Volcker

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

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 Monday morning, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney tried to put a positive spin on the news of JPMorganas $2 billion loss. It didnat represent a failure of the new Wall Street regulation under Obama, he insisted. It was a vindication of the lawas existence.

But how do you defend a law thatas barely come into effect? The biggest changes under Dodd-Frank to curb risky trading havenat even been finalized, much less enacted. And, as Politicoas Ben White notes, that could make it harder for the White House to sell its achievements to the public and easier for critics to use conjecture to attack the consequences of yet-to-be-finalized legislation.

Itas the same political problem that Obama is facing with his other big legislative achievement, the Affordable Care Act. On health care, Obama has tried to make the best of the situation by promoting some of the early benefits of the law, like coverage of young adults up to 26 under their parentsa plan. But the most controversial part of the law a the individual mandate a hasnat yet gone into effect, and neither have the state-based insurance exchanges.

Similarly, thereas a major lag between the passage of Dodd Frank in July 2010 and its start date. And unlike the case of Obamacare, it wasnat supposed to be that way: Legislators had originally planned for much of the law to go into effect in 2011 and this year. But regulators are way behind schedule, and Dodd-Frank has been stuck in the bureaucratic purgatory known as the arule-writing process.a The Dodd-Frank Act provides the blueprint, but itas up to the Federal Reserve, the Securities and Exchange Commission and all the other major agencies to write the rules.

Parts of Obamacare went through the same process. But the enormous complexity of modern finance and the rules intended to govern them has made the rule-writing process for Dodd-Frank perhaps even more onerous and time-consuming. Regulators have missed most of the deadlines in the original law.

Even when the new regulations are finalized, banks typically have a long time to comply with them. The Volcker Rule, for example, is scheduled to go into effect in July, but banks will have about two years to adjust to the new ban on speculative bets for their own benefit, known as proprietary trading.

When the changes do go into effect, they wonat necessarily register as areforma to the layperson. Unlike Obamacare, most of the new rules donat directly affect consumers. Yes, thereas the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and new restrictions on debit-card fees, but most of the changes wonat be visible to Main Street.

Most of Dodd-Frankas rules, in fact, are meant to be preventive. And, as TARP has proved, prevention is a hard political selling point: Itas tough to convince the public that youave done good because things could have been worse, whereas egregious mistakes that happen in spite of the rules (e.g. MF Global, JPMorganas gambling away $2 trillion) are much more visible.

Instead, what ordinary Americans are most likely to see is the messy, confusing process of turning these rules into final law, a process thatas heavily dominated by bank lobbyists. Federal regulators typically meet with the groups that submit formal, detailed recommendations on new regulations. Industry groups have poured money, time and resources into this process, and it shows: Regulators from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, FDIC, the Fed and SEC have held a whopping 3,445 meetings with outside groups since Dodd-Frankas passage, according to law firm Davis Polk, which has been tracking the process.

That doesnat mean that federal regulators will necessarily side with the big banks at the end of the day. But until the rules are finalized, weare left to wonder whose side theyare really on. And even when that day finally comes, the public wonat necessarily be keen on what really just happened on Wall Street

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wonkbook dashboard

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

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

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

Top stories

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top op-eds

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Economy

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

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

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

Health Care

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

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

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

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

Domestic Policy

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

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

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

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

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

Energy

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

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

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

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

Elizabeth Warren, who is running for Senate in Massachusetts, thinks JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon should resign his seat on the New York Federal Reserve. Beating up on Dimon is, of course, a popular position among politicians right now, but Warren has special credibility on this point: She chaired the congressional oversight panel on TARP from 2008 to 2010, and led the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau from 2010 to 2011. We spoke by phone Monday afternoon. A lightly edited transcript follows.

Ezra Klein: So JP Morgan lost $2 billion. Theyare not asking for a bailout. Theyare not threatening to capsize either themselves or anyone else in the system. And so they say, and itas not an entirely unfair question, why is this Elizabeth Warrenas business, or the U.S. Congressas business? Isnat making bad investment decisions legal?

Elizabeth Warren: That is what Jamie Dimon has said. He says itas stupid and sloppy but weall fix it. So stay away. But what if the next loss is $20 billion or $200 billion? Is he saying JP Morgan should be entitled to continue to take these bets right up until the day it lands in the taxpayers lap again?

Banks are different than other kinds of companies. We learned that in 2008. They run the risk of bringing down our jobs, our pensions, our economy. The basic deal we made with them is they get to operate banks a the things that take savings and investments and checking accounts and get a federal guarantee a in return for submitting to substantial oversight to make sure their activities are safe.

