Why Republicans Will Block Richard Cordray for the CFPB

Jul 18, 2011Mike Konczal

It's not just that they don't like Elizabeth Warren. It's that they want to undo the entire Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Elizabeth Warren is out. And former Ohio Attorney General and current Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) Director of Enforcement Richard Cordray is in as the nominee to head the CFPB.

It's not just that they don't like Elizabeth Warren. It's that they want to undo the entire Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Elizabeth Warren is out. And former Ohio Attorney General and current Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) Director of Enforcement Richard Cordray is in as the nominee to head the CFPB.

Cordray took the problems in the foreclosure fraud crisis very seriously while in Ohio, going as far as to sue GMAC when the robosigning scandal broke last October. Here is coverage of that lawsuit from Yves Smith and David Dayen from back then. Beyond GMAC, Cordray sent letters to Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Citi and Wells Fargo to question their use of robosigning. I hope he is going to support other AGs like Eric Schneiderman who are currently investigating these problems further up the securitization chain. He also did a telling interview with Annie Lowrey last October. Cordray: "What we're talking about here is not just sloppy paperwork," he said. "We're talking about fraud in a court of law. The [foreclosure document signers] were lying under oath, to a judge. And there is evidence that this company has illegally ousted people from their private property, violating their property rights." Sadly Cordray lost his election with the Tea Party wave of 2010, but he did promptly land a job with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which was just starting out.

Forty-four Republican Senators had already vowed to block anyone nominated to head the CFPB unless structural changes are made, and they have reiterated today that they will continue to do so. This is important as there are many things the CFPB can't do -- basically powers that aren't transferred over from another agency -- without a Director. What's their deal?

Let's back up for a second. What are the strengths of the way the CFPB is structured in the Dodd-Frank Act? There are many, especially the consolidation of consumer regulation and the focus on research. But three structural strengths stand out: it has a single director, there's been careful attention paid to its budgeting process and it is just like other regulators in terms of accountability. These three parts of the CFPB were carefully planned, designed and fought for.

In early May of 2011, 44 Republican Senators signed onto a letter written by Senator Shelby that requested three specific changes before they released the hostages confirmed any nominee to head the CFPB. The changes, quoted from the document:

- Replace the single Director with a board to oversee the Bureau. This would prevent a single person from dominating the Bureau and provide a critical check on the Bureau's authority.

- Subject the Bureau to the Congressional appropriations process. This would provide oversight and accountability to the American people on how public money is spent.

- Establish a safety-and-soundness check for the prudential financial regulators who oversee the safety and soundness of financial institutions. This would help ensure that excessive regulations do not needlessly cause bank failures.

See that? Three of its major strengths -- a director, funding, and accountability with a focus on consumer protection -- are exactly what the Republicans want to dismantle. No doubt they are trying to stall the implementation of Dodd-Frank and prevent the CFPB from doing all its work -- of course they are -- but these are three critical points where they can significantly weaken what the CFPB can do. Any leeway given on these requests would be a major problem.

The CFPB is going to have a large operation with people overseeing various parts of the regulatory framework. It's not clear what problem having a board instead of a Director is meant to solve, and it is very clear that having a board instead of a Director will throw sand into its gears. Subtly, it will reduce the Bureau's presence among all other banking regulators, as they all have a clear chief agent who coordinates the activities of the agency. Not so subtly, it'll cause in-fighting and a lack of focus during its crucial first years.

It’s free! Sign up to have the Daily Digest, a witty take on the morning’s key headlines, delivered straight to your inbox.

The second change on how it is funded is a major battlefield. As Adam Levitin wrote last year in The Political Economy of CFPB Funding:

CFPB funding isn't a poorly thought-through piece of legislation; a lot of thought went into this particular issue. The concern that Congress and CFPB advocates had was that if CFPB were subject to the regular appropriations process, it would be too easy for CFPB to be strangled in the appropriations process, which is one of the least transparent parts of Congressional activity, and therefore the ideal place to ice an agency. The whole point of giving the CFPB a percentage of the Fed's overall budget was to ensure that the CFPB will always have the financial wherewithall to be effective -- consumer financial protection shouldn't be a politically dependent matter. Congress acted deliberately and intentionally to bind its own hands in the future when political winds change... The CFPB funding mechanism is based on a careful assessment of the CFPB's needs and the political economy of consumer protection... Recall that a major reason we needed a CFPB was that consumer financial protection was severely compromised by housing it in bank regulators who got their funding from banks, not through the appropriations process.

If it was funded by Congress, Republicans in Congress would try to strangle it in the dark as financial lobbyists cheered, the same way Phil "Unless the waters are crimson with the blood of investors, I don't want you embarking on any regulatory flights of fancy" Gramm did back in the 1990s to people like Arthur Levitt at the SEC.

The third change is usually phrased as a blend between accountability and goals. Again I'm going to kick it to this chart from Levitin on accountability:

The CFPB is at least as accountable, if not much more so, than any other regulatory body. It's the only regulator that the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) can veto, a disturbing development during the Dodd-Frank process that was inserted to deal with the criticism that the agency wouldn't be accountable enough (how's that going?). As I noted at the time, between Treasury, the head of the OCC, and the Fed Chair, the FSOC is likely to be bank friendly. There's already enough of an obstacle built into the very framework.

Meanwhile, consumer protection was usually treated as an orphan mission, the third or fourth most important objective for many regulators, in the pre-Dodd-Frank era. If everyone was in charge of it, then nobody was. Consumer protection is the CFPB's main focus and it consolidates this functioning from other regulators. As Tim Fernholz wrote in his paper on the CFPB for New America, "the agency's founding purpose [is] to create a single, accountable home for consumer financial protection." The GOP's change would water down its mission and divert it from its objectives, and thus significantly hurt the new agency.

The Republicans are not stupid, and these three structural changes were not picked out of a hat. Meanwhile, a lot of what the CFPB has to do won't come online without a director. Will Obama be aggressive and go with a recess appointment? According to Public Citizen, he has more discretion than we realize.

Mike Konczal is a Research Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute.

Share This

Tom Ferguson and Rob Johnson Explain Why the Tea Party Became the Big Banks' Best Friend

Jul 12, 2011

money-question-150A year after the passage of Dodd-Frank, why is the Tea Party serving the big banks to thwart it?

It was anger at the bank bailouts that spawned the Tea Party, but now this same movement is becoming the big banks' best friend. What's up with that?

money-question-150A year after the passage of Dodd-Frank, why is the Tea Party serving the big banks to thwart it?

