Unemployment

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

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.

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:

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:

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.

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.

As weave discussed before, the number of Americans in the labor force a that is, the people who either have jobs or are actively looking for work a has been dwindling in recent years. Some of thatas been due to ordinary demographics: Americaas getting older and more people are retiring. Some of itas been due to the grim economy, which has dissuaded many people from even bothering to look for jobs.

And now we can see this in glorious chart form, thanks to Dave Altig of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta. Since the recession began, the alabor force participation ratea has fallen from 66 percent to 63.6 percent. Altig estimates that about 0.9 percentage points of the drop was due to demographic factors, while about 1.5 points was due to the horrible economy. In other words, if the recession had never happened, the labor force participation rate would probably be about 65.1 percent:

So thatas about 1.5 percent of the eligible population a or about 3.6 million workers* a who have been elbowed out of the workforce by a subpar economy that didnat have enough jobs for everyone. (Although note that these subpar conditions began back in 2003 and accelerated with the recession.) So how many of these people will actually return to the workforce if the economy ever picks up steam again?

Thatas a tricky question because, as economist Brad Delong points out, many of those discouraged workers are in danger of losing their skills and work contacts and becoming apart of the astructurally non-employeda who we will never see back at work, barring a high-pressure economy of a kind we see at most once a generation.a

Hereas another graph, from Julie Hotchkiss of the Atlanta Fed, looking at what labor-force dropouts between 25 and 54 are actually doing once they leave:

Thereas been a big surge in workers going back to school a itas likely that theyall be back in the work force someday. But thereas also been a big surge in workers going on disability, as eligibility has gotten easier. Workers on disability are unlikely to come back. Thereas also the mysterious aothera category a itas not clear whether these workers will ever return to the workforce.

The question of how many labor force dropouts come back to the workforce isnat an idle one. It will affect how many jobs we need going forward. After all, if the labor force swells, then the U.S. economy will have to add more jobs to keep up.

Altig estimates that if the labor force participation rate stays where it is currently, then the U.S. economy will need to add just 144,000 jobs per month to get down to 7.5 percent unemployment by the end of 2013. On the other hand, if the labor force grows back to 65.1 percent a say, because a vast reserve of heartened workers start scanning wants ads again a then weall need to add 304,260 jobs per month to get to the same level.

* Correction: Itas 3.6 million workers missing from the labor force, not 4.5 million as originally stated.

Ever since the Greeks went to the polls on May 6, the country has been gripped by political paralysis. The Greek parliament canat form a new government, and Greece now faces the risk of being booted from the euro zone a with potentially horrific consequences. Hereas a look at how Greece reached this point and whether thereas any way out of this mess.

What, exactly, are Greek politicians bickering about these days?

Recall Greeceas basic problem: The country racked up many billions of dollars in debt that it canat repay without help, and the Greek government doesnat have enough cash to cover all of its own obligations. In February, the European Central Bank, the European Commission, and the IMF (known as the atroikaa) agreed to renegotiate Greeceas debts with lenders and give Greece a a!130 billion ($170 billion) bailout. In return, Greece agreed to shrink its deficits with a series of spending cuts and tax hikes.

Hereas the dilemma: These austerity measures are spectacularly unpopular, and Greek voters keep punishing any party that tries to implement them. That puts the whole bailout deal at risk. Under the terms of the deal, the Greek government is supposed to pass an additional a!11 billion in spending cuts this summer before it receives its next bailout payment of a!31 billion. If those cuts donat happen, Greece wonat get its bailout money. It will then default on its debts, and the country would likely have to leave the euro. That could be bad.

So how did the recent Greek elections make this whole situation worse?

Basically, the elections have created a deadlock in the Greek parliament. The two Greek parties that had previously supported the bailout agreement, PASOK and New Democracy, lost votes. They no longer have enough seats to form a government on their own. Instead, a lot of voters flocked to the Coalition of the Radical Left, or Syriza, which is led by a 37-year-old engineer, Alexis Tsipras. Syriza flatly opposes the austerity/bailout agreement and refuses to form a government with any other party that doesnat agree. At the moment, there arenat enough votes for a pro-bailout or an anti-bailout government.

What happens if the Greek parliament canat break the deadlock and form a functioning government?

Then there will be a new set of elections, probably on June 17. This is the most likely outcome, says Kevin Featherstone, a professor of contemporary Greek studies at the London School of Economics.

But itas not at all clear what would happen in the next election. Polls show that Syriza, the anti-bailout party on the left, is gaining in popularity. That could create more paralysis. Many Greek experts think that Tsipras doesnat actually want to lead a he just wants to complain about spending cuts and the troika deal while leaving it to other parties to actually implement the painful austerity measures. But Syrizaas also getting popular enough that heas making it tough for a pro-bailout government to form.

So the politicians are paralyzed. What do the Greek people actually want?

Greek public opinion seems to be all over the place. Polls show that some 80 percent of Greeks would like to stay in the euro, but they also donat want to agree to the austerity measures that are part of the bailout deal, especially with unemployment already at 21.7 percent. aPeople do not understand that if Greece backs off from its commitments, theyall have to leave the euro,a says Elias Papaioannou, an economist at Dartmouth whoas in Greece right now. He says that much of the TV chatter in Greece gives off the impression that itas possible to stay in the euro and oppose the bailout.

Well, is there any way for Greece to stay in the euro and somehow still avoid sweeping austerity measures?

Not really. Papaioannou notes that there are plenty of ways, in theory, to tweak the terms of the troika bailout to make it a bit less painful for Greece. Greece could get even more time to pay off its debts. It could be allowed to ease up on spending cuts and wage cuts a to implement them over a longer time period. (Remember, Greeceas economy is expected to shrink by 6 percent this year, so itas not a great time for austerity.) Wealthier European countries could also pony up some more cash to help ease the Greek people through this period of contraction. But thereas only so much tinkering that can be done, adds Papaioannou. Greece is very severely in debt, and itas going to have to make some painful adjustments no matter what.

So whatas the best-case scenario for Greece staying in the euro?

One possible scenario is that Greeceas president appoints a new technocratic government to implement the austerity measures, says Featherstone. This could only happen, however, if the president was supported by PASOK and New Democracy a the two pro-bailout parties a as well as the Democratic Left party. That last party is pro-euro but anti-austerity and would probably take a huge hit in popularity if it turned around and supported a caretaker pro-austerity government. aItas a slim chance that this will happen,a says Featherstone. On Monday, Greek President Karolos Papoulias will meet with the parties for one last-ditch effort to form a government.

And even if Greece did form a new government that was in favor of the bailout agreement, could they actually go through with the austerity measures?

Thatas not clear, either. Experts say that both left-wing and right-wing parties a including the growing neofascist Chrysi Avgi, or Golden Dawn party a are likely to take to the streets if a new government forms and pushes through with a!11 billion in additional cuts. Bitter strikes and protests could ensue. Likewise, Syriza will no doubt denounce whatever government pushes through an austerity bill.

Germany and other European leaders are now openly talking about kicking Greece out of the euro. Wonat threats like those convince Greek politicians that they need to make cuts?

Maybe not. Itas quite possible that threats from the rest of Europe could actually hurt the chances that Greece will cave, says Papaioannou. He notes that similar threats by Germany before the May 6 elections may well have pushed people to extremist parties. aItas totally counterproductive,a says Papaioannou.

But wouldnat Greece actually be in worse shape if it got kicked out of the euro?

Probably. A recent analysis from UBS Investment Research found that Greece could lose 50 percent of its economic output in the first year alone after an exit. Not only that, but Greece wouldnat get any bailout money from the troika, and it wouldnat be able to borrow money from anyone else, so it would have to implement even more severe austerity measures than itas already being forced to do. Other reports have found less apocalyptic, but still dire consequences. The Financial Times has a fuller rundown of some of the ways a Greek exit could play out. None of them are pretty.

So even though Greeks donat actually want to leave the euro, and even though it would be horrible, they could still manage to get themselves kicked out inadvertently?

Right. Of course, itas possible that Germany and the rest of Europe will try to find a way to accommodate Greece, rather than letting the euro implode. But right now thereas a standoff, and itas not at all clear whoas going to blink first a or if anyone will blink at all.

