 billion, money intended to help homeowners and mitigate the effects of the foreclosure surge.” Shaila Dewan in The New York Times.

House Republicans are planning a vote on a ‘fast track’ proposal for tax reform. “Speaker John Boehner said in a speech Tuesday that House Republicans would try to attach a timeline to fast-track a broad tax overhaul to a vote extending the George W. Bush-era tax rates before the November elections…’Our bill to stop the New Yearas Day tax increase will also establish an expedited process by which Congress would enact real tax reform in 2013,’ Boehner (R-Ohio) said in remarks to a fiscal summit in Washington. ‘This process would look something like how we handle Trade Promotion Authority, where you put in place a timeline for both houses to act.’…GOP aides said that, even though Boehner specifically discussed Trade Promotion Authority on Tuesday, House Republicans are looking at a variety of expedited processes that have been used in the past, and have yet to settle on just one.” Russell Berman and Bernie Becker in The Hill.

@grossdm: Memo to Boehner, the markets, etc.: the House passing legislation won’t be sufficient to avert tax increases. They’ll have to make a deal

The euro zone narrowly missed recession. “The euro-zone economy narrowly escaped recession in the latest quarter thanks to a surprising rebound in Germany, which offset deepening downturns in Spain and Italy. Although the region avoided two straight quarterly drops in gross domestic product, the common benchmark for recession, the figures nonetheless reflect a deepening divide between Germany and the rest of the euro zone that complicates the bloc’s efforts to stem its debt crisis…Euro-zone GDP was unchanged from the previous quarter, said Eurostat, the European Union’s statistics agency. In annualized terms, GDP rose 0.1% from the fourth quarter, according to calculations by J.P. Morgan Chase. Economists had expected an annualized contraction of around 1%. GDP fell at a 1.2% rate in the fourth quarter…European stock markets rose initially on the figures, which eased fears that the debt crisis may trigger an economic free fall.” Brian Blackstone in The Washington Post.

Export-Import Bank reauthorization cleared the Senate by a wide margin. “On a broad bipartisan vote of 78 to 20, the Senate voted Tuesday to extend the life of the U.S. Export-Import Bank and expand its authority to make loans to U.S. exporters. In the ‘Schoolhouse Rock’ version of how Capitol Hill works, this is what Congress does all the time — passes legislation. But it made for big news on this Capitol Hill, where protracted partisan warfare has meant that lately the story has more often been about votes forced by one party or the other to indignantly demonstrate the otheras opposition…Tuesdayas bill was the rarest of breeds: a lasting compromise on an issue of substance. It renewed the charter of what is commonly referred to as the Ex-Im bank for three years and will over that time raise the cap on the total financing the bank can guarantee from $100 billion to $140 billion.” Rosalind Helderman in The Washington Post.

The U.S.-Colombia free trade agreement took effect. “A free-trade agreement between the U.S. and Colombia took effect Tuesday after years of negotiations and despite strong opposition from U.S. labor organizations, which are worried about jobs being sent abroad and union-busting violence in Colombia. The first products shipped tariff-free were crates of Colombian roses and other flowers that landed Tuesday morning at Miami’s airport…President Barack Obama signed the free-trade agreement with Colombia in October, days after Congress gave its final approval following heated debates. The deal was originally negotiated by the Bush administration, but President Obama reworked the deal to satisfy Democrats. The U.S. exported $14 billion of goods to Colombia last year, everything from cars to consumer electronics to food, and exports are expected to rise by more than $1.1 billion as a direct result of the pact, according to the International Trade Commission.” Dan Molinski in The Wall Street Journal.

Adorable children singing interlude: Two girls cover Gotye’s “Somebody That I Used To Know” from the back seat of the car.

Health Care

Catholic bishops are threatening to sue over the birth control mandate. “The Catholic Church’s U.S. hierarchy warned Tuesday that without quick action by Congress, it will sue the Obama administration for mandating that insurance plans provide birth control to women without a co-pay. ‘[F]orcing individual and institutional stakeholders to sponsor and subsidize an otherwise widely available product over their religious and moral objections serves no legitimate, let alone compelling, government interest,’ lawyers for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops wrote in a letter to federal regulators. Several small Catholic universities have already filed suit over the policy…The bishops’ notice came in 20 pages of comments submitted to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) on a forthcoming rule to accommodate certain religious organizations, such as Catholic hospitals, that were not exempted from the original mandate.” Elise Viebeck in The Hill.

Obamacare will expand healthcare options for immigrants. “The Obama administrationas drive to cut down on Americaas uninsured is about to get multilingual. Come 2014, when core provisions of the Affordable Care Act kick in, millions of legal immigrants will have new options for gaining health coverage. And like U.S. citizens, most will be subject to the individual mandate, under which they will be required to get coverage to avoid a penalty. The national health law explicitly excludes illegal immigrants — a politically explosive topic — and bans them from the new state insurance exchanges, even if they use their own money. They will make up a big chunk of the remaining uninsured population. But advocates say states have good reasons to reach out and get uninsured legal residents covered — especially as the federal government picks up most of the tab…In 2014…legal immigrants will be able to shop for health coverage through the new state insurance exchanges.” Kyle Cheney in Politico.