EK: That gets us to the Volcker rule, which is what would keep banks that get that guarantee from gambling with customer money and a federal backstop. But at this point, I donat think very many people a even people who follow this stuff quite closely a have a very specific sense of what the difference between a good and bad Volcker rule is. So how do you think about that?

EW: Iam going to reframe it slightly: Who profits from the complexity of the Volcker rule? Itas the largest financial institutions. No financial institutions want a simple Volcker rule. They want layers and layers of complexity because itas in complexity that there are loopholes. Thatas where itas possible to back up regulators who are not quite certain about the ground they stand on. And itas a larger problem with our regulatory structure: Complexity favors those who can hire armies of lobbyists and lawyers. The big push I made at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was simple rules. Simple mortgage documents. Simple credit card agreements. Because complexity creates too many opportunities for an army of lawyers to turn the rules upside down.

EK: I agree that complexity is where lobbyists and lawyers work their dark magic. But when I talk to people in the industry about this, they say that simple rules sound great, but theyare not really possible. Itas hard to distinguish a hedge from a bet, or a speculative trade from a legitimate one. The world is complex, and thatas why regulators and politicians who donat like Wall Street and donat like being browbeaten by lobbyists end up allowing complex rules, too.

EW: Hereas another way to look at what you just described: Thatas the strongest argument for a modern Glass-Steagall. Glass-Steagall said in effect that hedge funds should be separated from commercial banking. If a big institution wants to go out and play in the market, thatas fine. But it doesnat get the backup of the federal government. If itas too complicated to implement the Volcker rule, do you say we give up and let the largest financial institutions do what they want? Or do you say maybe thatas the reason we need a modern Glass-Steagall?

EK: Do you support a modernized Glass-Steagall law?

EW: Yeah! Iave talked with Sen. Maria Cantwell from Washington State. Sheas been working on that, and I think the debate should be on the table.

EK: What about breaking up the big banks?

EW: Youare approaching risk from two different directions. One is the risk of the activity. Thatas the Volcker rule. The other direction is to say risk is an assumption of size. Community banks shouldnat have to deal with complex regulatory oversight, but the largest institutions should be subject to far more aggressive oversight and have to pay more for the protections they receive from the American taxpayer. Then shareholders may decide to invest in institutions that are not so large.

EK: One of the scarier aftereffects of the crisis is that the biggest banks have become much bigger, right? JP Morgan Chase, if I remember correctly, now has more than $2 trillion in assets, where before the crisis, it was well beneath that.

EW: I was just talking about this this morning. One of the things I remember is when we were writing the reports trying to put some accountability into the system in 2008 we kept talking about how there was too much concentration in the banking industry. I remember this! I was on television talking about it. I talked to reporters about it. And now thereas more concentration than there was then. We moved in exactly the wrong direction.

EK: And the thing that worries me about that, at least when applied to this crisis, is that if you think about the appetite for risk being a contributor to bubbles and blowups, weare not even five years out from Lehman. Regulators are looking over everyoneas shoulder. Youad expect the appetite for risk to be very low right now. And even in this atmosphere, JP Morgan managed to blow up billions of dollars in insanely complex derivatives.

EW: And when Jamie Dimon is holding himself out as the hero of the day for having been the worldas most prudent banker. All of that is going on at the same time. The moment of once-burned, twice-shy, passed quickly! The bankers have been ready to get right back into playing with matches and firecrackers and every other combustible thing they can find. Thatas why I think this is really about the system, not Dimon. If JP Morgan has to admit to taking on risks that would cause a $2 billion loss, whatas happening at the other financial institutions, the ones that havenat held themselves out as models of prudence? No one knows because there is no effective oversight.

EK: Can Dodd-Frank work if itas effectively implemented?

EW: I think Dodd-Frank is a strong bill that moves in the right direction. But the market keeps changing. The practices keep changing. The idea that weall pass one law and then declare that problem is solved, weall be back again in 50 years, just doesnat work anymore. We had a double problem here: Both deregulation and the failure to adapt to new financial conditions and products and practices. Thatas what permitted risk to multiply in the system until it nearly brought the economy to its knees.

What was the trade?

As Michael Hiltzik of the Los Angeles Times writes, we donat need to get too technical here. aLeaving aside the sophistication of the transactions themselves, JPMorganas trader, a London-based derivatives expert whose portfolio was so outsized he became known in the markets as the London Whale, essentially bet that corporate debt was becoming less risky as corporations were getting stronger — in trading parlance, he was long corporate debt. But he did so in a way that even a tiny hiccup in the index he was trading could be exploited by rival traders. And thatas what happened.a If you want to get technical, however, FT Alphaville has you covered.

How did they make this mistake?