On Saturday, at 9:17am, Henry Blodget, the editor of Business Insider, asked the question that was on everyone’s mind: “So, when is JP Morgan going to fire the incompetent fools who just lost $2 billion and trashed the firm’s reputation?”

The answer, according to the Wall Street Journal, is…soon. The paper reports that the botched trade is “likely to result this week in the departure of three of the highest ranking executives with direct ties to the investments.”

Over at Seeking Alpha, Gene Kirsch tried to put Hedgegate into a broader context. “JPMorgan losses are reported to be actually $800 million in Q2 with the potential for legal and other losses up to $4.2 billion over a longer period of time, possibly exceeding one year,” he wrote. “The banking unit of JPMorgan Chase alone made $12.4 billion last year. The holding company has over $2.26 trillion in assets and is the largest U.S. bank and 8th largest in the world. The holding company made $29.9 billion in operating income and just over $20 billion in net income for 2011. So, this initial loss of $800M represents approximately 4% of its total net profit for all of 2011, less than 2.7% of its operating income.”

The firm, in other words, can manage it. Though as Brad DeLong was quick to point out, tallying the direct losses misses the episode’s larger impact on the firm’s value. “The revelation that JPMC did not have control over its derivatives book–even though accompanied by promises of multiple firings and deep reforms–destroyed 1/7 of JPMCs franchise value.” Turns out the market doesn’t much like it when what’s reputed to be the safest bank on Wall Street turns out to be incompetent.

Jared Bernstein draws out the larger lesson nicely, and so I’ll quote him at some length. “The fundamental truth here is the one known since Adam (Smith, that is) and amplified by the great financial economist Hy Minsky: humans underprice risk. Their proclivity to do so increases as the business cycle progresses and confidence takes over (remember, JPas bet was unwound by the fact that the economy wasnat as strong as they thought). The advent of a global derivatives market with notional trades in the trillions greatly amplifies the risks.”

“The fact that humans like Jamie Dimonahe who presided over JPas self-proclaimed ‘fortress balance sheet’ahe who inveighed against financial reform as imposing unnecessary oversight on such skilled risk managers as he and his staffafall prey to this fundamental truth only underscores the lesson of this episode in financial hubris.”

“And that is this: financial markets are inherently unstable. They will neither self-correct nor self-regulate. Their instability poses a threat to markets and economies and people across the globe. Therefore, they need to be regulated. Thatas not to say that anyone knows the best way to do this yet in order to balance the necessity of oversight with the dynamics of the markets. We donat know where to set the speed limits. It must be an iterative process. But we do know they need to be set, and JPas loss should be taken as a warning that our tendency is to set them too low.”

Wonkbook dashboard

RCP Obama vs. Romney: Obama +2.0%; 7-day change: Obama -0.3%.

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

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

Top stories

1) Euro zone leaders are seriously discussing a Greek exit. “Eurozone central bankers have talked publicly for the first time of managing a possible Greek exit from Europeas monetary union as stalemate in Athens talks on a coalition government raises the prospect that Greece will renege on the terms of its international bailout. The comments by members of the European Central Bankas governing council indicate that the risk of eurozone fragmentation is being taken increasingly seriously by the regionas policymakers. They mark a significant shift at the ECB, which has previously argued that European treaties do not allow for an exit and that a break-up would cause incalculable economic damage.” Ralph Atkins in the FT.

Greece is headed towards new elections. “Greece appears headed to new parliamentary elections next month, further delaying its efforts to meet international demands to overhaul its economy, after leaders of the countryas major political parties declared little hope Sunday for a last-ditch effort to form a coalition government…Greek President Karolos Papoulias met with politicians Sunday in an effort to construct a unity government that could guide the country through the bailout program, and he planned to continue discussions Monday. But with top leaders expressing little hope for compromise after a week of efforts, it appeared likely that Papoulias would be forced to call new elections, most likely for June 10 or 17. Hopes for compromise have rested on Alexis Tsipras, the leader of the anti-bailout Coalition of the Radical Left Party, also called Syriza…But Tsipras has refused to go along with the pro-business New Democracy party, which won 19 percent of the May 6 vote, and the Socialists, who won 13 percent.” Michael Birnbaum in The Washington Post.

KRUGMAN: “weare talking about months, not years, for this to play out.”

@TheStalwart: Weird. As @renovatio_news points out, #quediceKrugman (What Krugman Says) is trending in Spain. http://twitpic.com/9ktvbo

2) Wall Street looks the same to voters. The giant $2 billion trading loss at JPMorgan Chase highlights a central problem in President Barack Obamaas case for a second term: Four years after the financial crisis nearly brought the nation to its knees, very little appears to have changed. No high-profile bank executives are in jail. Special multi-agency task forces to go after financial fraud and mortgage market abuses appeared in State of the Union addresses, only to issue a few news releases and mostly vanish from public view. And now one of the largest banks in the United States, headed by a Democrat and operating with government guarantees, has turned in the kind of headline-grabbing, casino-style style loss that drives voters crazy and that Obamaas financial reform bill was supposed to stop. Ben White in Politico .

JPMorgan Chase has been lobbying to make exactly the kind of trades that just lost the company billions of dollars. “Soon after lawmakers finished work on the nationas new financial regulatory law, a team of JPMorgan Chase lobbyists descended on Washington. Their goal was to obtain special breaks that would allow banks to make big bets in their portfolios, including some of the types of trading that led to the $2 billion loss now rocking the bank. Several visits over months by the bankas well-connected chief executive, Jamie Dimon, and his top aides were aimed at persuading regulators to create a loophole in the law, known as the Volcker Rule. The rule was designed by Congress to limit the very kind of proprietary trading that JPMorgan was seeking…The loophole is known as portfolio hedging, a strategy that essentially allows banks to view an investment portfolio as a whole and take actions to offset the risks of the entire portfolio. That contrasts with the traditional definition of hedging, which matches an individual security or trading position with an inversely related investment — so when one goes up, the other goes down.” Edward Wyatt in The New York Times.

The real response to JPMorgan Chase’s loss may come from global regulators, not the Volcker rule. “The size and scale of the surprise $2bn loss at JPMorgan Chase last week is likely to accelerate plans by global regulators to force banks to improve their trading risk models…While initial reactions to the JPMorgan loss last week focused on how it could reshape the US debate over implementing the ‘Volcker rule’ ban on proprietary trading, the misstep by one of the worldas largest banks could have far broader consequences. The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, which sets global rules, has already sought a replacement for Value at Risk – the main measure of potential trading losses – and looked at additional capital requirements to cover potential damages that are not adequately measured by existing models. That project was seen as a long-term effort when it was announced two weeks ago, but it has now gained urgency and could be pushed through more quickly.” Brooke Masters and Tracy Alloway in The Financial Times.

CONFUSED? Here’s an explainer on JPMorgan Chase’s loss.

@davidmwessel: Barney Frank on JPM: Case that banks don’t need new rules to avoid repeat of ’08 crisis “at least $2 billion harder to make todaya (DJNS)

3) Republican state officials are dragging their feet on setting up exchanges. “In about two dozen states across the country, the insurance marketplaces at the heart of the 2010 health-care law remain in limbo, with Republican governors or lawmakers who oppose the statute refusing to act until the Supreme Court decides its constitutionality…In states with Democratic governors, such as New Hampshire and Minnesota, it is often Republican-dominated legislatures that are causing the hold-up. And in six states where Republicans hold both branches of government, including Kansas and South Dakota, state assemblies havenat even considered laws to establish the marketplaces. Though the battles primarily break along partisan lines, there have been at least a half-dozen exceptions. Last spring, the Republican governor of Nevada chose not to stand in the way of an exchange bill adopted by the majority Democratic assembly.” N.C. Aizenman in The Washington Post.

4) Congressional transportation bills won’t fill America’s infrastructure funding shortfall. “The nationas population is growing at a steady pace, yet infrastructure investments lag. The lifelines of commerce — roads, bridges, runways, ports — are showing their age, and in this era of fiscal austerity it may be a long time before they get rebuilt…The financing fiasco has been well-known for years — in fact, the last transportation bill, enacted in 2005, ordered up a blue-ribbon commission tasked with studying the financing problem and making recommendations for how to fix it. The National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commissionas final report, issued in January 2008, a year before the last transportation bill was to expire, recommended that the country needs to be investing at least $225 billion annually from ‘all sources’ for the next 50 years in order to upgrade infrastructure to a state of good repair and make transportation advances. The Senateas current transportation bill, in comparison, would fund highways and transit at $109 billion over two years.” Kathryn Wolfe in Politico.