It was anger at the bank bailouts that spawned the Tea Party, but now this same movement is becoming the big banks' best friend. What's up with that?

Recently, our friend Robert Scheer of Truthdig reminded us that the same gigantic banks that caused the economic meltdown enjoy record-breaking profits while doing zilch for the American economy, which continues to stall and sputter. How do they get away with it? Scheer notes that the Wizards of Wall Street have turned away from Obama and are going to the Tea Party for support. And they're getting it.

In a trend that is doubtless making Lloyd Blankfein weep for joy, Tea Party-backed Republicans in Congress are furiously trying to block financial reform and the critical regulations that would prevent reckless speculation and another, possibly worse, economic meltdown. They appear determined to slash the budgets of the Securities and Exchange Commission and Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Scheer notes that the CFTC is run by former Goldman Sachs partner Gary Gensler, one of the Obama "regulators" who has specialized in thwarting proper supervision of the out-of-control derivatives market.

I asked my colleagues at the Roosevelt Institute to help me understand what the heck is going on:

From Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Thomas Ferguson, Professor of Political Science at U Mass, Boston:

Alas, this story is all too familiar. In the midst of a giant economic downturn, a new government comes to power. It talks boldly, but acts tepidly. Its massive policy failure discredits the idea that public authority can act effectively at all. At that point a desperate population starts looking around for saviors. In the absence of any plausible progressive alternative, many turn back to primal roots or sacred texts -- in the case of the Tea Party, the Constitution. But in a money-driven political system, cash is still king. Leaders of the "populist" uprising soon find they can do good and do well at the same time by striking deals with elements of big business that have political demands of their own.

So the deadly circle begins to close. Big sections of the population cheer on measures that insiders recognize are designed to wreck them.

There is a bright side: This process doesn't have to end as it did in Weimar or the French Third Republic. Who now recalls that Herbert Hoover's "activism" in the Great Depression was once hailed as epochal? But when the Great Engineer failed to jump start recovery and capitulated to bankers' demands for austerity, he was supplanted by Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal. But anyone can also see the sticking point now: In 2008, the population threw out the Republicans. In 2010, it tossed out the Democrats. So who does it eject in 2012?

Join us at the Hamptons Institute July 15-17 to hear distinguished speakers take on today’s most pressing issues!

From Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Robert Johnson:

We live in a country where the experience of decline has gone from suspected to obvious. The energy that is built up by the pain is not going to go away. In that painful state the search for culprits and blame is inevitable. The storytelling, through technique and repetition, need not bear any resemblance to the truth when the blame is affixed. Unless strong leaders stand up repeatedly to counter the false narratives, scapegoats will be determined by power, not truth.

Unfortunately, strong leaders do not arise when public officials are imprisoned by the need for money in order to survive in office. As trust deteriorates anyone who espouses a vision of "the public good" is treated like a romantic fool. Pretend rituals of statesmanship abound, i.e., deficit commissions that impose hardship on vulnerable. Elites stand around and scratch their head about why people are so angry and join the Tea Party. Why are elites confused by this? There is no where else for people to go. It reminds me of the lyric in the Leonard Cohen song "Everybody Knows", a song that may as well be the anthem for our time.

Everybody knows that the dice are loaded
Everybody rolls with their fingers crossed
Everybody knows that the war is over
Everybody knows the good guys lost

Everybody knows the fight was fixed
The poor stay poor, the rich get rich
That's how it goes
Everybody knows

Everybody knows that the boat is leaking
Everybody knows that the captain lied
Everybody got this broken feeling
Like their father or their dog just died

Share This

To Win the Debt Ceiling Showdown, Obama Must Stand His Ground

Jul 7, 2011Bo Cutter

The President has to acknowledge that the opposition is ready to send the country into default -- and make it clear he's not interested in doing so.

The President has to acknowledge that the opposition is ready to send the country into default -- and make it clear he's not interested in doing so.

The last two weeks have been beyond depressing if you believe the debt issue and impending default are actually serious or if you think governance is, or at least ought to be, about solving problems. And if you like and basically agree with the policies of President Obama, it has been hard to see how he emerges from this mess a winner.

On the other hand, if you see this as a theme park or as a political opening for the emergence of the radical center, then you see it all as sort of fun.

To review the bidding, all of the current set of negotiations seem to have gone nowhere -- unless both sides are cleverly hiding a grand bargain. The Senate Gang of Six is on sabbatical. The Biden negotiations are paused. The nation's economists have just sent two contradictory letters to the Hill. The far right, i.e. the Republican House of Representatives, has convinced itself that default is actually not a big deal. The far left is in the process of convincing itself that the President can simply ignore the debt ceiling and rely on a new interpretation of Section 4 of the 14th Amendment. This seems to be what passes for useful strategy today: ignore the problem and create another problem, in this case impeachment.  What passes for a middle is reduced to arguing that the Secretary of the Treasury can manage his way around default by paying bills selectively. (A Treasury Secretary who, by the way, has all but shouted that he is departing, thus rendering himself a short-timer with no negotiating clout. Why doesn't President Obama tell Tim Geithner that he can't leave? Other presidents have.) We are running a $1.5 trillion deficit -- $125 billion  a month. The U.S. Treasury receives about 80 million bills a year, 7 million a month. So each month the Treasury is supposed to sort through 7 million bills and find $125 billion it can avoid paying, while paying all interest and finding a way to roll over maturing debt? This is utter nonsense.

Meanwhile, the President's own strategy is impossible to figure out. He seems reduced to saying that there's a deal if the Republicans agree to alter the depreciation schedule for private jets and reduce America's charitable giving. The administration seems to also be fearful lest an inadvertent comment offend the Republicans. I don't pick up quickly on subtlety, but I can't find a political strategy, or an economic narrative, or a consistent public relations effort in all of this. I hope his call to bring all the negotiators to the White House for another try is the start of a strategy and a narrative.

But this issue is the ball game. Nothing else truly big, truly election settling, is likely to happen before the 2012 elections. There are always unknown unknowns, but most of them are bad. The President has to win or stalemate this issue.

Join us at the Hamptons Institute July 15-17 to hear distinguished speakers take on today’s most pressing issues!