No one really knows yet. Matt Levine, the editor of Dealbreaker, thinks they simply messed up the math that was governing the trade. aThis looks like the CIOas trading desk modelling the actual [profits and loss] and risks of the trade wildly wrong. That seems to me like the simplest way to lose a billion dollars without noticing it. You can see that in Jamieas ajust acause weare stupid doesnat mean everybody else wasa: this was not driven by the market moving against them (though it seems to have), it was driven by them getting the math wrong.a

How much did JP Morgan lose on it?

We donat know. We probably wonat know for awhile. The number $2 billion is floating around. But it could easily be closer to $5 billion when all is said and done. The key here is that the trade isnat over. JP Morgan Chase is still trying to get out of its positions. How quickly they do that, and where the market moves between now and then, will decide the extent of their total losses.

Will JP Morgan need a bailout?

No. Itas hard to believe, but $2 billion, or even $5 billion, just isnat that much money to the bank. In 2011, JP Morganas profits were $19 billion in 2011. And CEO Jamie Dimon called that amildly disappointinga at the time.

So does this matter at all?

Yes.

Why?

For one thing, JP Morgan was known as the best manager of risk on Wall Street. Thatas largely because they made it through the financial crisis mostly unscathed. But it turns out that even the best manager of risk isnat very good. This trade, in fact, looks a lot like the financial crisis: They bet on something unlikely as if it was impossible. Thatas what all those banks did when they made bets on the belief that the housing market never goes down everywhere all at once. Itas a reminder that this is a kind of mistake that even agooda banks make. And remember — JP Morgan made this mistake less than four years after the fall of Lehman Brothers, so this came at a time when the lessons of the crisis are fresh in everyoneas mind, and when regulators are watching closely.

So thatas it? The national media is engaged in a collective attack of post-traumatic stress because the only bank it kinda-sorta trusted did something dumb?

No. Thereas a political dimension here, too. JP Morgan has used its sterling reputation to fight the Volcker rule. Thatas the regulation that says that banks that take commercial loans and get federal insurance to protect those loans — banks that you might open a checking account with, like JP Morgan — canat make speculative bets on their own behalf. If youare going to be a bank, then you canat play at the casino.

The problem is that itas very hard to say when a bank is betting on its own behalf and when its betting on its clientsa behalf. JP Morgan says that this trade was a ahedgea: It was there to reduce risk, not make money. But given how exquisitely it blew up in JP Morganas face, now regulators are going to make sure that the Volcker rule would stop trades like this one from happening. Otherwise, theyall get the blame next time. That means a much tighter Volcker rule — which in turn means JP Morgan (and other banks) wonat make as much money in the coming years. Thatas part of why all their stocks are tumbling. JP Morgan, for instance, lost $14.5 billion on Friday.

And the government may not stop with the Volcker rule. The SEC has opened an investigation. And remember: this is an election year. If a few congressmen band together to propose some much more stringent regulations on the banks, thereas some chance that they could sail through as both parties try to show theyare tougher on the banks.

What else could they do?

Lots. If you look hard enough, you can find many, many regulatory changes that were left out of Dodd-Frank.

For instance, Eliot Spitzer points out that Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JP Morgan Chase, asits on the board of the New York Federal Reserve Bankathe very organization that is supposed to oversee his bankas financial practices, the organization that is supposed to issue all sorts of regulations that control what his bank can do, the very organization he has been lobbying to relax the rules about the bets he wants to make…The Fed conflict is so obvious that it defies any possible rationalization or explanation. For a decade, the New York Fed has failed to pick up on any of the significant Wall Street threats: excess leverage, subprime fraud, dangerous concentration in atoo big to faila entities. Maybe the reason is that the board is controlled by the very voices that have been at the root of the failure. There has been not the slightest voice of protest from the boardayet it is a public organization!a

Canat Wall Street just lean on Congress to stop them?

Possibly. But remember that the most aggressive and effective of Wall Streetas defenders was…Jamie Dimon. And his argument was always that the financial crisis was, in large part, a case of many banks being stupid. But JP Morgan had been smart. And was it really fair to punish JP Morgan for the mistakes of Washington Mutual.

But as Noam Scheiber writes, JP Morganas bad trade just annihilated that argument. aWe now have ironclad proofaas if we really needed itathat everyone is capable of disastrous stupidity. But thatas the one thing Dimon canat admit, since it would require him to support intrusive regulations. Stupidity, in Dimonas mind, is always isolated and explainable, not systemic and unavoidable…[but] almost every mitigating circumstance he cited actually strengthens the case for reform. Dimon made clear that the loss wasnat the work of a rogue trader: The position was completely authorized, he suggested, just poorly executed and weakly monitored. One shudders to think what might have happened at a less scrupulously-managed bankaof which there are manyawhen the losses could have escaped detection much longer. a

What are you more worried about? JP Morgan or Greece.