Top op-eds

1) BAKER AND HASSETT: We need a targeted response to long-term unemployment. “Policy makers must come together and recognize that this is an emergency, and fashion a comprehensive re-employment policy that addresses the specific needs of the long-term unemployed. A policy package that as a whole should appeal to the left and the right should spend money to help expand public and private training programs with proven track records; expand entrepreneurial opportunities by increasing access to small-business financing; reduce government hurdles to the formation of new businesses; and explore subsidies for private employers who hire the long-term unemployed. Those who hire for government jobs must do their share, too: managers who are filling open positions should be given explicit incentives to reconnect these lost workers. Every month of delay is a month in which our unemployed friends and neighbors drift further away.” Dean Baker and Kevin Hassett in The New York Times.

@davidfrum: “50 to 100% increase in death rates for older male workers in yrs immediately following a job loss”

2) YGLESIAS: America is headed towards default. “House Republicans voted to take money away from programs meant to help poor people and give it to the military instead. Thatas not my idea of wise policy, but thatas what was terrible about it. The problem is that the vote constitutes a collective Republican welching on the agreement that was reached last spring to raise the statutory debt ceiling and avoid national default. Yesterdayas vote doesnat undo the deal or cause any immediate problems, but by so speedily backing out of their agreement, the Republicans have done something much worse–made it impossible for anyone to negotiate with them in the future, because itas clear they cannot be trusted to keep the promises they made. If President Obama wins re-election, the debt-ceiling issue will have to be confronted again, but now in a Congress that has been poisoned by the Republicansa welching on the last agreement. The country, in other words, is set for an even more severe version of the crisis that crushed financial markets last summer.” Matthew Yglesias in Slate.

3) KRUGMAN: JPMorgan Chase’s loss proves the need for bank regulation. “Banks are special, because the risks they take are borne, in large part, by taxpayers and the economy as a whole. And what JPMorgan has just demonstrated is that even supposedly smart bankers must be sharply limited in the kinds of risk theyare allowed to take on. Why, exactly, are banks special? Because history tells us that banking is and always has been subject to occasional destructive ‘panics,’ which can wreak havoc with the economy as a whole…So what can be done? In the 1930s, after the mother of all banking panics, we arrived at a workable solution, involving both guarantees and oversight. On one side, the scope for panic was limited via government-backed deposit insurance; on the other, banks were subject to regulations intended to keep them from abusing the privileged status they derived from deposit insurance, which is in effect a government guarantee of their debts.” Paul Krugman in The New York Times.

@Austan_Goolsbee: #lettersyouwontsee: Dear Mr. Volcker, you were right all along. we’re now fixing things and won’t let it happen again. yours, wall St.

4) SLOAN: JPMorgan Chase doesn’t prove the need for the Volcker Rule. “The Volcker Rule, named for former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker, is an example of the problem involved in regulating giant companies in a complex world. The principle sounds wonderful and simple: Donat let banks use federally insured deposits for risky trades. But implementing it is proving to be incredibly difficult, as realists, including me, predicted would happen. Once bank lawyers finish finding loopholes in the detailed provisions, whatever they prove to be, the rule will probably have little meaningful impact. So bash Morgan all you like for its trading losses, and feel free to snicker at the spectacle of Jamie Dimon losing his swagger and having to eat crow. But donat confuse Morganas mess-up with the supposed need for the Volcker Rule. The Volcker Rule would have symbolic impact, by appearing to rein in Wall Street. But it will prove to be more useful as a full-employment act for loophole specialists than for reining in the banks.” Allan Sloan in The Washington Post.

5) SNOW: Tax cuts on dividends and capital gains should stay. “Nine years ago this month Congress passed President George W. Bush’s Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act. That bill’s lower rates on capital, as well as the continuity in tax policy it established, have helped make our economy far more resilient. The legislation’s centerpiece was a reduction in the taxation of dividends and capital gains to 15%. Unfortunately, the 2003 tax rates, including those on capital income, are due to expire at the end of the year. Capital warrants special tax treatment because of the central role it plays in generating economic growth and jobs. Capital is the very lifeblood of the market economy, the mainstay of innovation, and the foundation for future prosperity. As more of it is put to work today, labor output and wages will rise tomorrow. An appreciation of that critical relationship should guide how the tax system treats earnings from capital.” John Snow in The Wall Street Journal.

6) THALER: Beware of slippery slope arguments on healthcare. “One pernicious category of imaginary risks involves those created by users of the dreaded ‘slippery slope’ arguments. Such arguments are dangerous because they are popular, versatile and often convincing, yet completely fallacious. Worse, they are creeping into an arena that should be above this sort of thing: the Supreme Court, in its deliberations on health care reform…Justice Scalia is arguing that if the court lets Congress create a mandate to buy health insurance, nothing could stop Congress from passing laws requiring everyone to buy broccoli and to join a gym…Please stop! The very fact that a slippery slope is being cited as grounds for declaring the law unconstitutional — despite that ‘significant deference’ usually given to laws passed by Congress — tells you all that you need to know about the argumentas validity. Can anyone imagine Congress passing a broccoli mandate law, much less the court allowing it to take effect?” Richard Thaler in The New York Times.

Top long reads

Jeffrey Toobin on how John Roberts orchestrated Citizens United: “Citizens United is a distinctive product of the Roberts Court. The decision followed a lengthy and bitter behind-the-scenes struggle among the Justices that produced both secret unpublished opinions and a rare reargument of a case. The case, too, reflects the aggressive conservative judicial activism of the Roberts Court. It was once liberals who were associated with using the courts to overturn the work of the democratically elected branches of government, but the current Court has matched contempt for Congress with a disdain for many of the Courtas own precedents. When the Court announced its final ruling on Citizens United, on January 21, 2010, the vote was five to four and the majority opinion was written by Anthony Kennedy. Above all, though, the result represented a triumph for Chief Justice Roberts. Even without writing the opinion, Roberts, more than anyone, shaped what the Court did. As American politics assumes its new form in the post-Citizens United era, the credit or the blame goes mostly to him.”

Andrew Martin and Andrew Lehren on the skyrocketing cost of college: “With more than $1 trillion in student loans outstanding in this country, crippling debt is no longer confined to dropouts from for-profit colleges or graduate students who owe on many years of education, some of the overextended debtors in years past. Now nearly everyone pursuing a bacheloras degree is borrowing. As prices soar, a college degree statistically remains a good lifetime investment, but it often comes with an unprecedented financial burden. Ninety-four percent of students who earn a bacheloras degree borrow to pay for higher education — up from 45 percent in 1993, according to an analysis by The New York Times of the latest data from the Department of Education. This includes loans from the federal government, private lenders and relatives. For all borrowers, the average debt in 2011 was $23,300, with 10 percent owing more than $54,000 and 3 percent more than $100,000.”

’90s nostalgia interlude: Nine Inch Nails play “The Becoming” in studio..

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

Still to come: Wholesale prices are down; rebates will be credited to the ACA; Secure Communities expands; the IEA doesn’t like Obama’s plans; and cats, in slow motion.

Economy

Europe’s woes could hit the U.S.. “During bouts of European turmoil in the past two years, U.S. financial markets regularly stumbled and growth ebbed due to fears of a euro-zone meltdown. But Europe muddled through and avoided calamity, and the effects on the U.S. economy weren’t all bad. U.S. exports to Europe rose, and many U.S. banks benefited as overseas competition fell away. Now, the troubles in the currency union–the threat of a Greek exit from the euro zone, rising borrowing costs in Spain and Italy, recessions in several European countries–are renewing fears of an escalating crisis that could deliver a more serious blow to the fragile U.S. recovery. U.S. companies are bracing for a hit. Networking giant Cisco Systems Inc. last week blamed worries about Europe, along with other uncertainty, for its cautious outlook. Watchmaker Fossil Inc. reported a slowdown in German sales on top of deeper pullbacks in Italy and Spain. Chemicals firm Celanese Corp. attributed its disappointing results to weakening European demand.” Sudeep Reddy in The Wall Street Journal.