Domestic Policy

The backlash against standardized testing is growing. “The increasing role of standardized testing in U.S. classrooms is triggering pockets of rebellion across the country from school officials, teachers and parents who say the system is stifling teaching and learning. In Texas, some 400 local school boards–more than one-third of the state’s total–have adopted a resolution this year asking lawmakers to scale back testing. In Everett, Wash., more than 500 children skipped state exams in protest earlier this month…The efforts are a response to the spread of mandatory testing in the past decade. Proponents say the exams are needed to ensure students are learning and teachers’ effectiveness is measured. Critics say schools are spending disproportionate time and resources on the tests at the expense of more-creative learning. They also contend the results weigh too heavily in decisions on student advancement, teacher pay and the fate of schools judged to have failed.” Stephanie Banchero in The Wall Street Journal.

The NLRB suspended implementation of its union elections rule. “The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) suspended implementation on Tuesday of a rule that would speed up union elections. On Monday, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg struck down the regulation. In his ruling, the judge said the labor board only had two members vote on the final rule in December 2011 when it needed three members to form a quorum. In the wake of the court decision, the agency is temporarily suspending the rule’s implementation, which went into effect on April 30. Further, Lafe Solomon, the NLRB’s acting general counsel, withdrew guidance he sent to the labor board’s regional offices and told those offices to follow the old union election rule instead. The agency is still considering its response to the court ruling…’We continue to believe that the amendments represent a significant improvement in our process and serve the public interest by eliminating unnecessary litigation,’ said NLRB Chairman Mark Pearce.” Kevin Bogardus in The Hill.

Dog’s-eye view interlude: Life from on top of puppies.

Energy

Energy independence is no pipe dream. “Every president since Richard Nixon has called for the U.S. to wean itself from needing oil from unstable or unsavory countries. The nation’s new-found energy riches are likely to bring that ambition closer to reality in the next two decades, according to many forecasters. It’s no pipe dream. The U.S. is already the world’s fastest-growing oil and natural gas producer. Counting the output from Canada and Mexico, North America is ‘the new Middle East,’ Citigroup analysts declare in a recent report. The U.S. Energy Information Agency says U.S. oil imports will drop 20% by 2025. Oil giant BP projects the U.S. will get 94% of its energy domestically by 2030, up from 77% now, as oil imports fall by half…Most enticing, a team of analysts and economists at Citigroup argues that the U.S., or at least North America, can achieve energy independence by 2020.” Tim Mullaney in USA Today.

@umairh: So consider how our political institutions are paralyzed by a financial crisis. Now think about energy, water, etc crises. Sweet!

Wonkbook is compiled and produced with help from Karl Singer and Michelle Williams.

I want to spend another moment on this great graph Todd Lindeman worked up for my column on the constitutionality of the filibuster.

What youare seeing here are the number of acloturea motions in every congressional session since 1919. Cloture is the procedure used to break a filibuster. Between 1919 and 1975, a successful cloture motion required two-thirds of the Senate. Today, it requires three-fifths, or, in cases where all 100 senators are present and voting, 60 votes. As you can see, the majority is having to try and break many, many, many more filibusters than ever before.

This is an imperfect measure. On the one hand, itas susceptible to changes in congressional strategy: If the majority begins trying to break the filibuster more often, you could see more cloture votes, even though the filibuster isnat actually being used any more frequently. On the other side, it misses the many, many, many filibusters that never receive a cloture vote, either because the majority decides that a cloture vote is too time-consuming a simply holding a cloture vote takes about 30 hours of floor time a or because they wonat win it.

That said, it is, at least, a relatively consistent measure, and itas the best one we have. And most observers agree that its basic point is correct: Weare seeing many more filibusters today than we ever did before. But I actually think thatas the wrong way to think about it.

The issue today isnat that we see 50, or 100, or 150 filibusters. Itas that the filibuster is a constant where it used to be a rarity. Indeed, it shouldnat even be called athe filibustera: It has nothing to do with talking, or holding the floor. It should be called the 60-vote requirement. It applies to everything now even when the minority does not specifically choose to invoke it. There are no longer, to my knowledge, categories of bills that donat get filibustered because such things are simply not done, though there are bills that the minority chooses not to invoke their 60-vote option on. Thatas why Harry Reid says things like a60 votes are required for just about everything,a though there are a small number of bills where the majority uses the budget reconciliation process to short-circuit the 60-vote requirement.

An interesting implication of this graph: The filibuster has become more common even as itas become easier to break. Until 1917, the filibuster couldnat be stopped. And until 1975, you needed two-thirds of the Senate, rather than three-fifths. So as itas become less powerful, itas become more common. What that means is that the rise of the filibuster is largely about anormsa in the Senate. It didnat become more effective and thus more popular. It actually became less effective, but parties chose to use it more.

Thereas an interesting question around exactly when this change in norms happened. If you look at the graph, you have three major moments of discontinuity. One, around 1972, that appears to provoke reform of the filibuster rules so cloture is easier to achieve. Another, in the early 1990s, that seems covers the latter half of George H.W. Bushas administration and the beginning of Bill Clintonas presidency. And then the practice absolutely skyrockets when Barack Obama takes office.

We can argue about why there were these jumps. But their long-term effect seems to be to raise the bar permanently. Every time filibustering becomes much more common, it pretty much remains at that level, even as Congress and the White House changes hands. So the filibuster becomes more common under Bill Clinton, but remains almost that common under George W. Bush.

For more on the filibuster, hereas Greg Koger making the case that itas clearly constitutional. Jonathan Bernstein agrees with him. Hereas more from Common Cause on their lawsuit.

With Californiaas worsening fiscal condition back in the news, Iam reposting this 2010 column on the political dimensions of Californiaas problems a and the way they could spread to the rest of the nation.