Oh, Greece. A thousand times Greece. This JP Morgan thing is bad for JP Morgan. Whatas going on in Europe might be bad for the global economy. Or, to put it another way, JP Morganas losses are something you might be angry about, or smug about, but theyare not something you should be worried about. This isnat a second financial crisis or anything.

I have more questions, and you havenat answered them.

Leave them in comments. Iall try and update this post as appropriate.

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.

He swept out the Senate hearing room surrounded by an entourage, causing a stir as his tall, looming figure passed through the crowd. Before he got in the elevator, one of his assistants handed him a copy of the remarks he just delivered: an admirer wanted an autograph.

aDoes this happen to you often?a he was asked by a reporter.

aAll the time,a he said, scribbling his signature.

George Clooney? Mark Ruffalo?

Nope. It was Paul Volcker, the 84-year-old former chairman of the Federal Reserve who still manages to leave veteran legislators a bit starstruck. Widely credited for ending the stagflation crisis of the 1970s, Volcker, the godfather of central banking, has resurfaced as Washington has been soliciting his advice about how to rein in Wall Street. JPMorganas $2 billion loss announced on Thursday has made the spotlight on Volcker even brighter.

Volcker, who served as Fed chairman during the Carter and Reagan administrations, didnat write the rule that bears his name. But he has since risen to defend the Volcker Rule, which prohibits government-backed banks from making certain kinds of speculative bets for their own benefit, rather than their clientsa. And he made clear on Capitol Hill this week why he believes such restrictions are necessary.

aIt is surely inappropriate that those activities be carried out by institutions benefiting from taxpayer support, current or potential,a he told the Senate Banking Committee on Wednesday afternoon.

That was the day before JPMorgan Chase owned up to its huge loss on a bad bet that looks, to many, like the kind of gamble that the Volcker Rule was meant to prevent when it was passed in 2010 as part of the Dodd-Frank overhaul.

Itas unclear whether the rule would have kept JPMorgan trader Bruno Iksil in the U.K. a nicknamed the aLondon Whalea a from taking such a high-risk bet. The bank essentially carried out a complicated hedge on a stack of corporate bonds, which the Volcker Rule, as currently drafted, would permit. The problem, however, is that JPMorganas bet seems to go above and beyond what a hedge is meant to do: Rather than simply buy insurance to protect the corporate bonds, Iksil reportedly bet as much as $100 billion that those firms would never default.

For a firm like JPMorgan, $2 billion is a drop in the bucket. The banking giant isnat expected to fail or need a bailout any time soon. But the big loss shows how Wall Street banks are still able to make risky bets for their own benefit. And JPMorganas embarrassment wonat necessarily stop the same from happening elsewhere, potentially increasing risk to the financial system. In fact, similar bets by JPMorganas chief investment office made the bank $5 billion in 2010. Other banks could decide that gambling with their money is still worth the that chance a and that they can do a better job than JPMorgan did at pulling it off.

Thatas why supporters of a strong Volcker Rule a which federal officials are still finalizing before the measureas July start date a are now clamoring for a more expansive regulation with fewer loopholes. And Volckeras own words before the Senate this week could strengthen their argument. If banks are still allowed to treat trading like a casino, yet are big enough to warrant government support if things go awry, theyare benefitting from the assumption that theyare Too Big To Fail a athat losses will be socialized, with the potential gains all private,a as Volcker explained.

After the financial meltdown, aunderstandably, the public feels aggrieved and wants serious reform,a Volcker said Wednesday. aThe Volcker Rule is part of this formula.a (I asked Volckeras office whether he had any thoughts about the JPMorgan debacle, but he wasnat available.)

What, then, is holding back regulators from implementing a strong, clear Volcker Rule? Volcker himself acknowledges that the draft of the rule, at 300 pages, has gotten bloated and complex partly because bank lobbyists are pushing for carve-outs.

aI could give you stories all day about lobbyists making things more complicated,a Volcker said as he left the hearing room. aThey may do it [because] they want to disrupt the whole process, but they … say, aWe want to make sure that this particular little operation we have a is it good or bad?aa

Volcker did say that he was aencourageda by the progress that regulators appear to be making on finalizing the rule that bears his name. And a perhaps more than do his acolytes on Capitol Hill a he believes that banks will comply.

aYou donat trust the banks?a he asked, as he left the Senate building. aI implicitly trust the banks.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.

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 Monday morning, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney tried to put a positive spin on the news of JPMorganas $2 billion loss. It didnat represent a failure of the new Wall Street regulation under Obama, he insisted. It was a vindication of the lawas existence.

But how do you defend a law thatas barely come into effect? The biggest changes under Dodd-Frank to curb risky trading havenat even been finalized, much less enacted. And, as Politicoas Ben White notes, that could make it harder for the White House to sell its achievements to the public and easier for critics to use conjecture to attack the consequences of yet-to-be-finalized legislation.