I think there is a way to do this, and David Brooks posed it indirectly in his excellent column yesterday. He argued that the Republican Party may be moving away from being "a normal conservative party, but an odd protest movement that has separated itself from normal governance, the normal rules of evidence and the ancient habits of our nation." The President has to take the measure of his opposition, offer a short-term deal reasonable people could not refuse, and put such a deal in the context of a real economic strategy. The opposition is moving in the direction Brooks suggests: becoming ideologues and nihilists (and making it obvious), while the nation is composed largely of moderates and centrists who increasingly see themselves as politically independent. The new Congressional Republicans also they think they have the Administration's number and that he will cave before risking default, and they think the economic and financial disaster a default would represent would hurt President Obama more than them. The President has to raise the risks a default poses to the Republicans.

He can accomplish this by:

  • Defining himself as clearly being in the center and trying to solve the nation's problems.
  • Defining the opposition as acting beyond any acceptable political boundaries in being willing to expose Americans to the kinds of risks default entails.
  • Proposing a broad economic strategy comprising deficit reduction, tax reform, and infrastructure investment phased in so that the economy can continue its (weak) recovery. (This strategy won't have a chance before the election, but the President can campaign on it for the next 15 months.)
  • Proposing a modest short-term deal: a limited debt ceiling increase with accompanying deficit cuts coupled with a process for a real negotiation. I would suggest a debt ceiling increase covering roughly the next 6 months, and a full fledged process of negotiation out at Andrews Air Force Base starting in September. I would make the short-term proposal hard to turn down by designing it so that about 80% of the deficit reduction came from spending cuts. (They have already identified more than enough enough budget cuts to do this.)

But the President has to believe all of this if he says it. The only way he wins is if he puts forward a reasonable, doable proposal and then stays with it. Does he go all the way through a default? I just do not know, but he has to come close.

This debt ceiling debacle is not acceptable. Americans have a right to be furious at both parties for all of this, and these events will accelerate the movement away from our current duopoly. What right do politicians have to threaten the economic security of all Americans because they are having an ideological quarrel? Most Americans mostly want to be left alone, not made the victims of a political system that has seemingly lost touch with what governance is. As my friend Les Gelb said on another topic: "Without vision men die; with vision more men die."

Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Bo Cutter is formerly a managing partner of Warburg Pincus, a major global private equity firm. Recently, he served as the leader of President Obama’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) transition team.

Share This

What's Wrong with the Obama Administration's Cuts to Medicaid

Jul 6, 2011Richard Kirsch

President Obama's proposed Medicaid cuts won't address the source of rising costs, but they would be a major step backward for public health care.

President Obama's proposed Medicaid cuts won't address the source of rising costs, but they would be a major step backward for public health care.

While the public debate about the Republican budget focused on the sharp reactions against Paul Ryan’s Medicare privatization scheme, the other big “M” in health care, Medicaid, hasn’t received the attention it deserves. As a result, the Obama administration has proposed cuts in Medicaid. These will undermine the achievements of its own historic health care law and harm access to health care for tens of millions of women, children and seniors.

Unlike Medicare, our national health insurance program for seniors and the disabled, Medicaid comprises 51 different state programs (including Washington DC) operating under a set of federal rules, financed by both the federal and state governments. As a result, it’s much harder for the feds to control Medicaid costs through policy changes. The Ryan/Republican budget doesn’t even try; it simply limits the amount that the federal government will spend on Medicaid and shifts the rest of the costs to the states, while weakening the rules so that states can dump people out of the program.

Unfortunately, most of the proposals that have been made by President Obama in the debt-ceiling negotiations are a kinder and gentler version of the same wrong-headed policy of shifting costs to states, and through them to American families, rather than dealing with the underlying reasons that Medicaid costs are rising.

It’s true that Medicaid costs are increasing, but that’s not because Medicaid has done a poor job of controlling health care costs, at least compared with the rest of the nation’s health care system. For example, from 2000 to 2009 private health insurance companies spending per person increased by 7.7% each year while Medicaid spending on acute care health services –- doctor, hospital, prescriptions, tests, mental health – increased by 5.6% a year. Medicaid did an even better job controlling spending on long term care, which went up an average of just 3% a year per beneficiary, the same rate at which the economy grew and lower that the overall rate of medical inflation (4.1%).

To really see where Medicaid spends it money, you only need to look at the 5% of Medicaid beneficiaries who are responsible for more than 50% of the costs. These are people with very serious, chronic health conditions and serious disabilities. President Obama knows this –- in fact, he raised the issue at the National Governor’s Association in February.

The other major factor in Medicaid spending is increased enrollment –- particularly when the economy tanks. For example, enrollment of families was flat from 2004-2007 but spiked sharply once the recession began. Enrollment jumped by three million from June 2008 to June 2009 alone, the biggest increase since the early day of the program.

Join us at the Hamptons Institute July 15-17 to hear distinguished speakers take on today's most pressing issues!

Rather than dealing with the root causes of high Medicaid spending, the Obama administration proposes to cut $100 billion from Medicaid over the next decade, mostly by changing the way it pays states for the program. The biggest change would be to reimburse states at the same rate for all their Medicaid patients, unlike now, where states get a different rate for different populations, such as children or seniors. The new so-called “blended rate” would be set at a lower amount than current health spending. Like the Ryan plan, the proposal is simply a cut to states, albeit a much smaller one than Ryan proposed and without the loosening of rules on who and what to cover included in the Republican budget. States would still cut back on who and what it covers, if only to the extent allowed within the current rules. States would also cut payments to providers, which in many cases – particularly physicians, dentists and hospitals in some states – would make it harder for patients to get needed medical care.

The “blended rate” proposal also strikes a blow at the Affordable Care Act, which is counting on Medicaid to provide care to more than half of the 33 million uninsured who will be covered under the new law. Under the Affordable Care Act, the federal government will reimburse states 100% of the cost of these new enrollees for the first three years and gradually reduce that to 90%. Compare that to the average 57% now that the federal government pays as its share of Medicaid. The blended rate would result in states having to pay a lot more for people who become eligible for Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. As a result, states will throw up more barriers to enroll these working families and will scream more loudly about how the ACA is hurting their budgets. That later charge has almost no basis in fact now, but will become true under the blended rate proposal.

A second Obama administration proposal would close off one source that states now use to finance Medicaid, taxes on health care providers. Since states would be reluctant to replace these taxes with other taxes, they would also cut their spending on Medicaid, lowering federal spending.

In fact, only 10% to 15% of the cuts in Medicaid spending in the Obama proposal would come from rational savings in the system – increased efficiencies in providing medical equipment and prescription drugs – as opposed to simply giving states less money and making it harder for them to raise money for Medicaid.