Wholesale prices declined for the first time this year. “U.S. wholesale prices declined for the first time this year, suggesting a drop in energy costs is helping to keep inflation under control. The index of producer prices, which measures how much wholesalers and manufacturers pay for goods and materials, fell a seasonally adjusted 0.2% in April from a month earlier, the Labor Department said Friday. The decline, the first since December, was due entirely to cheaper prices for energy goods, including gasoline and utility gas…The report on producer prices suggests inflation is subdued, after a run-up in oil prices earlier this year pushed costs beyond the Federal Reserve’s annual inflation target of roughly 2%. Lower inflation could reassure Fed officials as they keep a key interest rate exceptionally low through late 2014 to stimulate the economy. Lower inflation also gives the Fed more room to act, perhaps through additional bond purchases, if economic growth falters.” Josh Mitchell in The Wall Street Journal.

@BobCusack: “Where are the jobs?” references (from both parties) in the Congressional Record between ’09-’12: 357. Between ’05-’08: 3.

Vintage bicycle manufacturing tutorial interlude: How a bicycle is made.

Health Care

Insurers will be required to credit premium rebates to Obamacare. “Health-insurance companies must tell customers who get a premium rebate this summer that the check is the result of the Obama administration’s health-care law, according to federal guidelines released Friday. The move is the latest sign the Obama administration is trying to draw attention to the law’s benefits before the fall elections, even though the law faces an uncertain future. The Supreme Court is expected to decide in June whether its central plank–a mandate that everyone carry insurance–violates the Constitution. Mitt Romney, the presumed Republican presidential nominee, has pledged to wipe out the law if elected. Under the 2010 legislation, insurers that don’t spend a specified amount of revenue on actual medical care–as opposed to administrative costs–must refund the difference to customers.” Louise Radnofsky in The Wall Street Journal.

Domestic Policy

The Senate cybersecurity bill is running into privacy concerns. “Thereas yet another hurdle for Sen. Joe Liebermanas cybersecurity bill: Democrats who say it doesnat go far enough to protect consumer privacy. With Senate Republicans standing firm against the measure, the friendly fire from Democrats means thereas only more work ahead as Lieberman and others scramble to cobble together 60 votes to move the bill. A handful of members, including Sens. Al Franken of Minnesota and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, are echoing the concerns of civil liberties groups, which are growing increasingly fearful that consumersa data could end up being passed around by companies and the government as security experts share with each other information about emerging cyberthreats. To them and others, the Senate measure as written would specify too few limitations on how data could be used and cover entities with too broad a protection from liability.” Tony Romm and Jennifer Martinez in Politico.

The Obama administration will expand the controversial Secure Communities program. “Obama administration officials have announced that a contentious fingerprinting program to identify illegal immigrants will be extended across Massachusetts and New York next week, expanding federal enforcement efforts despite opposition from the governors and immigrant groups in those states. In blunt e-mails sent Tuesday to officials and the police in the two states, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials said the program, Secure Communities, would be activated ‘in all remaining jurisdictions’ this Tuesday…Last year, officials at the agency said they had determined that they did not require consent from states to start the program. Citing antiterrorism legislation that Congress passed in 2002, the officials canceled agreements they had signed in 40 states and said they would extend the program nationwide by 2013.” Julia Preston in The New York Times.

Minority contracts fell last year for the first time in a decade. “U.S. government contracts to black-and Hispanic-owned small businesses fell last year for the first time in a decade, declining at a sharper rate than awards to all companies. Contracts to the black-owned firms dropped 8 percent to $7.12 billion in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, compared with fiscal 2010. Awards to Hispanic-owned businesses decreased 7 percent to $7.89 billion, according to federal procurement data.Contracts to the two minority groups fell at a faster pace than all contracts, which dipped 1 percent as the U.S. government slowed spending to help reduce the federal deficit. The gap may reflect stiffer competition over a shrinking pool of revenue and the recessionas greater impact on black and Hispanic firms…The absence of these set-aside programs may help explain the dip in awards for some minority groups, said James McCullough, who leads the government contracts practice at Fried Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson in Washington.” Danielle Ivory in The Washington Post.

Cuteness amplified interlude: Cats in slow motion.

Energy

Fracking is sparking a boom in sand mining. “Scouts armed with geological maps and elevations from Google Earth are knocking on doors in the upper Midwest in search of what seems too common to mine: sand. The sedimentary material is in high demand among U.S. oil and natural-gas producers, setting off a sand rush in Wisconsin, Minnesota and other Midwestern states. While adding jobs, the mining boom is prompting pushback from some local residents, who are surprised by the frenzy and leery of its impact on their communities. Sand mined in the Midwest is used in places such as North Dakota and Pennsylvania to tap oil and gas reserves. The U.S. producers’ demand for sand reached 28.7 million tons in 2011, up from six million tons in 2007, according to independent laboratory PropTester Inc. and consultancy Kelrik LLC…Sand, injected deep underground to prop open fractures in shale formations and allow oil and gas to flow out, is important in ‘fracking.’” Mark Peters and Isabel Ordonez in The Wall Street Journal.

Lawmakers are torn on how to use high-speed rail funds. “As roads become more crowded each year, transportation planners have been looking for a game-changer that can reduce congestion and efficiently move millions of people. Enter rail — a centuries-old mode that may be a shining savior to those hoping to push the United States into a new way of getting people around at high speeds. But it wonat work everywhere — a lot depends on simple geography. And lawmakers are torn between how to use limited funds: along the densely packed East Coast, which has a history of commuter rail, or out West, where California has ponied up billions of dollars to build a high-speed system, much of it from scratch. Amtrakas Acela service from Boston to Washington runs the fastest trains in the country, maxing out at 150 mph and increasing soon to 160 mph…Three thousand miles away, California is inching ever closer to its high-speed rail vision, having formally approved the initial Central Valley route.” Burgess Everett and Adam Snider in Politico.

The IEA has concerns about Obama’s plans to increase oversight of oil markets. “Barack Obamaas plans for strengthened supervision of the oil markets have come under fire from the International Energy Agency, which has warned they could lead to sharp swings in crude prices. The warning, contained in the agencyas monthly oil market report, came in response to moves by authorities in the US and Europe to crack down on what they see as excessive speculation in commodities markets using derivatives. The US presidentas proposal to give the Commodity Futures Trading Commission authority to direct exchanges to raise margin requirements to address increased price volatility or prevent excessive speculation or manipulation could have the opposite effect, the western countriesa oil watchdog said on Friday. The IEA said raising margin requirements in oil futures trading might increase price volatility and concentrate market share in the hands of large speculators while having no effect on price levels.” Guy Chazan in The Financial Times.

America is running out of helium. “Sure, Congress has plenty of crises to deal with: a weak economy, an expiring highway bill, the end-of-the-year ‘taxmageddon.’ But now thereas another one floating into view. The United States is running out of helium. Yes, helium. Thanks, in part, to a 1996 law that has forced the government to sell off its helium reserves at bargain-bin prices, the countryas stockpile of the relatively rare and nonrenewable gas could soon dwindle…Congress is slowly grasping the extent of the problem. At a sleepy Senate hearing Thursday morning, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee listened to an array of experts chat about the gas. The hearing was tied to a bill, sponsored by Sens. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) and John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), that would change how the government sells helium from its Federal Helium Reserve (yes, this exists) in order to prevent shortages.” Brad Plumer in The Washington Post.

@mattyglesias: Helium Privatization Act is a classic example of inefficient pseudo-privatization gone horribly wrong

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

The job market in the United States is still in rough shape, yet states are already starting to pare back unemployment insurance. On Saturday, eight states a including California and Florida a will cut benefits for more than 200,000 workers.

Hereas the backstory: Since the recession began, many states have been using federal aid to offer up to 99 weeks of unemployment insurance. In February, Congress agreed to reauthorize this program for one more year, but with less aid. States have since been cutting back the number of weeks they provide benefits. The National Law Employment Project has been tracking all the state cutbacks in this chart. All told, some 409,000 workers have lost benefits in 2012 a and most of them have been unemployed for longer than 70 weeks.