Californiaas fiscal crisis will look sadly familiar to close watchers of the national checkbook. Thatas because California is not having a fiscal crisis so much as a political crisis. The trigger may have been the recession, but the root cause was written into the state Constitution, and it was visible long before the housing boom went bust.

In California, passing a budget or raising taxes requires a two-thirds majority in both the stateas Assembly and its Senate. That need not pose a problem, at least in theory. The state has labored under that restriction for a long time, and handled it with fair grace. But as the historian Louis Warren argues, the vicious political polarization thatas emerged in modern times has made compromise more difficult.

All of this, however, has been visible for a long time. Polarization isnat a new story, nor were Californiaas budget problems and constitutional handicap. Yet the state let its political dysfunctions go unaddressed. Most assumed that the legislatureas bickering would be cast aside in the face of an emergency. But the intransigence of Californiaas legislators has not softened despite the spiraling unemployment, massive deficits and absence of buoyant growth on the horizon. Quite the opposite, in fact. The minority party spied opportunity in fiscal collapse. If the majority failed to govern the state, then the voters would turn on them, or so the theory went.

That raises a troubling question: What happens when one of the two major parties does not see a political upside in solving problems and has the power to keep those problems from being solved?

If all this is sounding familiar, thatas because it is. Congress doesnat need a two-thirds majority to get anything done. It needs a three-fifths majority, but thatas not usually available, either. Ever since Newt Gingrich partnered with Bob Dole to retake the Congress atop a successful strategy of relentless and effective obstructionism, Congress has been virtually incapable of doing anything difficult because the minority party will either block it or run against it, or both. And make no mistake: Congress will need to do hard things, and soon. In the short term, unemployment is likely to remain high and the economy is likely to remain weak unless Congress can muster another round of serious stimulus spending. The economist Karl Case, co-founder of the famed Case-Shiller housing index, now believes that earlier optimism about our economic recovery a which he shared a was misplaced. aThe probability is very high of a serious double dip like 1982,a he told the New York Times. The housing market seems to be sagging again, and the governmentas interventions a not just the stimulus but also relaxed standards at Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Housing Authority a are set to end.

Further out, the long-term deficit problem, which is driven largely by health-care costs, is startling. The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that debt will reach 300 percent of gross domestic product come 2050 a and that estimate might be optimistic. But solutions seem unlikely. No one who watched the health-care bill wind its way through the legislative process believes Congress is ready for the much harder and more controversial cost-cutting that will be necessary in the future.

Similarly, Sens. Kent Conrad and Judd Gregg recently suggested a bipartisan deficit commission that would reach a consensus on the budget and report back to a grateful Congress. On Tuesday, a Wall Street Journal editorial showed the conservative interest in such compromises: Republicans should aagree to a deficit commission only if it takes tax increases off the table,a it said, reminding wavering Republicans that aPresident George H.W. Bush renounced his no-new-taxes pledge and made himself a one-termer.a

These two problems get to the essential difficulties confronting the nation: There is no doubt that minority parties generally profit in elections when the unemployment rate is high. But given that reality, what incentive do they have to help the majority party lower the unemployment rate? Further out, there is no doubt that the majority party has an incentive to prevent a fiscal crisis on its watch. But what incentive does the minority party have to sign on to the screamingly painful decisions that will avert crisis?

In another system of government, that wouldnat much matter. In our system of government, which requires a supermajority in the Senate for most projects, it matters a lot. On Jan. 20, for instance, the Senate is expected to vote on raising the debt ceiling. Generally, this is a bipartisan vote, as the debt is a bipartisan creation. This year, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell reportedly told Majority Leader Harry Reid that if he wants an increase in the ceiling, he owns it and needs to find the votes for it. Thatas the sort of budgetary brinksmanship that brings us back to California.

The lesson of California is that a political system too dysfunctional to avert crisis is also too dysfunctional to respond to it. The difficulty is not economic so much as it is political; solving our fiscal problem is a mixture of easy arithmetic and hard choices, but until we solve our political problem, both are out of reach. And we canat assume that an emergency, or the prospect of one, will solve the political problem for us. If you want to see how that movie ends, just look west, as we have so many times before.

According to Best Lawyers a athe oldest and most respected peer-review publication in the legal professiona a Emmet Bondurant ais the go-to lawyer when a business person just canat afford to lose a lawsuit.a He was its 2010 Lawyer of the Year for Antitrust and Bet-the-Company Litigation. But now, heas bitten off something even bigger: bet-the-country litigation.

Bondurant thinks the filibuster is unconstitutional. And, alongside Common Cause, where he serves on the board of directors, heas suing to have the Supreme Court abolish it.

In a 2011 article in the Harvard Law SchoolasA Journal on Legislation, Bondurant laid out his case for why the filibuster crosses constitutional red lines. But to understand the argument, you have to understand the history: The filibuster was a mistake.

In 1806, the Senate, on the advice ofA Aaron Burr, tried to clean up its rule book, which was thought to be needlessly complicated and redundant. One change it made was to delete something called athe previous questiona motion. That was the motion senators used to end debate on whatever they were talking about and move to the next topic. Burr recommended axing it because it was hardly ever used. Senators were gentlemen. They knew when to stop talking.

That was the moment the Senate created the filibuster. But nobody knew it at the time. It would be three more decades before the first filibuster was mounted a which meant it was five decades after the ratification of the Constitution. aFar from being a matter of high principle, the filibuster appears to be nothing more than an unforeseen and unintended consequence of the elimination of the previous question motion from the rules of the Senate,a Bondurant writes.