The Affordable Care Act was a huge step toward a more rational health system, but the Obama proposals for Medicaid in the budget take us backward. Instead, the President should accelerate reforms that focus on the handful of high cost patients that drive most of the costs, by requiring states to implement care coordination programs which provide systems and incentives for health care providers to improve the care of the chronically.

Early this June, Senator Jay Rockefeller announced that 41 Democrats had pledged to “stand united against any efforts to slash Medicaid." Their action was aimed at the debt-ceiling and budget talks. Unfortunately, their resolve will be tested soon, in the Medicaid proposal made by their Democratic President.

Richard Kirsch is a Senior Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, whose book on the campaign to win reform will be published in 2012. He was National Campaign Manager of Health Care for America Now during the legislative battle to pass reform.

Share This

Republicans Remain Poor at History – But So Do American Citizens

Jun 17, 2011Harvey J. Kaye

story-book-200We could all use a brush up on some of the nation's most important historical moments.

story-book-200We could all use a brush up on some of the nation's most important historical moments.

In a recent article, New York Times writer Sam Dillon reports that the results of nationwide exams conducted as part of the National Assessment of Educational Progress show that "American students are less proficient in their nation's history than in any other subject." And there is, as Dillon notes, a developing consensus as to why this is so: "History advocates contend that students' poor showing on the tests underlines neglect shown to the subject by federal and state policy makers, especially since the 2002 No Child Left Behind act began requiring schools to raise scores in math and reading but in no other subject. The federal accountability law, the advocates say, has given schools and teachers an incentive to spend less time on history and other subjects."

That may well be so. But I want to suggest another possible cause for young people's poor knowledge of American history: kids are simply emulating conservative celebrities. And the kids are no fools. They know from the news that if you want to get ahead, if you want to be taken seriously, if you want to be a contender, if you want to be a candidate for President of the United States -- a rightwing candidate, that is -- you can't be good at history. Isn't that the lesson of the past few weeks? Sarah Palin couldn't explain what Paul Revere's ride was all about. Bachmann didn't know that Lexington and Concord -- the first battles of the American Revolution -- were fought in Massachusetts, not New Hampshire.

But while we can laugh all we want at Palin and Bachmann, the problem isn't that they don't have the facts straight about American history -- it's that too many of us don't know enough about it. And our ignorance can be politically debilitating. Consider...

Sign up for weekly ND20 highlights, mind-blowing stats, and event alerts.

Two weeks ago, on the 67th anniversary of the D-Day Landings at Normandy, former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum, a Pennsylvania Republican, announced that he was entering the race for the presidency. Eager to harness the Greatest Generation to his cause and strike a blow against "Obamacare," Santorum stated: "Almost 60,000 average Americans had the courage to go out and charge those beaches on Normandy, to drop out of airplanes who knows where, and take on the battle for freedom... Those Americans risked everything so they could make [their own] decision on their health care plan."

Naturally, leftwing commentators mocked him for saying it. But the progressive punditocracy missed a great opportunity. Santorum wasn't just speaking stupidly; he was also speaking wrongly. Contrary to what he asserted, the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy essentially were fighting for the chance of pursuing freedoms and securing government-guaranteed national health care. They and their fellow Americans knew quite well that just six months earlier President Franklin Roosevelt, in his State of the Union Message of January 1944, had translated his original vision of the Four Freedoms -- freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, freedom from fear -- into a proposal for a Second Bill of Rights. And among the rights he enumerated was "The right to adequate medical care." Moreover, the President himself knew that the vast majority of his fellow citizens supported his proposal. Polls conducted for the White House in 1943 by Princeton's Public Opinion Research office showed that 83 percent of the American people wanted Social Security to include health care, not just for veterans, but for all Americans.

To listen to the right, you'd think the very idea of national health care was the Trojan Horse of communism. And yet a bit of history teaches that the Greatest Generation and its greatest leader -- our foremost heroes of the twentieth century -- hoped to enact it. Un-American? Hardly.

I don't care if conservatives know enough about history. But I do care that we and our fellow citizens do. For starters, we have got to be able to point out when the Tea Party right gets history dead wrong. Moreover, we have got to remember who we are. And to do that we need to not only restore the study of history to its rightful place in the school curriculum, but also make sure that the history we teach enables students to think and act as citizens, not game show contestants. Responding to equally dismal reports of student ignorance of America's past, progressive columnist Max Lerner wrote in April 1943: "History belongs to the people. It must be taught as part of the people's struggle to build a free democracy on this continent. It must be taught as the prelude to what American democracy can do and be."

Harvey J. Kaye is the Ben & Joyce Rosenberg Professor of Democracy and Justice Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay and the author of Thomas Paine and the Promise of America. He is currently writing The Four Freedoms and the Promise of America: FDR, the Greatest Generation, and Us. Follow him on Twitter: www.twitter.com/HarveyJKaye

Share This

Tom Ferguson on the Budget Battle: "We've Got Two Conservative Parties"

Jun 14, 2011

In a recent interview with New School Radio's Antonio Seccareccia, Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Tom Ferguson weighs in on the budget debate, which he sees as "the end stages of the Reagan Revolution." The problem, he says, is that there are essentially two conservative parties at the national level: "Republicans want to cut, Democrats want to cut less." That leaves no one to defend programs like Social Security at a time when people need them most.

In a recent interview with New School Radio's Antonio Seccareccia, Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Tom Ferguson weighs in on the budget debate, which he sees as "the end stages of the Reagan Revolution." The problem, he says, is that there are essentially two conservative parties at the national level: "Republicans want to cut, Democrats want to cut less." That leaves no one to defend programs like Social Security at a time when people need them most.

As for the growing deficit, Tom argues that the Republican push to cut taxes without cutting expenditures created the problem.  However, it only became truly catastrophic after the financial crisis, since "financial collapses typically crush economies for years, and that's driven down the tax take of governments."  In order to close the gap, we need to return to full employment as soon as possible.  Tom believes President Obama's biggest mistake was his failure to pass a big enough stimulus in 2009, and the economy continues to drag because of his reluctance to push for another round.

Click here to listen to the full interview, including Tom's take on Social Security, the Bush tax cuts, state-level union-busting, and more.

Share This

Cato: Privatization Deals Are "Fraught with Peril"

Jun 10, 2011Matt Stoller

In a recent op-ed for Politico, Roosevelt Institute Fellow Matt Stoller argued that privatizing public assets leads to poorer service at a higher price. Below, he responds to a libertarian critique of that piece.