Itas the same political problem that Obama is facing with his other big legislative achievement, the Affordable Care Act. On health care, Obama has tried to make the best of the situation by promoting some of the early benefits of the law, like coverage of young adults up to 26 under their parentsa plan. But the most controversial part of the law a the individual mandate a hasnat yet gone into effect, and neither have the state-based insurance exchanges.

Similarly, thereas a major lag between the passage of Dodd Frank in July 2010 and its start date. And unlike the case of Obamacare, it wasnat supposed to be that way: Legislators had originally planned for much of the law to go into effect in 2011 and this year. But regulators are way behind schedule, and Dodd-Frank has been stuck in the bureaucratic purgatory known as the arule-writing process.a The Dodd-Frank Act provides the blueprint, but itas up to the Federal Reserve, the Securities and Exchange Commission and all the other major agencies to write the rules.

Parts of Obamacare went through the same process. But the enormous complexity of modern finance and the rules intended to govern them has made the rule-writing process for Dodd-Frank perhaps even more onerous and time-consuming. Regulators have missed most of the deadlines in the original law.

Even when the new regulations are finalized, banks typically have a long time to comply with them. The Volcker Rule, for example, is scheduled to go into effect in July, but banks will have about two years to adjust to the new ban on speculative bets for their own benefit, known as proprietary trading.

When the changes do go into effect, they wonat necessarily register as areforma to the layperson. Unlike Obamacare, most of the new rules donat directly affect consumers. Yes, thereas the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and new restrictions on debit-card fees, but most of the changes wonat be visible to Main Street.

Most of Dodd-Frankas rules, in fact, are meant to be preventive. And, as TARP has proved, prevention is a hard political selling point: Itas tough to convince the public that youave done good because things could have been worse, whereas egregious mistakes that happen in spite of the rules (e.g. MF Global, JPMorganas gambling away $2 trillion) are much more visible.

Instead, what ordinary Americans are most likely to see is the messy, confusing process of turning these rules into final law, a process thatas heavily dominated by bank lobbyists. Federal regulators typically meet with the groups that submit formal, detailed recommendations on new regulations. Industry groups have poured money, time and resources into this process, and it shows: Regulators from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, FDIC, the Fed and SEC have held a whopping 3,445 meetings with outside groups since Dodd-Frankas passage, according to law firm Davis Polk, which has been tracking the process.

That doesnat mean that federal regulators will necessarily side with the big banks at the end of the day. But until the rules are finalized, weare left to wonder whose side theyare really on. And even when that day finally comes, the public wonat necessarily be keen on what really just happened on Wall Street

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wonkbook dashboard

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

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

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

Top stories

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top op-eds

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Economy

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

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

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

Health Care

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

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

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

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

Domestic Policy

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

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

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

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

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

Energy

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

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

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

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

Elizabeth Warren, who is running for Senate in Massachusetts, thinks JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon should resign his seat on the New York Federal Reserve. Beating up on Dimon is, of course, a popular position among politicians right now, but Warren has special credibility on this point: She chaired the congressional oversight panel on TARP from 2008 to 2010, and led the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau from 2010 to 2011. We spoke by phone Monday afternoon. A lightly edited transcript follows.

Ezra Klein: So JP Morgan lost $2 billion. Theyare not asking for a bailout. Theyare not threatening to capsize either themselves or anyone else in the system. And so they say, and itas not an entirely unfair question, why is this Elizabeth Warrenas business, or the U.S. Congressas business? Isnat making bad investment decisions legal?

Elizabeth Warren: That is what Jamie Dimon has said. He says itas stupid and sloppy but weall fix it. So stay away. But what if the next loss is $20 billion or $200 billion? Is he saying JP Morgan should be entitled to continue to take these bets right up until the day it lands in the taxpayers lap again?

Banks are different than other kinds of companies. We learned that in 2008. They run the risk of bringing down our jobs, our pensions, our economy. The basic deal we made with them is they get to operate banks a the things that take savings and investments and checking accounts and get a federal guarantee a in return for submitting to substantial oversight to make sure their activities are safe.

EK: That gets us to the Volcker rule, which is what would keep banks that get that guarantee from gambling with customer money and a federal backstop. But at this point, I donat think very many people a even people who follow this stuff quite closely a have a very specific sense of what the difference between a good and bad Volcker rule is. So how do you think about that?