And even then, filibusters were a rare annoyance. Between 1840 and 1900, there were 16 filibusters. Between 2009 and 2010, there were more than 130. But thatas changed. Today, Majority Leader Harry Reid says that a60 votes are required for just about everything.a

At the core of Bondurantas argument is a very simple claim: This isnat what the Founders intended. The historical record is clear on that fact. The framers debated requiring a supermajority in Congress to pass anything. But they rejected that idea.

In Federalist 22, Alexander Hamilton savaged the idea of a supermajority Congress, writing that aits real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of government and to substitute the pleasure, caprice or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent or corrupt junta, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority.a

In Federal 58, James Madison wasnat much kinder to the concept. aIn all cases where justice or the general good might require new laws to be passed, or active measures to be pursued, the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. It would be no longer the majority that would rule; the power would be transferred to the minority.a

In the end, the Constitution prescribed six instances in which Congress would require more than a majority vote: impeaching the president, expelling members, overriding a presidential veto of a bill or order, ratifying treaties and amending the Constitution. And as Bondurant writes, aThe Framers were aware of the established rule of construction, expressio unius est exclusio alterius, and that by adopting these six exceptions to the principle of majority rule, they were excluding other exceptions.a By contrast, in the Bill of Rights, the Founders were careful to state that athe enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.a

That majority vote played into another principle, as well: the afinely wroughta compromise over proper representation. At the time of the countryas founding, seven of the 13 states, representing 27 percent of the population, could command a majority in the Senate. Today, with the filibuster, 21 of the 50 states, representing 11 percent of the population, can muster the 41 votes to stop a majority in the Senate. aThe supermajority vote requirement,a Bondurant argues, thus aupsets the Great Compromiseas carefully crafted balance between the large states and the small states.a

Establishing that the Founders intended Congress to operate by majority vote is different than saying that itas unconstitutional for Congress to act in another way. After all, the Constitution also says that Congress has the power to adetermine the Rules of its Proceedings.a

But as Bondurant notes, thereas precedent for the Supreme Court to review congressional rules: In 1892, inA United States v. Ballin, the Court held that while athe Constitution empowers each house to determine its rules of proceedings,a it amay not by its rules ignore constitutional restraints or violate fundamental rights.a And while some may argue that the filibuster has, at this point, been around for well over a century, the Supreme Court has previously held that the fact that aan unconstitutional action has been taken before surely does not render that same action any less unconstitutional at a later date.a

Bondurant makes a strong case. Will the Supreme Court buy it? I have no idea. But perhaps itas a moot point. Thereas evidence that some of the Senateas most powerful members are preparing to take reform into their own hands. On Thursday, Reid, who has traditionally been a defender of the filibuster, took to the Senate floor toA apologizeA to all the reformers he had stymied over the years.

aThe rest of us were wrong,a he said. aIf there were anything that ever needed changing in this body, itas the filibuster rule, because itas been abused, abused and abused.a

More from The Washington Post:

Budget time bomb sparks anxiety

Greece headed for new elections as talks collapse

Why isnat Obama getting crushed right now?

Will Americaas labor-force dropouts ever come back?

JPMorganas Dimon wins shareholder vote on pay

Thereas a yawning gap between how much the average American wants to cut defense spending in 2013 (18 percent) and how much Washington lawmakers want to cut (zero, or pretty close to it). But the gap between public opinion and Mitt Romneyas plan is much, much bigger.

Travis Sharp, a budget analysis at the Center for a New American Security, ran the numbers based on Romneyas plan for defense spending for CNNMoney and found that the presumptive GOP nominee would increase Pentagon spending in 2013 by $96 billion. Thatas about a 17 percent increase over 2012 spending levelsanearly the same amount by which the public wants to decrease the defense budget, according to the Stimson Centeras recent study.

Sharp based his calculation on Romneyas campaign promise to make the base defense budgetadiscretionary spending that excludes the cost of war in Iraq/Afghanistanaat least 4 percent of GDP every year. By contrast, the Pentagonas current base budget is 3.3 percent of GDP in 2013, according to the Office of Management and Budget. (To be more precise, Romneyas Pentagon budget covers about 95 percent of total defense spending, but itas close enough for a ballpark estimate.)

Defense costs would mount up even more quickly in later years: If Romneyas plan were adopted for the next decade, defense spending would increase by $2.1 trillion by 2022, as compared to the Defense Departmentas current base budget plan, Sharp tells CNN.

Don’t think of gay marriage as a cultural issue. Don’t think of it even as an equality issue. Don’t even think of it as a political issue. Think of it, just for a moment, as an economic issue.

In the traditional view of marriage, write economists Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers, “the joining of husband and wife yields a more productive firm, because it allows one spouse to specialize in earning income from working in the market, while the other specializes in the domestic sphere. The division of labor allows for greater productivity, just as it does in the workplace. The different skills required for these separate roles provide an economic rationale for the advice your grandmother may have offered, that ‘opposites attract.’” Romantic, right?

But in recent decades, the marriage-as-firm view has crumbled — and not just because social mores have changed. “Washing machines, dishwashers and microwave ovens have reduced the value to the family ‘firm’ of employing a domestic specialist,” say Stevenson and Wolfers, who are, themselves, married. “Cheap clothes can be imported from China, rather than sewn at home. Healthy meals can be purchased from the freezer at Trader Joeas. Whatas more, legal and social changes have broken down many of the barriers keeping women out of the labor market…All these developments have increased the opportunity cost of having a spouse stay home, because that spouse now has greater value in the marketplace.”