In a recent op-ed for Politico, Roosevelt Institute Fellow Matt Stoller argued that privatizing public assets leads to poorer service at a higher price. Below, he responds to a libertarian critique of that piece.

Cato's Roger Pilon, who according to his bio held "five senior posts in the Reagan administration," responded to my piece on infrastructure with an interesting sentiment: agreement.

Stoller does go on to criticize much of the “privatization” that’s taken place since – starting with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He’s right there: These “private-public partnerships” are fraught with peril, not least by giving privatization a bad name, something he doesn’t consider.

I'm pleased that Pilon shares my skepticism towards privatization deals. Since Fannie worked pretty well when it was a fully public agency, I'm not inclined to care as he does about the PR value of privatization, but I will take agreement on the substance where I can get it. In fact, I'll return the favor, and showcase another area of agreement between us.

The idea of “public goods” is not meaningless, but the definition has to be strict, as economists know, and the means for privatizing ersatz “public goods” have to be clean. Given the vast public sector before us, we’ve got years of privatization ahead. Let’s hope it’s done right.

I too hope these deals are done right. So whenever you see a private actor complaining about environmental reviews, safety reviews, Davis-Bacon restrictions, excessive public input, or pushback against other mechanisms that a democratic society uses to govern its own decisions, you should, as no doubt Pilon would, express skepticism that privatization is simply being used as a way to avoid public accountability.

Matt Stoller is a Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute and the former Senior Policy Advisor to Congressman Alan Grayson. You can follow him on Twitter at @matthewstoller.

Share This

The Well-funded Assault on the CFPB

Jun 3, 2011Bryce Covert

Republicans may claim that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has too much power, but the money and lobbying has piled up on the other side.

Republicans may claim that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has too much power, but the money and lobbying has piled up on the other side.

Rep. Spencer Bauchus may have called the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau "the most powerful agency ever created," but a new piece at The Nation by Ari Berman details the extensive power being marshaled on the other side. While the Republicans who are trying to handcuff its authority claim to be defending small community banks and businesses, the real money is coming from much deeper pockets:

Warren and the CFPB are up against what she estimates to be a $3 trillion consumer financial services industry, which views the bureau as a potentially grave threat to its prosperity. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, 156 groups -- the vast majority representing corporate interests -- lobbied the government about the CFPB in the second half of 2010 and the first quarter of 2011. The list ranged from JPMorgan Chase to McDonald's.

And it goes on further:

The Chamber [of Commerce] has an entire division devoted to fighting Dodd-Frank, the Center for Capital Markets Competitiveness, and a huge budget. In the first quarter of this year, the Chamber spent $17 million on federal lobbying, far more than any other group, with a dozen lobbyists focused on the CFPB alone. In 2009 the Chamber was anything but subtle in its attacks on the bureau. "We're fundamentally trying to kill this," said senior director Ryan McKee.

It's pretty clear why banks of all shapes and sizes would be lining up against this Bureau. For the first time in decades, the CFPB promises to be a watchdog on lenders that looks out for the consumer with some actual teeth. That will likely mean crackdowns on payday lenders, debt collectors, loan sharks, and others. But why would the Republicans be the first line of defense in this fight? After all, they've proposed bills to replace the single job of director with a five-member committee, make it easier to overturn and veto the new rules it writes, and prevent it from using its powers until it has a permanent director. (Meanwhile, they've threatened to block any nominees to that position, effectively kneecapping its authority if that bill were to pass.) All of this is likely to slow down the reforms and regulations that the agency has been tasked with creating.

Sign up for weekly ND20 highlights, mind-blowing stats, and event alerts.

As I've pointed out before, the GOP's timing couldn't be worse for the middle class. A recent report showed that these days a single worker needs an income of $30,012 a year to cover basic expenses and save up for retirement and emergencies -- in other words, achieve financial stability -- which is about three times the national poverty level. A single worker with two young children needs $57,756 a year, and a family with two working parents and two young kids needs $67,920. But wages have actually been falling for the first time ever over the past decade, which lead to the median American family's earnings dropping to $47,127 in 2010 -- only enough for a single worker to meet financial stability. When Americans don't have enough income flowing in, they turn to debt to plug the holes. That's a big part of the reason that Americans carry $796.1 billion in revolving debt. With so many relying on credit products, you would think it would be imperative to make sure they're safe. As Elizabeth Warren herself has pointed out, we do more to ensure that consumers can't buy toasters that have a 1 in 5 chance of exploding than we do to ensure that consumers don't take out mortgages that have the same chance of putting a family on the street.

Yet Republicans stand in shoulder to shoulder opposition. As quoted in Berman's piece, Hazen Marshall, a former Republican staff director for the Senate Budget Committee, said earlier this year, "If the House Republicans had their way, they would just repeal the CFPB!" The answer to why they have taken this stance might lie in following the money that he traces so well.

And the fight won't be over even if the current Republican bills are struck down. "Everyone agrees the real fights are yet to come, once the CFPB goes live and begins tackling difficult issues like policing scams in the credit and mortgage markets, and cracking down on overdraft lending fees and shady prepaid credit cards," Berman reports. "'There's bound to be a fight about every single rule-making, supervision and enforcement action,' says [Lisa] Donner of AFR."

Buckle up, it's going to be a long fight. But it's one that's worth having.

Bryce Covert is Assistant Editor at New Deal 2.0.

Share This

The Political Winners and Losers of a Debt Ceiling Showdown

May 19, 2011Bryce Covert

Assistant Editor Bryce Covert sat down with Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Bo Cutter, who was director of the National Economic Council and Deputy Assistant to the President from 1992-1996 in the Clinton White House. In the second of a two-part interview, he calculates how likely a default is, looks at the extremism on the Republican side preventing negotiations, and games out a winning strategy for the administration.

Bryce Covert: What are the odds of the debt ceiling being raised?

Assistant Editor Bryce Covert sat down with Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Bo Cutter, who was director of the National Economic Council and Deputy Assistant to the President from 1992-1996 in the Clinton White House. In the second of a two-part interview, he calculates how likely a default is, looks at the extremism on the Republican side preventing negotiations, and games out a winning strategy for the administration.

Bryce Covert: What are the odds of the debt ceiling being raised?