EW: Iam going to reframe it slightly: Who profits from the complexity of the Volcker rule? Itas the largest financial institutions. No financial institutions want a simple Volcker rule. They want layers and layers of complexity because itas in complexity that there are loopholes. Thatas where itas possible to back up regulators who are not quite certain about the ground they stand on. And itas a larger problem with our regulatory structure: Complexity favors those who can hire armies of lobbyists and lawyers. The big push I made at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was simple rules. Simple mortgage documents. Simple credit card agreements. Because complexity creates too many opportunities for an army of lawyers to turn the rules upside down.

EK: I agree that complexity is where lobbyists and lawyers work their dark magic. But when I talk to people in the industry about this, they say that simple rules sound great, but theyare not really possible. Itas hard to distinguish a hedge from a bet, or a speculative trade from a legitimate one. The world is complex, and thatas why regulators and politicians who donat like Wall Street and donat like being browbeaten by lobbyists end up allowing complex rules, too.

EW: Hereas another way to look at what you just described: Thatas the strongest argument for a modern Glass-Steagall. Glass-Steagall said in effect that hedge funds should be separated from commercial banking. If a big institution wants to go out and play in the market, thatas fine. But it doesnat get the backup of the federal government. If itas too complicated to implement the Volcker rule, do you say we give up and let the largest financial institutions do what they want? Or do you say maybe thatas the reason we need a modern Glass-Steagall?

EK: Do you support a modernized Glass-Steagall law?

EW: Yeah! Iave talked with Sen. Maria Cantwell from Washington State. Sheas been working on that, and I think the debate should be on the table.

EK: What about breaking up the big banks?

EW: Youare approaching risk from two different directions. One is the risk of the activity. Thatas the Volcker rule. The other direction is to say risk is an assumption of size. Community banks shouldnat have to deal with complex regulatory oversight, but the largest institutions should be subject to far more aggressive oversight and have to pay more for the protections they receive from the American taxpayer. Then shareholders may decide to invest in institutions that are not so large.

EK: One of the scarier aftereffects of the crisis is that the biggest banks have become much bigger, right? JP Morgan Chase, if I remember correctly, now has more than $2 trillion in assets, where before the crisis, it was well beneath that.

EW: I was just talking about this this morning. One of the things I remember is when we were writing the reports trying to put some accountability into the system in 2008 we kept talking about how there was too much concentration in the banking industry. I remember this! I was on television talking about it. I talked to reporters about it. And now thereas more concentration than there was then. We moved in exactly the wrong direction.

EK: And the thing that worries me about that, at least when applied to this crisis, is that if you think about the appetite for risk being a contributor to bubbles and blowups, weare not even five years out from Lehman. Regulators are looking over everyoneas shoulder. Youad expect the appetite for risk to be very low right now. And even in this atmosphere, JP Morgan managed to blow up billions of dollars in insanely complex derivatives.

EW: And when Jamie Dimon is holding himself out as the hero of the day for having been the worldas most prudent banker. All of that is going on at the same time. The moment of once-burned, twice-shy, passed quickly! The bankers have been ready to get right back into playing with matches and firecrackers and every other combustible thing they can find. Thatas why I think this is really about the system, not Dimon. If JP Morgan has to admit to taking on risks that would cause a $2 billion loss, whatas happening at the other financial institutions, the ones that havenat held themselves out as models of prudence? No one knows because there is no effective oversight.

EK: Can Dodd-Frank work if itas effectively implemented?

EW: I think Dodd-Frank is a strong bill that moves in the right direction. But the market keeps changing. The practices keep changing. The idea that weall pass one law and then declare that problem is solved, weall be back again in 50 years, just doesnat work anymore. We had a double problem here: Both deregulation and the failure to adapt to new financial conditions and products and practices. Thatas what permitted risk to multiply in the system until it nearly brought the economy to its knees.

What was the trade?

As Michael Hiltzik of the Los Angeles Times writes, we donat need to get too technical here. aLeaving aside the sophistication of the transactions themselves, JPMorganas trader, a London-based derivatives expert whose portfolio was so outsized he became known in the markets as the London Whale, essentially bet that corporate debt was becoming less risky as corporations were getting stronger — in trading parlance, he was long corporate debt. But he did so in a way that even a tiny hiccup in the index he was trading could be exploited by rival traders. And thatas what happened.a If you want to get technical, however, FT Alphaville has you covered.

How did they make this mistake?

No one really knows yet. Matt Levine, the editor of Dealbreaker, thinks they simply messed up the math that was governing the trade. aThis looks like the CIOas trading desk modelling the actual [profits and loss] and risks of the trade wildly wrong. That seems to me like the simplest way to lose a billion dollars without noticing it. You can see that in Jamieas ajust acause weare stupid doesnat mean everybody else wasa: this was not driven by the market moving against them (though it seems to have), it was driven by them getting the math wrong.a

How much did JP Morgan lose on it?