These days, fewer and fewer jobless workers are receiving government aid. According to NELP, two-thirds of all jobless workers qualified for state or federal unemployment insurance in 2010. Last year, that number shrunk to 54 percent. This year, it will go below 50 percent. If Congress lets all of its extended-unemployment programs lapse at the end of this year, says NELP, then aonly a quarter of jobless Americans will be receiving unemployment insurance.a

Proponents of benefit cuts will sometimes argue that these workers will now be exceptionally motivated to go get hired now that theyave been cut off. But how realistic is that? As economist Mark Thoma argues here, there are still 3.4 job seekers for every opening in the job market. Thatas abnormally high. In fact, itas still higher than at any point in the 2002 recession. And it means that many people answering job ads and sending in resumA(c)s are going to come up empty-handed, no matter how motivated they are.

Whatas more, many of the workers that are now losing their benefits are part of the long-term unemployed a theyave been out of work for at least one year or more. (About 3.9 million workers fall into this category.) Economists have compiled plenty of evidence that these workers have the hardest time finding new jobs, either because theyave lost skills and job contacts since being laid off or because employers are leery of hiring people who have been out of work for so long.

aWill cutting unemployment benefits now, as many states are about to do, produce net benefits for the economy?a asks Thoma. aProbably not.a Instead, he notes, many of these workers could well aenter the underground economy, go on long-term disability, or pursue other less than desirable means of supporting themselves.a

Of the big banks, JPMorgan Chase arguably came through the crisis best. And its CEO, Jamie Dimon, has been using the credibility built up during that period to fight the Volcker rule. aPaul Volcker by his own admission has said he doesnat understand capital markets,a Dimon told Fox Business earlier this year. aHe has proven that to me.a

And then, last night, JPMorgan Chase announced it had lost $2 billion on some very big, very dumb hedges. For proponents of stricter financial regulation, Dimon’s giant loss is a huge gift. The final version of the Volcker rule is scheduled to be released in the coming months. Dimon swears that these trades would have been compliant with the previous drafts of the Volcker rule. That will give regulators a strong incentive to make sure future trades like these aren’t.

Dimon, for his part, doesn’t see the relevance. aJust because weare stupid doesnat mean everybody else was,a he said on a Thursday conference call. aThere were huge moves in the marketplace but we made these positions more complex and they were badly monitored.a

But the point of the Volcker rule — and of financial regulation more generally — isn’t to punish banks for being evil. It’s to protect the rest of us from banks being stupid. And if the most prudent of the big banks can’t keep itself from being this stupid this soon after the financial crisis, then it’s pretty clear we’re going to need very strong rules to keep them from being stupid in the years to come, when the lessons of the financial crisis have faded more completely.

As Reuters’ Felix Salmon writes, “JP Morgan more or less invented risk management. If they canat do it, no bank can. And no sensible regulator can ever trust the banks to self-regulate.”

Wonkbook dashboard

RCP Obama vs. Romney: Obama +1.5%; 7-day change: Obama -2.1%.

RCP Obama approval: 47.4%; 7-day change: -.7%.

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

Top stories

1) A massive bet gone wrong cost JP Morgan Chase at least $2 billion. “A massive trading bet boomeranged on J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., leaving the bank with at least $2 billion in trading losses and its chief executive, James Dimon, with a rare black eye following a long run as what some called the ‘King of Wall Street.’ The losses stemmed from wagers gone wrong in the bank’s Chief Investment Office, which manages risk for the New York company. The Wall Street Journal reported early last month that large positions taken in that office by a trader nicknamed ‘the London whale’ had roiled a sector of the debt markets. The bank, betting on a continued economic recovery with a complex web of trades tied to the values of corporate bonds, was hit hard when prices moved against it starting last month, causing losses in many of its derivatives positions. The losses occurred while J.P. Morgan tried to scale back that trade.” Dan Fitzpatrick, Gregory Zuckerman, and Liz Rappaport in The Wall Street Journal.

The loss is putting the spotlight on the Volcker Rule. “JPMorgan Chaseas $2 billion trading loss, which was disclosed on Thursday, could give supporters of tighter industry regulation a huge new piece of ammunition as they fight a last-ditch battle with the banks over new federal rules that may redefine how banks do business…The centerpiece of the new regulations, the so-called Volcker Rule, forbids banks from making bets with their own money, and a final version is expected to be issued by federal officials in the coming months. With the financial crisis fading from view, banks have successfully pushed for some exceptions that critics say will allow them to simply make proprietary trades under a different name, in this case for the purposes of hedging and market-making. The missteps by JPMorgan could highlight that murky line between proprietary trading and hedging. The bank unit responsible for losses takes positions to hedge activities in other parts of the bank.” Nelson Schwartz in The New York Times.

@lizzieohreally: Dimonfreude.

@BCAppelbaum: If losing $2 billion in your trading operations doesn’t violate the Volcker Rule, is it possible that we might need a broader rule?

@ezraklein: At this point in time, I feel comfortable predicting Jamie Dimon will not replace Tim Geithner as Secretary of the Treasury

2) The U.S. ran a monthly surplus for the first time since 2008. “The federal government posted a budget surplus in April as tax receipts rose, the first month that revenue has outpaced spending in more than three and a half years. The Treasury Department, in its latest monthly budget figures out Thursday, said the government ran a surplus of $59.12 billion during April, compared with a deficit of $40.39 billion a year earlier. Economists surveyed by Dow Jones Newswires had projected a $30.00 billion surplus. The federal government has historically run a budget surplus in April, when many Americans file their tax returns. Over the past 58 years, there have been 44 April surpluses, a Treasury official said. But from late 2008 up until two months ago, the government ran steady deficits amid weaker tax receipts and heavy spending following the financial crisis. The government last ran a monthly surplus in September 2008, the same month that Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. filed for bankruptcy.” Jeffrey Sparshott in The Wall Street Journal.

@DaveedGR: Obviously, the April surplus is due to taxes coming in. Remarkable that there hasn’t been a surplus in any April since 2008…

3) Republicans may not offer a comprehensive replacement for Obamacare. “Republicans might not offer a comprehensive plan to replace President Obamaas healthcare law if the Supreme Court strikes it down this summer. House Republicans had said they would have a healthcare bill ready to go by the time of the ruling to present a clear alternative to the Democratsa Affordable Care Act. But now, with the high courtas ruling just weeks away, some conservatives are urging the party to abandon that strategy, fearing voters will recoil from another sweeping revamp of the healthcare system…Ditching a comprehensive proposal could also make it easier for Republicans to steer the publicas focus away from popular elements of the Affordable Care Act that are unlikely to make the cut in a GOP plan…But a piecemeal strategy on healthcare could present its own risks. Republicans campaigned in 2010 on ‘repealing and replacing’ Obamaas law, but have struggled to clearly articulate a healthcare platform of their own.” Sam Baker in The Hill.

4) Europe delayed a loan payment to Greece. “Euro-zone governments held back part of a big scheduled loan payment in a warning shot to Greece Wednesday, as outside pressure mounted on the country’s politicians to pull together a pro-euro coalition to take charge of the government. Greece’s euro-zone partners agreed to release only a!4.2 billion ($5.5 billion) in previously agreed financing, to be paid out Thursday, holding back a!1 billion at least until June. That would be paid only if Greece keeps to pledges it made to secure a bailout. With Athens in political turmoil after a fractured result in weekend elections, and a new vote likely by June, German politicians cautioned that further aid could be withdrawn if Greece abandons austerity targets–even if that pushes the country from the bloc…Thursday’s payment is needed for Greece to pay a!3.3 billion it owes the European Central Bank next week. The aid was agreed in March by euro-zone governments as part of Greece’s a!130 billion second bailout program.” Alkman Granitsas, Laurence Norman, and Matthew Dalton in The Wall Street Journal.