Bo Cutter: I would put the odds of a default at 15 or 20 percent. Sounds low, but it ought to be zero. It is so inconceivable to me that it wouldn't be raised. It's not like the shut down where there was a fairly large number of people who wanted one and there was another set of people -- I was in that other set of people -- who thought that if we were going to play those games, I'd rather have a shut down than a default. Unlike then when there were people who could figure out arguments for why we ought to have a shut down, no one can come up with a good argument for why we should have a default.

There are three kinds of players in this. There's the administration, which basically wants to do everything it possibly can to not have a default. Part of that is that they are responsible. There's a real sense of fiduciary responsibility for the country. So they're out there trying to avoid it. Group two is the set of people, a set of the Congressional Republicans, who fundamentally believe it doesn't matter, that there isn't an effect. I don't see how you change their minds other than have a real problem. Group three is a dangerous group. It's the other group of Congressional Republicans who believe that it would be a very bad thing to do, but they're going to push it for all they can and run some risks. For example, that's where Newt Gingrich was on Meet the Press and that's where a lot of them are. Some of them are there because they think that's the right way to negotiate and the problem is not as big as people think. Others are there because that's the politically convenient place to be. That's the dangerous group, and that's where the miscalculation can occur.

Bryce Covert: What were the circumstances you faced when dealing with this battle during the Clinton administration?

Bo Cutter: Remember that we had lots more time and in effect by being able to push it off and to run an extremely active communications campaign about how truly insane this was, we got the debt ceiling raised without having to give anything. Because in the negotiations our side was saying to their side, how much pain do you want to take? We can do this for a long time, and at the end of the day good things don't happen if there's a default. So you're not going to do it anyway, but between now and then we're going to beat you over the head every day on this issue. Do you really want to have this fight? They then decided, okay, we'll do a shut down and the mechanism we'll use will not be the debt thing because we've concluded that's the third rail. Rather, it'll be the budget.

The difficulty for them under those circumstances was having already been beat like a rug on the budget stuff. They were weakened. The shut down, as I said when it was getting close, is quite hard to sustain because the administration tends to speak with one voice while the Congress speaks with a hundred. There's a kind of cacophony on the one hand and a single voice on the other. If the single voice is saying every single day why are these crazies doing this to the American people, they get tired of it in a hurry.

Bryce Covert: What are the differences between now and then?

Bo Cutter: This time around you knew going into it, and the "it" is this whole set of fights over the budget, you knew they were going to be different. You knew that there's a much more extreme set of Congressional Republicans, incomparably more extreme, than during the Clinton administration. Second, the wiggle room around the default was much less and the budget issue hit first. So my theory was that President Obama should absolutely have forced them into a situation where they had to choose to close down the government. They should not have given a dime on that. I think there is no question that he would have won a shut down battle for all the above reasons.

If you win the shut down battle and then you go into the default battle, you've already won. These guys do not want that pain again. So if you had the shut down battle in mid-March you'd have had two to three months to have the debt ceiling fight. I personally felt at the time that he'd win the shut down battle and it would almost certainly mean reelection. I think he's going to be reelected anyway, but it would have been such a thorough and complete defeat and it would have ended any fight about default.

Sign up for weekly ND20 highlights, mind-blowing stats, and event alerts.

So I think they chose the wrong path there. I think they did it because there is an inevitable tendency in Washington and in government to think that the current deal is the deal you have to get rather than thinking much more strategically and choosing the terrain on which you want to fight. I'd rather fight the shut down battle than fight the default battle.

Bryce Covert: Who are the key players then and now and are there any differences?

Bo Cutter: I think the administration side of it is every bit as capable as we were. Some of them are the same players, and the ones who aren't are pretty able people. I don't think there's a big difference on the Democratic side. On the Republican side, I think that they have a much, much more difficult caucus to manage than the Republicans then did because the extreme wing is so much more extreme. They believe that they won the shut down battle, they got $38 billion worth of cuts. So you've got this extreme group elected six months ago that thinks they won their first battle. The reasonable -- reasonable being a term you have to qualify in these circumstances -- Republican leaders have crazies on their hands that they have to manage. My own sense is that the leaders probably would have preferred a short, abrupt, losing shut down battle to this scenario. Because they knew they were going to be in a situation where their crazies were pushing them right off a cliff. I think the dynamics are much worse, but it isn't on the quality of the people on the Democratic side. It's the structure of the caucus on the Republican side.

Bryce Covert: If we go into default, who will end up being the political losers and winners?

Bo Cutter: It depends on who does what in the next two months. If the administration doesn't create the right kind of narrative, I think it's likely to be the one that's blamed. Although it's never all or nothing. If you were President Obama, this is such an awful set of circumstances it's hard to even imagine scenarios, but you would say to yourself that the Congressional approval level is in the low double digits, like 11. Mine is about 50%. So I have five times the approval rating and I can afford, if I had to, the blip to 40%, but they can't take the blip to zero. If they're absolutely pushing me right against the wall and there is no give and no reasonable proposal, if I'm President Obama I probably say I'm still better off by holding. But it's a real close call.

Gingrich basically stated what the Republican strategy is going to be. He said they're not going to go into default. The country would come down hard on all of the leadership. But he said what we can do is take a bite, raise the debt ceiling by $10 billion, it will last for a relatively small time, and the administration will have to give. Then we'll raise it by $60 billion. That's two weeks, so we'll come back two weeks later. And we'll just keep doing that over and over and over and force them into giving.

I really believe that it depends on what the administration does to prepare. There's a lot they can do, and there are actual proposals you can make. I think President Obama's strategy has to be a process strategy. It has to be to say we are not going to agree on policy. We can come to some really vague, really general framework about the general numbers. Obama has made a ten-year proposal for a $4 trillion reduction in debt total and therefore a substantial reduction in debt as a percentage of GDP. If you look at Congressman Ryan's proposal, in reality he proposes a lot less than that because there's a lot of fakery in his numbers, but you could dress it up and say that he proposes about that amount. Therefore he and Obama are in rough agreement that something like $4 trillion in debt reduction has to occur in the next ten years. Obama can say let's agree to that. Let's agree to a process by which every six months or so, if Congress hasn't enacted and the president hasn't signed legislation that actually makes that happen, there are automatic across the board cuts and there are automatic tax increases. We can have a battle about how much and who does what. But in other words, President Obama's proposal would be let us agree on a framework for debt and understand as grown ups that we are not in the next two or three months going to agree on fundamental policy differences. If I were him, I would put that out there and I would campaign on it every day. I think that's the only way they win it. I think otherwise they are caught in this bite by bite by bite and are running a real risk of miscalculation. That's my big worry, is that that the Republicans argue, well, we know that a default shouldn't occur but let's push a little harder. That side is running a big, big risk.