We donat know. We probably wonat know for awhile. The number $2 billion is floating around. But it could easily be closer to $5 billion when all is said and done. The key here is that the trade isnat over. JP Morgan Chase is still trying to get out of its positions. How quickly they do that, and where the market moves between now and then, will decide the extent of their total losses.

Will JP Morgan need a bailout?

No. Itas hard to believe, but $2 billion, or even $5 billion, just isnat that much money to the bank. In 2011, JP Morganas profits were $19 billion in 2011. And CEO Jamie Dimon called that amildly disappointinga at the time.

So does this matter at all?

Yes.

Why?

For one thing, JP Morgan was known as the best manager of risk on Wall Street. Thatas largely because they made it through the financial crisis mostly unscathed. But it turns out that even the best manager of risk isnat very good. This trade, in fact, looks a lot like the financial crisis: They bet on something unlikely as if it was impossible. Thatas what all those banks did when they made bets on the belief that the housing market never goes down everywhere all at once. Itas a reminder that this is a kind of mistake that even agooda banks make. And remember — JP Morgan made this mistake less than four years after the fall of Lehman Brothers, so this came at a time when the lessons of the crisis are fresh in everyoneas mind, and when regulators are watching closely.

So thatas it? The national media is engaged in a collective attack of post-traumatic stress because the only bank it kinda-sorta trusted did something dumb?

No. Thereas a political dimension here, too. JP Morgan has used its sterling reputation to fight the Volcker rule. Thatas the regulation that says that banks that take commercial loans and get federal insurance to protect those loans — banks that you might open a checking account with, like JP Morgan — canat make speculative bets on their own behalf. If youare going to be a bank, then you canat play at the casino.

The problem is that itas very hard to say when a bank is betting on its own behalf and when its betting on its clientsa behalf. JP Morgan says that this trade was a ahedgea: It was there to reduce risk, not make money. But given how exquisitely it blew up in JP Morganas face, now regulators are going to make sure that the Volcker rule would stop trades like this one from happening. Otherwise, theyall get the blame next time. That means a much tighter Volcker rule — which in turn means JP Morgan (and other banks) wonat make as much money in the coming years. Thatas part of why all their stocks are tumbling. JP Morgan, for instance, lost $14.5 billion on Friday.

And the government may not stop with the Volcker rule. The SEC has opened an investigation. And remember: this is an election year. If a few congressmen band together to propose some much more stringent regulations on the banks, thereas some chance that they could sail through as both parties try to show theyare tougher on the banks.

What else could they do?

Lots. If you look hard enough, you can find many, many regulatory changes that were left out of Dodd-Frank.

For instance, Eliot Spitzer points out that Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JP Morgan Chase, asits on the board of the New York Federal Reserve Bankathe very organization that is supposed to oversee his bankas financial practices, the organization that is supposed to issue all sorts of regulations that control what his bank can do, the very organization he has been lobbying to relax the rules about the bets he wants to make…The Fed conflict is so obvious that it defies any possible rationalization or explanation. For a decade, the New York Fed has failed to pick up on any of the significant Wall Street threats: excess leverage, subprime fraud, dangerous concentration in atoo big to faila entities. Maybe the reason is that the board is controlled by the very voices that have been at the root of the failure. There has been not the slightest voice of protest from the boardayet it is a public organization!a

Canat Wall Street just lean on Congress to stop them?

Possibly. But remember that the most aggressive and effective of Wall Streetas defenders was…Jamie Dimon. And his argument was always that the financial crisis was, in large part, a case of many banks being stupid. But JP Morgan had been smart. And was it really fair to punish JP Morgan for the mistakes of Washington Mutual.

But as Noam Scheiber writes, JP Morganas bad trade just annihilated that argument. aWe now have ironclad proofaas if we really needed itathat everyone is capable of disastrous stupidity. But thatas the one thing Dimon canat admit, since it would require him to support intrusive regulations. Stupidity, in Dimonas mind, is always isolated and explainable, not systemic and unavoidable…[but] almost every mitigating circumstance he cited actually strengthens the case for reform. Dimon made clear that the loss wasnat the work of a rogue trader: The position was completely authorized, he suggested, just poorly executed and weakly monitored. One shudders to think what might have happened at a less scrupulously-managed bankaof which there are manyawhen the losses could have escaped detection much longer. a

What are you more worried about? JP Morgan or Greece.

Oh, Greece. A thousand times Greece. This JP Morgan thing is bad for JP Morgan. Whatas going on in Europe might be bad for the global economy. Or, to put it another way, JP Morganas losses are something you might be angry about, or smug about, but theyare not something you should be worried about. This isnat a second financial crisis or anything.

I have more questions, and you havenat answered them.

Leave them in comments. Iall try and update this post as appropriate.

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.