5) Almost 250,000 Americans will lose their unemployment insurance this weekend. “More than 230,000 jobless Americans will lose their unemployment insurance by this weekend as reductions in the federal program that provides extended benefits to the long-term unemployed take broader effect. The new round of reductions is hitting eight states this month, meaning that about 400,000 long-term unemployed Americans in 27 states will have been cut off of the federal governmentas extended unemployment benefits program this year, according to an analysis by the National Employment Law Project, which advocates for the unemployed. The cuts stem from a congressional agreement this year that will reduce the maximum duration of unemployment benefits from 99 weeks to 79 weeks as the nationas jobless rate declines. Most states provide 26 weeks of benefits, and the federal government provides the rest, partially through a complicated formula that requires jobless rates to be both high and increasing to reach the benefit limit.” Michael Fletcher in The Washington Post.

6) The House passed the GOP’s sequester replacement bill. “The House approved sweeping legislation on Thursday to cut $310 billion from the deficit over the next decade — much of it from programs for the poor — and shift some of that savings to the Pentagon to stave off automatic military spending cuts scheduled for next year. The legislation has no chance of passing the Senate or of becoming law. The White House issued a stern veto threat, saying the bill would ‘fail the test of fairness and shared responsibility.’ But the legislationas prescriptions and priorities could define the 2012 Congressional elections — and are likely to affect the race for the White House…The billas political sensitivity came through in the 218-to-199 vote. Democrats were united in their opposition. Sixteen Republicans sided with the Democrats, and one Republican voted present. ‘I voted my conscience, and I voted my district,’ said Representative Mike G. Fitzpatrick, a Republican from suburban Philadelphia, who voted no.” Jonathan Weisman in The New York Times.

Top op-eds

1) REICH: J.P. Morgan Chase makes the case for Glass-Steagall. “Ever since the start of the banking crisis in 2008, Dimon has been arguing that more government regulation of Wall Street is unnecessary. Last year he vehemently and loudly opposed the so-called Volcker rule, itself a watered-down version of the old Glass-Steagall Act that used to separate commercial from investment banking before it was repealed in 1999, saying it would unnecessarily impinge on derivative trading (the lucrative practice of making bets on bets) and hedging (using some bets to offset the risks of other bets)…What just happened at J.P. Morgan – along with its leaderas cavalier dismissal followed by lame reassurance – reveals how fragile and opaque the banking system continues to be, why Glass-Steagall must be resurrected, and why the Dallas Fedas recent recommendation that Wall Streetas giant banks be broken up should be heeded.” Robert Reich.

2) KRUGMAN: Talk of structural unemployment is an excuse for inaction. “So now weare in another depression, not as bad as the last one, but bad enough. And, once again, authoritative-sounding figures insist that our problems are ‘structural,’ that they canat be fixed quickly. We must focus on the long run, such people say, believing that they are being responsible. But the reality is that theyare being deeply irresponsible…So whatas with the obsessive push to declare our problems ‘structural’? And, yes, I mean obsessive. Economists have been debating this issue for several years, and the structuralistas wonat take no for an answer, no matter how much contrary evidence is presented. The answer, Iad suggest, lies in the way claims that our problems are deep and structural offer an excuse for not acting, for doing nothing to alleviate the plight of the unemployed…All this talk about structural unemployment isnat about facing up to our real problems; itas about avoiding them, and taking the easy, useless way out. And itas time for it to stop.” Paul Krugman in The New York Times.

3) ALTER: Obama and Romney offer differing views of capitalism. “A more useful distinction may be between venture capitalists and human capitalists. Romney came up as a private-equity investor. Like his party, he believes in his heart that the way forward for the U.S. is to slash taxes for the wealthy even further so that they have more venture capital to invest in businesses. Obama came up as a community organizer. Like his party, he believes in his heart that a great nation must invest in human capital through education, health care and infrastructure…Last week brought a classic example of the differing approaches. The tussle over doubling interest rates for student loans (scheduled for July 1) was a controversy ginned up for the Obama campaign, but it was also an acid test. Democrats wanted to pay for the lower rate with a modest business tax; Republicans responded with plans to scuttle the preventive health-care part of Obamacare, despite much evidence of its efficacy for both people and budgets. ” Jonathan Alter in Bloomberg.

4) CARPENTER AND KNEPPER: Occupational license reform would spur economic opportunity. “Since the 1950s, the number of U.S. workers needing an occupational license–effectively a government permission slip to work–has grown from one in 20 to nearly one in three, according to a 2010 study by Morris Kleiner (University of Minnesota) and Alan Krueger (Princeton). The burdens these licenses impose on would-be workers and entrepreneurs are substantial…The risk of a few bad haircuts seems worth a roll of the dice if the upside is more economic opportunities. But the truth is that consumers are capable of judging the quality of many services for themselves. If lawmakers in Michigan and elsewhere want to help more Americans find jobs, they should start by reducing or removing burdens that do little more than protect some people from competition by keeping others out of work.” Dick Carpenter and Lisa Knepper in The Wall Street Journal.

5) BAKOPOULOS: Greek voters didn’t have a chance to reject austerity without rejecting Europe. “Itas clear that Greeks — derided throughout the Continent as lazy and corrupt, hobbled by the bailout dealas austerity measures and humiliated by the troika (the European Central Bank, European Commission and International Monetary Fund) — have put their trust outside the mainstream…But an election usually asks: who, or what, are you for? Not this one. If voters were given any choice, it was this: either accept the austerity measures or be forced to leave the euro zone. A double bind, this either-or option is unable to give expression to the complexity of both yes to Europe and no to austerity. Just before the vote, the German finance minister issued a warning: If Greek voters did not elect a government that would abide by the terms of the deal, ‘then Greece will have to bear the consequences.’ But the consequences are unclear. Vote correctly, or else. Or else what?” Natalie Bakopoulos in The New York Times.

Top long reads

Binyamin Appelbaum profiles financial blogger Joe Weisenthal: “Weisenthal is often — perhaps more often than anyone else — the first person to describe new data on Twitter. And almost as quickly, he repeats the thought, with a new headline, on Business Insider. When the government reported that only 120,000 jobs were created in March, well below expectations, he quickly rewrote the draft of his tweet: ‘DISASTER: MARCH JOBS REPORT MISSES EXPECTATIONS AT 120K. (Analysts expected +205K)’ A search on Twitter suggests that this, at 8:30 on the dot, was the first line published on the subject. Weisenthal managed to post a complete sentence before one of his main rivals, a blogger whose handle is ZeroHedge, tweeted just this: ’120k.’…And then Weisenthal and his audience moved on to the next thing. Around 10 a.m., he posted a new article. The headline read, ‘FORGET THE JOBS REPORT: The Most Important Number of the Day Hasnat Even Come Out Yet.’”

James Bandler and Doris Burke investigate the struggles of HP: “Dr. Phil could fill a month’s worth of shows just examining HP’s board, whose dynamics have resembled those of rival junior high school cliques more than what is supposed to be a sage guiding force. At times, as we’ll see, HP directors have refused to be in the same room with one another and have accused each other of lying, leaking, and betrayal. Time and again they’ve failed in their choice of CEO — their most important task — selecting a new leader whose most salient trait is that he or she is the opposite of the last one. All of this has impeded the company from tackling the fundamental problem it faces: Simply put, Hewlett-Packard has lost its way. The company is in the midst of an existential crisis. It remains a behemoth, No. 10 on the Fortune 500, with $127 billion in sales last year and $7 billion in earnings. But the trajectory is ominous. Those profits, for example, were 19% lower in 2011 than in the previous year.”

’60s nostalgia interlude: Jimi Hendrix plays “Rock Me Baby” live at Monterey 67.

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

Still to come: CEOs push for deficit reduction; an abortion rights leader is stepping down; low scores on a science exam; oil independence may not be a realistic goal; and bear cubs hop aboard the love train.

Economy

A rise in imports widened the trade deficit. “The U.S. trade deficit widened in March but other data Thursday reflected two conditions that could spur the economic recovery: strong American exports and falling oil prices. The March trade gap expanded 14.1% from February to $51.8 billion, the government said. Growing demand from consumers and businesses for goods and services from abroad, along with high oil prices that have since retreated, sent imports surging 5.2% to a record $238.6 billion. But exports also showed strength, rising at the fastest pace since last summer to set their own record. Despite Europe’s fiscal woes and Asia’s slower growth, the U.S. sent abroad $186.8 billion in goods and services in March, up 2.9% from February. Exports have climbed for the past four months, defying forecasts of slower growth due to the recession in the euro zone. U.S. manufacturers appear to have been helped by a historically weak dollar as well as subdued wage growth at home.” Josh Mitchell in The Wall Street Journal.