There is also governance point about this. What the hell right does the political leadership of any party have to impose these kinds of risks on the American people? I increasingly think they just forget whether you're for or against a particular Medicare policy or whatever, as a matter of governance and in a country that's supposed to consist of free government and free citizens, just what the hell right do they have to do that? This is a different game than a shut down. These are big damn risks.


Banner image courtesy of Shutterstock.com.

Share This

Debt Ceiling Doomsday: How Flirting with Default is Playing with Fire

May 18, 2011Bryce Covert

Assistant Editor Bryce Covert sat down with Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Bo Cutter, who was director of the National Economic Council and Deputy Assistant to the President from 1992-1996 in the Clinton White House. In the first of a two-part interview, he explains why there is such limited time to raise the debt ceiling, how a default could lead to a double dip, and why every single American will feel the pain.

Assistant Editor Bryce Covert sat down with Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Bo Cutter, who was director of the National Economic Council and Deputy Assistant to the President from 1992-1996 in the Clinton White House. In the first of a two-part interview, he explains why there is such limited time to raise the debt ceiling, how a default could lead to a double dip, and why every single American will feel the pain.

Bryce Covert: We hit the debt ceiling on Monday. What happens now to keep the government functioning?

Bo Cutter: What Tim Geithner can do is use various sources that throw off cash and use that cash to pay bills for a while. He can also stop access to debt from non-federal sources. Firstly, state governments get access to federal debt, which they often use as a safe holding place for money that has come in from one source and is going to go out on a project. They want zero risk associated with it, so they put it in short-term federal debt notes. They don't get a lot of interest these days, but it's absolutely safe, or it used to be. But if they buy that debt, it's new debt, even though it's short-term and it's going to be paid back. So Geithner has cut off access to that. That gives him slightly less demand for debt than he would have otherwise expected over the next few weeks.

Secondly, there is an aspect of the Federal Employees Retirement System, FERS, in which federal retirees and federal employees pay for some level of premium or copayment as part of their pension program. He can use that cash. Geithner has essentially taken it -- there's nothing that says he can't -- from the federal employees. It's going to have to go back, it's not a net reduction of debt, but it gives him working cash.

Finally, he can do the same thing with sources of income in the entitlement system. There are Medicare premiums and certain kinds of Social Security taxes, and he can use those for a limited period of time. All of this is essentially squeezing every bit of cash that's on its way to becoming debt for a variety of reasons. He takes it and uses it to pay bills for a while before it becomes debt.

Bryce Covert: How long can this process last?

Bo Cutter: The estimates are that when Geithner began to do this, which wasn't very long ago, he had about 11 weeks of give. That's why you see the estimation for default in approximately early August. No one quite knows the point at which it would become a real default, but it is something like the moment that someone who should have received interest doesn't and knows it. If I had a savings bond I might not check it every hour on the hour, so I might not actually know other than reading the newspaper that I didn't get my interest on a particular day. But my broker might tell me I'm not getting paid interest on my federal bonds anymore, and I might then check the next day, and at that point the US is in default.

The time available for freedom of movement is much less now than we used to have because the deficit is so much bigger. We're running about a $1.6 trillion deficit. So divide that by 12 and we are at approximately $130 billion a month, which is $4 billion, $4.5 billion a day. This says that Geithner had about 350 billion in spare cash lying around. Which isn't surprising. It's approximately 2% of GDP, and any big place is going to have a certain amount of slosh in it. But that's it. You don't have anymore after that.

Back in the Clinton days when I was in the White House, our deficit was approximately $220 billion and falling because it actually balanced for the last couple of years. So it was one sixth of the deficit today, which means we had six times the amount of time to play with if we really wanted to. Well, not quite six times, because population has grown somewhat so there's a little bit more cash, but the things that have increased the amount of wiggle room haven't increased as fast as the deficit has. Not even close. So in relative terms, Bill Clinton had a lot more time to play with than President Obama does.

Bryce Covert: What happens if we don't raise the debt ceiling in time?

Bo Cutter: You have to remember that all dollars are green. You can't tell one from the other. There is a tendency to think that we'll spend, but we won't spend the part of the money that increases the deficit. But if you're in deficit and you're building debt at the rate of $4.5 billion a day, there is no dollar that doesn't increase the deficit, including your interest payments. So the first thing that actually hits once you begin to run out of room is interest payments, because they're scheduled. The inability to pay interest is a default. If a whole set of Medicare bills are coming due, as they do every day, you can default. It hurts everything in the system. You can defer payment on Social Security for a week or something like that. The people who are receiving it get whacked, but you can do that if you had to. But you cannot defer the interest payments, and there are interest payments due every day.

Once you're in default, bad things begin to happen. It becomes irreversible. I suppose that if you were in technical default, which is to say you were in default and you missed an interest payment, but the problem got resolved and you were back within a day or so, it would still be quite damaging but I suspect that the world would recover. But it would create an absolutely rational crisis of confidence in the US government's capacity to pay. It would be in the market and there'd be no denying it.

If you're a government official, you have to take this really seriously. It is against the law to incur more debt and the sanctions can, under certain circumstances, be criminal, and they go to the person. Sometimes I hear, in particular in Congress but also on blogs I read, people acting a little bit as if this were a game. They think this fight is behind the scenes but people are kind of making payments anyway.

Bryce Covert: Some conservatives are using that term "technical default" and saying that it wouldn't be as bad for our economy as letting Congress spend over the $14.3 trillion limit. What is this distinction that they're trying to make?

Bo Cutter: There is no difference between default and technical default. A default happens if you can't pay interest. It's binary. You either pay it or you don't pay it. What they are trying to imply is that a little, teeny, short default surely wouldn't be a problem. They're right only in the sense that it would be less of a problem. If you were in frantic negotiations to come up with a deal and Tim ran out of money and there was nothing he could do, and he says we have four hours, we'd be in default on the payments that need to be made in those four hours. But you can probably avoid being in actual default because you could delay when you send out the electronic blips that say you've paid interest for half a day. That's technical default. That wouldn't be the catastrophe that Geithner has commented on. But it's a truly terrible thing and it's really stupid to get in that position. To argue that somehow or other we have until we get into technical default is crazy. I regard it as a distinction, not a difference.