One possibility was that, as the traditional economic case for marriage fell apart, marriage itself would decline as an institution. But that didn’t happen. Rather, we developed a new kind of marriage. “Modern partnerships are based upon ‘consumption complementarities’ — the joy of sharing things and experiences — rather than the production-based gains that motivated traditional marriage,” continue Stevenson and Wolfers. “Consistent with this, co- parenting has replaced the separate roles of nurturer and disciplinarian. We have called this new model of sharing lives ‘hedonic marriage.’ These are marriages of equality in which the rule aopposites attracta no longer applies in the same way, because couples with more similar interests and values can derive greater benefits. So likes are now more likely to marry each other.”

And it’s into this institution that gay couples are being admitted, because the nature of this institution doesn’t provide a good argument for their exclusion.

Gay couples couldn’t credibly promise to provide each other with the separate and specialized skills — separate for reasons of legal discrimination, and social beliefs about what men and women could do — that were the basis of the older conception of marriage. But gay couples can certainly share the joy of things and experiences, they can certainly improve each other’s lives, they can certainly co-parent, they can certainly bring increased economic stability to a household by combining two incomes — they can do all the things that form the basis of what Stevenson and Wolfers call “hedonic marriages.”

In other words, one story here is that our attitudes have changed towards homosexuality, and that’s certainly true. But another is that our attitudes have changed towards marriage — even heterosexual marriage — in ways that opened the institution for gays. And that’s true, too.

Wonkbook dashboard

RCP Obama vs. Romney: Obama +1.4%; 7-day change: Obama +0.4%.

RCP Obama approval: 48.3%; 7-day change: +1.2%.

Want Wonkbook delivered to your inbox or mobile device?A Subscribe!

Top stories

1) Greece’s coalition talks remain deadlocked. “Greeceas president is set to resume coalition talks on Tuesday with the countryas political leaders in another attempt to avoid a fresh general election after a meeting on Monday evening ended without agreement. Antonis Samaras and Evangelos Venizelos, the conservative and socialist leaders, and Fotis Kouvelis, head of a leftwing splinter group, held a fruitless one-hour discussion on how to escape the crisis but agreed to meet again, along with other party heads. President Karolos Papoulias has another 48 hours to persuade politicians to join a national unity government according to the constitution or face having to call another election…Alexis Tsipras, the leader of Syriza, the radical leftwing coalition that rejects the terms of Greeceas international bailout, refused to participate in Mondayas talks. ‘Weare not going to join in selective meetings of political leaders … The circle of contacts provided for by the constitution has been completed,’ he said.” Kerin Hope and Peter Spiegel in The Financial Times.

The standoff is raising worries of a European economic crisis. “Political deadlock in Greece rattled world markets Monday, reviving fears that the fractious Mediterranean country could spurn an international bailout, abandon the common European currency and risk a fresh round of world economic turmoil. European stock indexes fell, with Greeceas market now at a 20-year low, while the euro currency continued a recent decline against the dollar. U.S. stocks also fell. Coming only days before the leaders of the worldas Group of Eight industrialized nations meet at Camp David, the standoff in Greece over its political direction has thrust Europeas troubles to the top of the agenda. A downturn in Europe could stagger a fragile recovery in the United States and undermine growth around the world. Fighting a new downturn would be a challenge for the major economies, many of which have not fully stabilized since the last big economic crisis.” Howard Schneider and Anthony Faiola in The Washington Post.

FAQ: Why is Greece in such trouble? And can it be fixed?

@ezraklein: “Syriza” is a rather evil-sounding name for a political party. Pretty sure it means Hydra in Greek.

2) Senate leaders reached a deal to move the Export-Import Bank bill forward. “Legislation to extend the Export-Import Bankas charter advanced in the Senate Monday evening after agreement was reached on addressing tea party demands to reopen a bipartisan deal approved only days ago by the House. Five GOP amendments will be permitted Tuesday — some re-litigating specific agreements reached by House leaders. But in each case, a supermajority of 60 votes would be required, leaving Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) hopeful that the House package will survive intact and go quickly to President Barack Obama for his signature this week…Mondayas agreement, as announced by Reid, came only minutes before a scheduled procedural vote in which he would have needed 60 votes himself to move on to the bill. By coming to terms on the amendments, Reid avoided that challenge, but as part of the same deal, he will need 60 votes for passage of the bill.” David Rogers in Politico.

3) JPMorgan Chase’s loss has the banking industry scared. “A Congressional committee announced plans on Monday to hold a hearing on the financial regulatory overhaul that will look at the JPMorgan loss. Wall Streetas representatives, fearing that the entire banking industry might pay for JPMorganas sins, are trying to contain the fallout in Washington, people close to the matter said…JPMorgan, however, is stepping away from another public panel on the Volcker Rule. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission, one of the regulators writing the Volcker Rule, will host a public roundtable this month about the new regulation and has invited JPMorgan to speak. Last week, JPMorgan suggested that one of its top Volcker Rule experts would attend. But then the bank said that this person had a scheduling conflict. Rather than dispatch another executive to Washington, the banks recommended an employee at another bank..” Ben Protess and Ed Wyatt in The New York Times.

The fiasco claimed its first casualty. “JPMorgan Chase on Monday announced the abrupt retirement of the executive who oversaw the unit that lost $2 billion trading exotic securities, the latest twist in a story that has exposed the gulf between how Wall Street views itself and how the public sees the financial sector. To the bank, its actions — which included appointing an executive to investigate what went wrong — were an example of how it could take the initiative in cleaning up its own shop. But to many lawmakers and analysts, the question remains how a bank with a sterling reputation could get into such trouble two years after Congress passed laws to prevent dangerous financial gambling…On Monday, the bank announced that Chief Investment Officer Ina Drew, who oversaw the London unit, would leave the firm, which she has served for 30 years…The bank also announced that Mike Cavanagh, a top executive, would lead a team of officials to investigate the losses.” Zachary Goldfarb and Steven Mufson in The Washington Post.