The House passed the first appropriations bill of the year. “The House on Thursday approved the first appropriations bill of the year, a measure that spends $51 billion on the Departments of Commerce and Justice, NASA and other related agencies. The spending bill, H.R. 5326, was approved in a 247-163 vote in which eight Republicans voted against it, reflecting opposition to the amount spent in the bill. But it also picked up the support of 23 Democrats…The bill is among the least controversial of the 12 annual appropriations bills but has little chance of becoming law on its own. The White House has said President Obama will veto any and all of the 12 bills until the House renounces the top-line spending level in the overall budget written by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.). The legislation cuts spending by about 3 percent compared to current levels, which Republicans said shows their ongoing commitment to trim spending. The GOP said spending by agencies covered by the bill has been cut by 20 percent over the last three budget cycles.” Pete Kasperowicz in The Hill.

CEOs are making a new push for a deficit deal. “Top business executives, many of whom sat on their hands during last year’s frantic debate about raising the federal debt ceiling, have begun mobilizing and plan to be more vocal in urging Congress to reach a bipartisan deficit-reduction deal by the end of the year. Executives have been meeting privately with lawmakers, urging them to start laying the groundwork now so they can reach an agreement after the November elections to avoid the large tax increases and heavy spending cuts scheduled to take effect in January. They worry those measures could tip the economy back into recession and create turmoil in financial markets, according to people who have attended some of the meetings. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. chief executive James Dimon hosted a lunch for several dozen chief executives and two U.S. senators late last month, one of the latest in a series of private meetings aimed at drumming up support for a political agreement.” Damian Paletta in The Wall Street Journal.

Subsides are fueling gains in manufacturing. “As chairman and principal owner of Revere Copper Products, Mr. OaShaughnessy runs one of Americaas oldest manufacturing companies, started by Paul Revere himself, a fact that exerts considerable pressure. As he put it: ‘What kind of a message are you sending to the people of the country if you abandon America?’ But spend a day with him, and a more complex picture emerges. He wonders sometimes about the less patriotic alternative of relocating production to Asia or closing the factory entirely on the ground that Revereas profit margin here is too thin — less than $1 million on $450 million in annual revenue…What staves off those alternatives are labor concessions and a substantial government subsidy, something he and others in the United States say is increasingly important to fuel a nascent recovery in manufacturing…With such support, the key measure of manufacturingas presence in America is ticking upward.” Louis Uchitelle in The New York Times.

@jbarro: Just got woken up. I swear I was in the middle of a dream where I was arguing w/ a reporter about transfer taxes.

Engineering interlude: A real life Mario Kart.

Health Care

The leader of an influential abortion rights advocacy group will step down. “At the end of this year, Nancy Keenan will step down from her post as president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, the countryas oldest abortion-rights advocacy group. The 60-year-old Keenan said she is leaving out of concern for the future of the pro-choice movement — and thinks she could be holding it back.Nancy Keenan will retire as president of NARAL Pro-Choice America at the end of the year. In recent years, Keenan has worried about an ‘intensity gap’ on abortion rights among millennials, which the group considers to be the generation of Americans born between 1980 and 1991. While most young, antiabortion voters see abortion as a crucial political issue, NARALas own internal research does not find similar passion among abortion-rights supporters. If the pro-choice movement is to successfully defend abortion rights, Keenan contends, it needs more young people in leadership roles, including hers.” Sarah Kliff in The Washington Post.

An F.D.A. panel backed the preventive use of a H.I.V. drug. “A drug already used to treat H.I.V. infection should also be approved to prevent it, an advisory panel to the Food and Drug Administration said on Thursday. The recommendation is the first time that government advisers have advocated giving antiviral medicine to healthy people who might be exposed through sexual activity to the virus that causes AIDS. One panelist called approving the drug ‘an amazing opportunity to turn the tide on this epidemic.’ Studies have shown that people who take the medicine, Truvada, every day have a greatly reduced risk of infection. The F.D.A. usually accepts the advice of its advisory panels, which are made up of outside medical experts…Experts say better methods of prevention are needed because there are 50,000 new H.I.V. infections a year in the United States. Several speakers emphasized Thursday that that number had not budged in 15 to 20 years.” Denise Grady in The New York Times.

Domestic Policy

Scores remained low on a national science test. “U.S. eighth graders made modest gains on the latest national science exam, but more than two-thirds still lacked a solid grasp of science facts, according to figures released Thursday that renewed concerns American schools are inadequately preparing children for college and the workforce. The 2011 National Assessment of Educational Progress, an exam administered by the U.S. Department of Education, showed that 32% of students were proficient in science, compared with 30% the first time the new version of the science exam was administered, in 2009…Teachers and education-advocacy groups cite various possible causes for weak scores, including a lack of qualified science teachers, budget cutbacks and a narrowing of the curriculum prompted by the No Child Left Behind law. That 2002 U.S. statute caused schools to be evaluated solely on math and reading tests, which persuaded some to reduce science education.” Stephanie Banchero in The Wall Street Journal.

Congress is considering subsidizing the deductibles on crop insurance. “It’s a deal that most businesses would relish: Buy an insurance policy to cover losses or falling prices, and the government will foot most of the bill. Such an arrangement has been enjoyed for more than a decade by the farmers who grow crops such as corn and soybeans, and the companies that insure them. And it’s about to get even better. The farm bill now before Congress includes a provision — estimated to cost about $3 billion a year — that would help cover the losses farmers suffer before their crop insurance policies kick in. Those losses, termed deductibles, can run in the tens of thousands of dollars for a typical mid-size farm. Supporters say it’s a money saver because it would replace an existing subsidy costing $5 billion a year. That subsidy, known as direct payments, pays farmland owners a set amount regardless of whether they’ve planted crops on the land.” Kim Geiger in The Los Angles Times.

Adorable animals being adorable together interlude: All aboard the (bear cub) love train!

Energy

Oil independence may not be possible. “Over the past few years, the United States has experienced a boom in oil and gas production. And thatas led a few commentators to declare that the country is on the verge of ending its dependence on foreign energy and supply disruptions. Alas, thatas never fully possible…Even if the United States goes further and somehow manages to produce every last drop of the oil and gas it needs to run its economy, the country would still be vulnerable to events in the Middle East, tensions in Iran, strikes in Venezuela and other disruptions in the oil markets…. As the CBO explains, oil prices are set by the global oil market. ‘Disruptions in oil production in one country will cause the world oil market to readjust so that all countries and firms continue to receive oil at the new prevailing price.’ Even if the United States produced 100 percent of its own oil, the price would still go up if rising demand from China outstripped the ability of supplies to keep up.” Brad Plumer in The Washington Post.

@AndrewRestuccia: A lively version of “Chain of Fools” is playing before confernce call with Grover Norquist, Rep. Pompeo, Sen DeMint on energy tax credits

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

This is what austerity looks like:

What youare seeing there is the unemployment rate and the structural budget deficit across all of Europe. aStructural budget deficita is a technical term: It means the deficit thatas been created by what the government is doing rather than what the economy is doing. If policy were aexpansionarya awhich is the opposite of austere a the structural deficit would rise when unemployment rises, because the government would be spending more to support the economy. Instead, itas falling even as unemployment rises.

Zoom into the country level and you can see this even more clearly. Here is unemployment in Spain, Italy, France, Greece, Portugal, and Ireland. As you can see, itas skyrocketing:

And here are the structural budget deficits for the same set of countries. As you can see, theyare falling:

Thatas austerity. It comes both from spending cuts and tax increases. And it can be expected to reduce economic growth. According to the IMF, which analyzed 173 episodes of austerity, cutting the deficit by 1 percent of GDP can be expected to reduce real incomes by 0.6 percent and raise unemployment by 0.5 percentage points.

All the numbers in this post, by the way, come from the International Monetary Fundas latest data (pdf). Values for 2012 and 2013 are the Fundas estimates.

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.

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:

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:

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.