I was watching Newt Gingrich on Meet the Press on May 15th and he used the same line that they all do, which is that they look very arch and say, you know there are games being played here and obviously you can stretch it out forever. But there are no games. Everybody knows these mechanisms. They've been written about extensively, they're not hidden. And they're really limited. There isn't some other magic pot of money. There used to be something called the exchange stabilization fund, and it was a fund that was off-budget and was in theory supposed to be used to stabilize the dollar. But when we did the Mexican bailout and we couldn't get any money out of Congress, in the end Secretary Rubin used the fund in order to do the bailout. Eventually we got back more money than he put in, but Congress got so mad that they took it away. They took away one of the big buffers.

Sign up for weekly ND20 highlights, mind-blowing stats, and event alerts.

Bryce Covert: What are the effects the country will feel in the event of a default?

Bo Cutter: As opposed to a shut down, there are two classes of effects, both bad. One is how it effects the economy as a whole, and then there are government payment effects. When a government shut down looked likely, I argued that in the short- and medium-run, the broad economic effects of a shut down are pretty close to zero. It's different with a debt ceiling problem were we ever to actually to go into default.

The right way to think about the economic effects is as follows. First interest payments increase, probably permanently. If you go into default for only one day maybe the permanent effect is only a little. But if you're in default in any substantial way, and I'd say that's more than a half a day, but let's say a week, then the interest rates on US debt go up forever. That's because the risk premium has suddenly appeared. The whole world thinks US debt is essentially risk-free. But that is suddenly going to change. So Americans will pay higher interest rates forever for debt. Since these days half of our debt goes to pay other countries who hold it, it's not money that one set of Americans is paying to another set of Americans, it's money that Americans as a whole are shipping out of the United States.

A lot follows from that. That means mortgage rates go up, it means loans to small businesses go up. One way to think about this is that if you increased by 20 basis points the interest paid on say a $170,000 house, you've increased over the lifetime of a 25- or 30-year mortgage the price that the consumer would pay by about $19,000. And a mortgage would certainly increase by 20 basis points. What's generally thought is that mortgages will increase about one and a half times more than federal debt because it's riskier. Then the increase in price would ripple from there to other kinds of debt. So everybody in America suddenly starts paying more for debt.

The next thing that happens is that growth slows. If people have to spend more of their money on interest, they're spending less of their money on things. Businesses are going to invest less. And the rate of growth is going to fall. Once again, this depends completely on how long a default lasts. But if it lasts a week or a couple of weeks, the rate of growth in the US economy probably falls around 1 percentage point. That's a big number. Consistent with that would be a rise in unemployment by about 600,000 people.

It's hard to see anything good coming out of those things. You could say it was a wash if it was money that one set of Americans owed to another set. That is a horrible way of thinking about a default, but if America's debt was all owed to America like it is in Japan, you wouldn't have some of these effects, because the money wouldn't be going out of the country.

Bryce Covert: Could one effect of default be a double dip recession?

Bo Cutter: Oh absolutely. Right now we're running at about a 2% growth rate. We've had a couple blips up, but if you average what everybody says we're doing, it's 2, 2.5%. So take a point out of that and it's not a danger, it's a certainty that we'll see a double dip. The issue is just how long the default is going to be. Back to the spurious technical default, if that's all it was it would just hurt everybody in America a little bit. If it were longer than that, we would experience the 1% fall in growth, and if it were a couple of weeks, which is inconceivable, there would be a double dip right away.

Bryce Covert: What are the effects of the government being unable to make other kinds of payments, beyond paying interest?

Bo Cutter: Everything else stops. You can't pay Social Security, you can't pay Medicare, you can't do anything. It's done. I'm sure that under even cataclysmic circumstances like this some rules of reason hold and people would be slow at layoffs and would try to slow walk it all, but they'd have to begin the process. Because if you're $1.6 trillion in deficit, you're spending $4.5 billion a day and that becomes illegal. So you have to start trimming in a hurry. You can't spend anything, period.

We've never actually been in default. So while we know what happens in a shut down and we know a little bit about what you can do to avoid it, we don't know what happens in this situation. But I've been asking my friends in the government for the last week or so, and they think that the kind of safe haven that is given to national security, including the defense department, homeland security, and FBI, would continue, but much more stringently. There would be a much, much tougher filter for who was regarded essential and who was not. As I told you, there had been a lot of thinking back when I was in government about how you operate in the case of a shut down. But since we've never had a default, people haven't been spending their time writing opinions about what you do at HUD in that situation. They'll have to quickly figure that out. Remember these are career public servants who are going to be criminally and personally accountable, so they're going to draw an increasingly tough line.

I think probably the way they would do it -- and it's insanity -- would be to chart a path down to zero deficit. A fast path.

Bryce Covert: What will the average citizen feel if the event of a default?

Bo Cutter: I think the absolutely first thing is a 1,000-point drop in the stock market in a day. That's the fastest reactor. I've been reading some estimates and the general consensus is that if there's a default that looks as though it will be real but short, the stock market probably falls  1,000-1,200 points, although there are much higher estimates in there but no lower. And if you think that that's probably a 50-75 basis point rise in the basic underlying federal rate, it probably means a 10% fall in the value of debt. Every piece of debt in America is on the market every day and is being priced. The stated nominal interest rate doesn't change, the value of the debt changes. So if you are a holder of debt in your portfolio, the value declines instantly. Everybody feels it right away. It's not just the recipients of federal aid as it would be in a shut down. Mr. or Mrs. Tea Party, who are all for this, will see their savings wiped out. Then they're mad.

Bryce Covert: What happens to the pensions that the Treasury borrows from? Does it affect the pensioners?

Bo Cutter: For a while no. It's a little bit like you run a business and you're in some difficultly on your personal credit card. So you take a little bit of the cash flow from the business (even though you shouldn't) and use it to pay your bill. You know that the next day you're going to be in better shape personally and then you can pay back the business and things are fine. If you do too much of it you've then harmed the business. But if you paid it back, there probably isn't any harm. In the Treasury's case it is taking funds that federal employees had a right to expect were being invested and you are on a cash basis not investing them. But remember contractually you owe them the return as if you had invested the cash anyway, so you're just going to have to make it up. It's not as if you can permanently take money away from federal employees or from the Medicare premiums or from Social Security.

But there's a point at which it clearly would. I see getting yourself into this position as a really, really bad thing. Not as if there's a little bit bad but it's okay and then there's a little bit more bad. It's really bad. Then there are degrees of bad. The longer it lasts the worse it becomes.

Share This