FAQ: What happened at JP Morgan? And should you care?

@lizzieohreally: Carl Levin just waved highlighted parts of Dodd-Frank at me. Which was awesome.

@SuzyKhimm: Part of Obama’s problem in selling Dodd-Frank: many new regs aren’t written yet, much less implemented. Similar to Obamacare conundrum.

4) Businesses are bracing for taxmageddon. “Defense contractors have slowed hiring. Tax advisers are warning firms not to count on favorite breaks. And hospitals are scouring their books for ways to cut costs. Across the U.S. economy, anxiety is rising about the potential for widespread disruptions after the November election, when a lame-duck Congress will have barely two months to resolve a grinding standoff over taxes and spending. The halls of the U.S. Capitol are already teeming with people warning of disaster if lawmakers fail to defuse a New Yearas budget bomb scheduled to raise taxes for every American taxpayer and slash spending at the Pentagon and most other federal agencies…The uncertainty is already prompting some firms to take action. Many more say they will be forced to contemplate layoffs and other cost-cutting measures long before the end of the year unless the Republican House and the Democratic Senate come up with an alternative path to tame deficits.” Lori Montgomery and Rosalind Helderman in The Washington Post.

5) The House GOP may link tax cut extensions with a tax reform vote this summer. “House GOP leadership is considering linking a short-term extension of the expiring Bush-era tax cuts to an overhaul of the tax system this summer, aiming to give its party a campaign talking point and to pressure Senate Democrats to act. While the details of the plan are very much up in the air, one option being considered is passing a bill extending the 2001 and 2003 tax rates for one year along with a resolution affirming GOP principles for tax reform. The measures could also include some form of fast-track authority, much like the power granted to the Joint Committee on Deficit Reduction, to expedite floor consideration of a tax reform plan in 2013, when the Bush-era tax cuts would again expire…Boehner is expected to address this and other financial issues at a speech before the Peter G. Peterson Foundation Fiscal Summit today.” Daniel Newhauser and John Stanton in Roll Call.

Top op-eds

1) KLEIN: The filibuster may be unconstitutional. “According to Best Lawyers — ‘the oldest and most respected peer-review publication in the legal profession’ — Emmet Bondurant ‘is the go-to lawyer when a business person just canat afford to lose a lawsuit.’ He was its 2010 Lawyer of the Year for Antitrust and Bet-the-Company Litigation. But now, heas bitten off something even bigger: bet-the-country litigation. Bondurant thinks the filibuster is unconstitutional. And, alongside Common Cause, where he serves on the board of directors, heas suing to have the Supreme Court abolish it…At the core of Bondurantas argument is a very simple claim: This isnat what the Founders intended. The historical record is clear on that fact. The framers debated requiring a supermajority in Congress to pass anything. But they rejected that idea.” Ezra Klein in The Washington Post.

2) SALAM: The U.S. economy shouldn’t follow China’s model. “Americans have always looked abroad for inspiration. Alexander Hamilton drew on the experience of Britain and France to shape the economic institutions of the early republic. In the early 19th century, Henry Clay championed tariffs, a national bank, and internal improvements in an effort to match Britainas economic might. As the 19th century gave way to the 20th, Germany emerged as an industrial colossus, and American intellectuals had a new model. During the 1950s, at least some Americans, mainly but not exclusively on the political left, saw the breakneck modernization of the Soviet Union as a clear indication that the old-fashioned market economy was on its last legs…But the belief that we had much to learn from the Soviets was both dangerous and stupid. And much the same can be said for the current enthusiasm over Chinaas economic model.” Reihan Salam in National Review.

3) BERWICK: Cheaper healthcare can mean better healthcare. “Reducing costs wonat just rescue health care; it will also help rescue our schools, our roads, our museums, our wages, and the competitiveness of our corporations…The route is simple: improve care. In a study in the Journal of the American Medical Association, my colleague Andy Hackbarth and I estimated the amount of pure waste in American health care — overtreatment that helps no patient at all (like treating viral infections with antibiotics), errors and injuries from unsafe care, failures in coordination (such as sending people home from hospitals without supports), needless administrative complexity, failures of price competition, and fraud. The lowest estimate of total waste in these six categories was 21 percent of health care costs; the highest was 47 percent; and the midpoint was 34 percent. When we are wasting $1 in of every $3, it makes no sense to say we cannot afford to make health care a human right without rationing. Donat cut care. Cut waste.” Donald Berwick in The Boston Globe.

4) SCHMITT: Link worker pay to corporate taxes to fight inequality. “The tax code can be part of the solution. The first step is to end the preferential treatment of income from capital gains, which economists like Princetonas Alan Blinder have shown to have no lasting effect on total investment or the economy. But we can and should go further, actively using the corporate tax code to create a real incentive to pay CEOs less, and workers more, by linking the head honchoas compensation to both employee salaries and tax rates. Hereas how the idea could work. The current corporate tax rate is a flat 35 percent. In an equity-based corporate tax system, companies with a pay ratio at the historic norm of 40:1, or even up to 60:1, would pay the existing rate and be able to deduct executive pay. But companies that pay their top executives more than 60 times the average worker (including employees in overseas subsidiaries) would pay a higher rate, 40 percent, and those with extreme pay differentials, 80:1 or higher, would pay 45 percent.” Mark Schmitt in GOOD.