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.

As weave discussed before, the number of Americans in the labor force a that is, the people who either have jobs or are actively looking for work a has been dwindling in recent years. Some of thatas been due to ordinary demographics: Americaas getting older and more people are retiring. Some of itas been due to the grim economy, which has dissuaded many people from even bothering to look for jobs.

And now we can see this in glorious chart form, thanks to Dave Altig of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta. Since the recession began, the alabor force participation ratea has fallen from 66 percent to 63.6 percent. Altig estimates that about 0.9 percentage points of the drop was due to demographic factors, while about 1.5 points was due to the horrible economy. In other words, if the recession had never happened, the labor force participation rate would probably be about 65.1 percent:

So thatas about 1.5 percent of the eligible population a or about 3.6 million workers* a who have been elbowed out of the workforce by a subpar economy that didnat have enough jobs for everyone. (Although note that these subpar conditions began back in 2003 and accelerated with the recession.) So how many of these people will actually return to the workforce if the economy ever picks up steam again?

Thatas a tricky question because, as economist Brad Delong points out, many of those discouraged workers are in danger of losing their skills and work contacts and becoming apart of the astructurally non-employeda who we will never see back at work, barring a high-pressure economy of a kind we see at most once a generation.a

Hereas another graph, from Julie Hotchkiss of the Atlanta Fed, looking at what labor-force dropouts between 25 and 54 are actually doing once they leave:

Thereas been a big surge in workers going back to school a itas likely that theyall be back in the work force someday. But thereas also been a big surge in workers going on disability, as eligibility has gotten easier. Workers on disability are unlikely to come back. Thereas also the mysterious aothera category a itas not clear whether these workers will ever return to the workforce.

The question of how many labor force dropouts come back to the workforce isnat an idle one. It will affect how many jobs we need going forward. After all, if the labor force swells, then the U.S. economy will have to add more jobs to keep up.

Altig estimates that if the labor force participation rate stays where it is currently, then the U.S. economy will need to add just 144,000 jobs per month to get down to 7.5 percent unemployment by the end of 2013. On the other hand, if the labor force grows back to 65.1 percent a say, because a vast reserve of heartened workers start scanning wants ads again a then weall need to add 304,260 jobs per month to get to the same level.

* Correction: Itas 3.6 million workers missing from the labor force, not 4.5 million as originally stated.

Ever since the Greeks went to the polls on May 6, the country has been gripped by political paralysis. The Greek parliament canat form a new government, and Greece now faces the risk of being booted from the euro zone a with potentially horrific consequences. Hereas a look at how Greece reached this point and whether thereas any way out of this mess.

What, exactly, are Greek politicians bickering about these days?

Recall Greeceas basic problem: The country racked up many billions of dollars in debt that it canat repay without help, and the Greek government doesnat have enough cash to cover all of its own obligations. In February, the European Central Bank, the European Commission, and the IMF (known as the atroikaa) agreed to renegotiate Greeceas debts with lenders and give Greece a a!130 billion ($170 billion) bailout. In return, Greece agreed to shrink its deficits with a series of spending cuts and tax hikes.

Hereas the dilemma: These austerity measures are spectacularly unpopular, and Greek voters keep punishing any party that tries to implement them. That puts the whole bailout deal at risk. Under the terms of the deal, the Greek government is supposed to pass an additional a!11 billion in spending cuts this summer before it receives its next bailout payment of a!31 billion. If those cuts donat happen, Greece wonat get its bailout money. It will then default on its debts, and the country would likely have to leave the euro. That could be bad.

So how did the recent Greek elections make this whole situation worse?

Basically, the elections have created a deadlock in the Greek parliament. The two Greek parties that had previously supported the bailout agreement, PASOK and New Democracy, lost votes. They no longer have enough seats to form a government on their own. Instead, a lot of voters flocked to the Coalition of the Radical Left, or Syriza, which is led by a 37-year-old engineer, Alexis Tsipras. Syriza flatly opposes the austerity/bailout agreement and refuses to form a government with any other party that doesnat agree. At the moment, there arenat enough votes for a pro-bailout or an anti-bailout government.

What happens if the Greek parliament canat break the deadlock and form a functioning government?

Then there will be a new set of elections, probably on June 17. This is the most likely outcome, says Kevin Featherstone, a professor of contemporary Greek studies at the London School of Economics.

But itas not at all clear what would happen in the next election. Polls show that Syriza, the anti-bailout party on the left, is gaining in popularity. That could create more paralysis. Many Greek experts think that Tsipras doesnat actually want to lead a he just wants to complain about spending cuts and the troika deal while leaving it to other parties to actually implement the painful austerity measures. But Syrizaas also getting popular enough that heas making it tough for a pro-bailout government to form.

So the politicians are paralyzed. What do the Greek people actually want?

Greek public opinion seems to be all over the place. Polls show that some 80 percent of Greeks would like to stay in the euro, but they also donat want to agree to the austerity measures that are part of the bailout deal, especially with unemployment already at 21.7 percent. aPeople do not understand that if Greece backs off from its commitments, theyall have to leave the euro,a says Elias Papaioannou, an economist at Dartmouth whoas in Greece right now. He says that much of the TV chatter in Greece gives off the impression that itas possible to stay in the euro and oppose the bailout.

Well, is there any way for Greece to stay in the euro and somehow still avoid sweeping austerity measures?

Not really. Papaioannou notes that there are plenty of ways, in theory, to tweak the terms of the troika bailout to make it a bit less painful for Greece. Greece could get even more time to pay off its debts. It could be allowed to ease up on spending cuts and wage cuts a to implement them over a longer time period. (Remember, Greeceas economy is expected to shrink by 6 percent this year, so itas not a great time for austerity.) Wealthier European countries could also pony up some more cash to help ease the Greek people through this period of contraction. But thereas only so much tinkering that can be done, adds Papaioannou. Greece is very severely in debt, and itas going to have to make some painful adjustments no matter what.

So whatas the best-case scenario for Greece staying in the euro?

One possible scenario is that Greeceas president appoints a new technocratic government to implement the austerity measures, says Featherstone. This could only happen, however, if the president was supported by PASOK and New Democracy a the two pro-bailout parties a as well as the Democratic Left party. That last party is pro-euro but anti-austerity and would probably take a huge hit in popularity if it turned around and supported a caretaker pro-austerity government. aItas a slim chance that this will happen,a says Featherstone. On Monday, Greek President Karolos Papoulias will meet with the parties for one last-ditch effort to form a government.

And even if Greece did form a new government that was in favor of the bailout agreement, could they actually go through with the austerity measures?

Thatas not clear, either. Experts say that both left-wing and right-wing parties a including the growing neofascist Chrysi Avgi, or Golden Dawn party a are likely to take to the streets if a new government forms and pushes through with a!11 billion in additional cuts. Bitter strikes and protests could ensue. Likewise, Syriza will no doubt denounce whatever government pushes through an austerity bill.

Germany and other European leaders are now openly talking about kicking Greece out of the euro. Wonat threats like those convince Greek politicians that they need to make cuts?

Maybe not. Itas quite possible that threats from the rest of Europe could actually hurt the chances that Greece will cave, says Papaioannou. He notes that similar threats by Germany before the May 6 elections may well have pushed people to extremist parties. aItas totally counterproductive,a says Papaioannou.

But wouldnat Greece actually be in worse shape if it got kicked out of the euro?

Probably. A recent analysis from UBS Investment Research found that Greece could lose 50 percent of its economic output in the first year alone after an exit. Not only that, but Greece wouldnat get any bailout money from the troika, and it wouldnat be able to borrow money from anyone else, so it would have to implement even more severe austerity measures than itas already being forced to do. Other reports have found less apocalyptic, but still dire consequences. The Financial Times has a fuller rundown of some of the ways a Greek exit could play out. None of them are pretty.

So even though Greeks donat actually want to leave the euro, and even though it would be horrible, they could still manage to get themselves kicked out inadvertently?

Right. Of course, itas possible that Germany and the rest of Europe will try to find a way to accommodate Greece, rather than letting the euro implode. But right now thereas a standoff, and itas not at all clear whoas going to blink first a or if anyone will blink at all.

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 6 seconds to load.