He swept out the Senate hearing room surrounded by an entourage, causing a stir as his tall, looming figure passed through the crowd. Before he got in the elevator, one of his assistants handed him a copy of the remarks he just delivered: an admirer wanted an autograph.

aDoes this happen to you often?a he was asked by a reporter.

aAll the time,a he said, scribbling his signature.

George Clooney? Mark Ruffalo?

Nope. It was Paul Volcker, the 84-year-old former chairman of the Federal Reserve who still manages to leave veteran legislators a bit starstruck. Widely credited for ending the stagflation crisis of the 1970s, Volcker, the godfather of central banking, has resurfaced as Washington has been soliciting his advice about how to rein in Wall Street. JPMorganas $2 billion loss announced on Thursday has made the spotlight on Volcker even brighter.

Volcker, who served as Fed chairman during the Carter and Reagan administrations, didnat write the rule that bears his name. But he has since risen to defend the Volcker Rule, which prohibits government-backed banks from making certain kinds of speculative bets for their own benefit, rather than their clientsa. And he made clear on Capitol Hill this week why he believes such restrictions are necessary.

aIt is surely inappropriate that those activities be carried out by institutions benefiting from taxpayer support, current or potential,a he told the Senate Banking Committee on Wednesday afternoon.

That was the day before JPMorgan Chase owned up to its huge loss on a bad bet that looks, to many, like the kind of gamble that the Volcker Rule was meant to prevent when it was passed in 2010 as part of the Dodd-Frank overhaul.

Itas unclear whether the rule would have kept JPMorgan trader Bruno Iksil in the U.K. a nicknamed the aLondon Whalea a from taking such a high-risk bet. The bank essentially carried out a complicated hedge on a stack of corporate bonds, which the Volcker Rule, as currently drafted, would permit. The problem, however, is that JPMorganas bet seems to go above and beyond what a hedge is meant to do: Rather than simply buy insurance to protect the corporate bonds, Iksil reportedly bet as much as $100 billion that those firms would never default.

For a firm like JPMorgan, $2 billion is a drop in the bucket. The banking giant isnat expected to fail or need a bailout any time soon. But the big loss shows how Wall Street banks are still able to make risky bets for their own benefit. And JPMorganas embarrassment wonat necessarily stop the same from happening elsewhere, potentially increasing risk to the financial system. In fact, similar bets by JPMorganas chief investment office made the bank $5 billion in 2010. Other banks could decide that gambling with their money is still worth the that chance a and that they can do a better job than JPMorgan did at pulling it off.

Thatas why supporters of a strong Volcker Rule a which federal officials are still finalizing before the measureas July start date a are now clamoring for a more expansive regulation with fewer loopholes. And Volckeras own words before the Senate this week could strengthen their argument. If banks are still allowed to treat trading like a casino, yet are big enough to warrant government support if things go awry, theyare benefitting from the assumption that theyare Too Big To Fail a athat losses will be socialized, with the potential gains all private,a as Volcker explained.

After the financial meltdown, aunderstandably, the public feels aggrieved and wants serious reform,a Volcker said Wednesday. aThe Volcker Rule is part of this formula.a (I asked Volckeras office whether he had any thoughts about the JPMorgan debacle, but he wasnat available.)

What, then, is holding back regulators from implementing a strong, clear Volcker Rule? Volcker himself acknowledges that the draft of the rule, at 300 pages, has gotten bloated and complex partly because bank lobbyists are pushing for carve-outs.

aI could give you stories all day about lobbyists making things more complicated,a Volcker said as he left the hearing room. aThey may do it [because] they want to disrupt the whole process, but they … say, aWe want to make sure that this particular little operation we have a is it good or bad?aa

Volcker did say that he was aencourageda by the progress that regulators appear to be making on finalizing the rule that bears his name. And a perhaps more than do his acolytes on Capitol Hill a he believes that banks will comply.

aYou donat trust the banks?a he asked, as he left the Senate building. aI implicitly trust the banks.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.

No one knows just how far Vice President Biden got in his not-so-secret talks about cutting the federal debt.A Some reports suggest that he had booked about $1 trillion in savings before House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and his fellow Republicans stomped out because Democrats were talking about tax increases and new stimulus funding.A Read full article >>

Former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Paul A. Volcker has been relatively quiet these last few months as the U.S. and world has continued its descent into financial chaos. He exited President Barack Obamaas now-defunct Economic Advisory Board last January, and continues to eschew press releases and op-eds. Read full article >>

Listen again to yesterday’s FREE web seminar, where IFLR and Morrison & Foerster reviewed the proposed rules and the consequences for particular trading and fund activities

A Volcker Rule approved in its proposed form would dramatically affect liquidity in US equity markets, Goldman Sachs’ head of US equities trading has said

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 3 seconds to load.