5) STEVENSON AND WOLFERS: An economic mode of marriage equality. For our grandparentsa generation, marriage was about separate roles, separate spheres and specialization. Gary Becker, an economist at the University of Chicago, won the Nobel Prize partly for describing the family as an economic institution — a bit like a small firm that employs people with different skills to produce both income and a well-run household. In Beckeras view, the joining of husband and wife yields a more productive firm, because it allows one spouse to specialize in earning income from working in the market, while the other specializes in the domestic sphere. The division of labor allows for greater productivity, just as it does in the workplace…Modern marriage offers different benefits. Today, we search for a soul mate rather than a good homemaker or provider. We are more likely to regard marriage as a forum for shared experiences and passions. Viewed through an economic frame, modern partnerships are based upon ‘consumption complementarities’ — the joy of sharing things and experiences — rather than the production-based gains that motivated traditional marriage. Consistent with this, co- parenting has replaced the separate roles of nurturer and disciplinarian.” Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers at Bloomberg View.

Anti-folk interlude: Kimya Dawson plays “I like Giants” live.

Got tips, additions, or comments? E-mail me.

Still to come: A fall in commodities prices sparks worries of deflation; a turf war over primary care; colleges begin to confront costs; regulators worry about solar flares; and a harbor seal pup explores the water for the first time.

Economy

New data suggests the eurozone has returned to recession. “Industrial production in the 17 countries that use the euro fell unexpectedly in March, leaving little doubt the region contracted for a second straight quarter in the first three months of the year and returned to recession, data by Eurostat showed Monday. The European Union’s statistical agency will publish the first estimate of first-quarter gross domestic product Tuesday. Economists are forecasting a 0.2% quarterly decline, according to a Dow Jones Newswires poll. Industrial production fell 0.3% on the month in March and by 2.2% on the year. The latter was the steepest drop since a 3.7% decline in December 2009, while the monthly decline was because of a sharp 8.5% decrease in energy production as the weather in March was warmer than usual for the time of year, a Eurostat statistician said…The data were weaker than expected. Economists had forecast a 0.5% monthly increase and a 1.2% year-on-year fall.” Ilona Billington in The Wall Street Journal.

Commodities prices fell to a new yearly low. “The prices of key commodities fell to their lowest level of the year on Monday, dragged down by worries about Europeas debt crisis and the possibility of a slowdown in China, the worldas second-largest economy. An emerging concern among some economists and investors is that the declining prices of materials such as gold and crude oil could be an early signal of deflation — a decline of prices that is economically corrosive because it makes it more difficult for businesses to make a profit. The downturn in prices is reflected in broad measures of commodity prices. The Standard & Pooras GSCI, an index tracking prices for crude oil, gold, copper and several other commodities, has dropped more than 6 percent this month so far. Even the price of gold, which usually rises when investors have concerns about the economy, has fallen.” Jia Lynn Yang in The Washington Post.

Smile for the camera interlude: Videos of people who think they are posing for a picture.

Health Care

Romney and Obama differ sharply on Medicare. “President Obama and Mitt Romney agree on one thing about Medicare: the differences between them are huge…Mr. Romney, who would limit the governmentas current open-ended financial commitment to Medicare, contends that Mr. Obama has no workable plan to prevent Medicare from going bankrupt. Under the Romney proposal, the government would contribute a fixed amount of money on behalf of each beneficiary, and future beneficiaries could use the money to buy private insurance or to help pay for traditional Medicare…Mr. Obama assails the Romney proposal for the same reason he denounced a similar plan devised by Representative Paul D. Ryan, Republican of Wisconsin and chairman of the House Budget Committee: the government contribution, he says, would not keep up with the rising cost of health care, so Medicare beneficiaries — older Americans and people with disabilities — would have to pay more of the cost.” Robert Pear in The New York Times.

A primary care turf war is heating up. “Nurse practitioners are rolling out a campaign this week to explain what, exactly, nurse practitioners do — and why patients should trust them with their medical needs…The AANP will follow up on the public relations blitz with state-level lobbying efforts, looking to pass bills that will expand the range of medical procedures that their membership can perform…All states have ‘scope of practice’ laws, which regulate what medical procedures each profession can, and cannot, perform, given their level of education…In 16 states, nurse practitioners can practice without the supervision of another professional such as a doctor. Other states, however, require a physician to sign off on a nurse practitioneras prescriptions, for example, or diagnostic tests. As the health insurance expansion looms, expanding those rules to other states has become a crucial priority for nurse practitioners.” Sarah Kliff in The Washington Post.

A senator is floating a plan to make HIV drugs cheaper. “Why do American patients pay tens of thousands of dollars each year for HIV drugs that cost just hundreds in Africa? Drugmakers wave their patent rights in developing countries as part of the Presidentas Emergency Fund for AIDS Relief. But the higher cost of brand-name drugs in the United States makes it difficult for many HIV patients to stay on drug regimens that can cost as much as $30,000 a year. Thatas the challenge a Senate subcommittee will explore on Tuesday at a hearing on how to narrow the gap. Itas mainly a vehicle one proposed solution — a proposal by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) that would award prize money rather than grant patent rights to manufacturers that develop new HIV drugs, allowing the medication to go straight to the generic market. But the hearing will also look at the root causes of a dilemma that has had some HIV patients and drugmakers at odds for years.” J. Lester Feder in Politico.

@petersuderman: This new issue of Health Affairs looks so, so awesome. All coverage expansion all the time!

Domestic Policy

Broadcasters are pushing back on recent FCC moves. “TV broadcasters look at the Federal Communications Commissionas recent drive to move them off frequencies and put their political advertising rates on the Internet and draw one conclusion: The FCC has it in for television. And broadcasters are fighting back by publicly airing that charge in the midst of the ongoing policy debate on freeing up airwaves for wireless broadband…For decades, televisionas use of the airwaves was virtually unchallenged. Under Chairman Julius Genachowski, the FCC has focused on fostering mobile broadband as the essential communications platform of the future. As broadcasters see it, television has become a much less important medium to the agency…In the wrangling over spectrum, broadcasters see the wireless industry — which is clamoring for access to more airwaves to satisfy the exploding amount of broadband data traffic — as their main foe. As the wireless industry sees it, the best use of finite spectrum resources is mobile broadband.” Brooks Boliek in Politico.

A federal judge struck down a NLRB rule on union elections. “A federal judge ruled Monday that a contentious union election rule proposed by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is ‘invalid.’ In an 18-page memorandum opinion, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg struck the regulation down, saying the labor board only had two members when it voted on the final rule in December 2011. Boasberg said the agency needed at least three members to have a quorum for action on the rule…Two NLRB members — Chairman Mark Pearce and then-Member Craig Becker, both Democrats — participated in adopting the rule. The labor boardas third member at the time, Republican Brian Hayes, did not participate…The judge said the decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ‘may seem unduly technical,’ but cited a 2010 Supreme Court ruling that the NLRB needs a quorum of three members to issue regulations and make rulings. Boasberg said his ruling was not made on the merits of the union election rule and noted the NLRB could vote again to pass it.” Kevin Bogardus in The Hill.

@AlecMacGillis: Dems’ failure to pass labor law reform in ’09-’10 haunts once again–a judge just threw out NLRB’s incremental new rule to ease organizing.

Colleges are beginning to confront costs. “College presidents across the country are confronting the same realization, trying to manage their institutions with fewer state dollars without sacrificing quality or all-important academic rankings. Tuition increases had been a relatively easy fix but now — with the balance of student debt topping $1 trillion and an increasing number of borrowers struggling to pay — some administrators acknowledge that they cannot keep putting the financial onus on students and their families. Increasingly, they are looking for other ways to pay for education, stepping up private fund-raising, privatizing services, cutting staff, eliminating departments — even saving millions of dollars by standardizing things like expense forms…The problems arenat confined to public colleges. Administrators at some nonprofit private institutions said they too had come to realize they could not keep raising tuition and fees.” Andrew Martin in The New York Times.

Adorable animals exploring the world interlude: The firsts of a harbor seal pup.

Energy

A transmission line for offshore wind is moving forward. “A pioneering proposal to build a wind power transmission line on the ocean floor from southern Virginia to northern New Jersey cleared a hurdle on Monday when the Interior Department opened the way for the projectas sponsors to start work on an environmental impact statement. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, part of the Interior Department, said that no competitor had emerged for the right-of-way for the proposed transmission line, known as the Atlantic Wind Connection, allowing the bureau to issue a ‘determination of no competitive interest.’ By linking wind farms 15 to 20 miles off the coast, the backbone would greatly reduce the number of individual radial lines needed to bring the energy to shore…Construction of the full project would take about 10 years, according to the company. The right-of-way corridor, including branches to reach the shore at intermediate points, would run about 790 miles, the Interior Department said.” Matthew Wald in The New York Times.

Regulators are considering options to protect the grid from solar flares. “With a peak in the cycle of solar flares approaching, U.S. electricity regulators are weighing their options for protecting the nation’s grid from the sun’s eruptions–including new equipment standards and retrofits–while keeping a lid on the cost. They are studying the impact of historic sunstorms as far back as 1859 to see if the system needs an upgrade, and encountering a clash of views on how serious the threat is and what should be done about it…The sun is expected to hit a peak eruption period in 2013, and while superstorms don’t always occur in peak periods, some warn of a disaster. John Kappenman, a consultant and former power engineer who has spent decades researching the storms, says the modern power grid isn’t hardened for the worst nature has to offer. He says an extreme storm could cause blackouts lasting weeks or months, leaving major cities temporarily uninhabitable and taking a massive economic toll.” Ryan Tracy in The Wall Street Journal.

Highway crashes are the leading cause of fatalities for oil and gas workers. “Over the past decade, more than 300 oil and gas workers like Mr. Roth were killed in highway crashes, the largest cause of fatalities in the industry. Many of these deaths were due in part to oil field exemptions from highway safety rules that allow truckers to work longer hours than drivers in most other industries, according to safety and health experts. Many oil field truckers say that while these exemptions help them earn more money, they are routinely used to pressure workers into driving after shifts that are 20 hours or longer…Last year, the National Transportation Safety Board said it ‘strongly opposed’ the oil field exemptions because they raise the risk of crashes. This threat will grow substantially in coming years, safety advocates warn. According to federal officials, more than 200,000 new oil and gas wells will be drilled nationwide over the next decade.” Ian Urbina in The New York Times.

Wonkbook is compiled and produced with help from Karl Singer and Michelle Williams.

Personal Injury Lawyer Los Angeles – FREE CONSULTATION by Personal Injury Attorney Los Angeles – Legal Defenders, Los Angeles Personal Injury Lawyers – Law Offices of Burg and Brock, who have won over $100 million in verdicts and settlements for clients

Page took 4 seconds to load.