Snark aside, one substantive point I want to make. Leonhardt and Obama talk about what I think is the biggest question in financial regulatory reform -- whether we just need stronger regulators, or whether we also need smaller financial institutions. Here's Obama:
Even with the best regulators, if you start having so much differentiation of functions and products within a single company, a single institution, a conglomerate, essentially, things could potentially slip through the cracks. And people just don't know what they're getting into. I mean, I guarantee you that the average A.I.G. insurance policyholder had no idea that this stuff was going on. And in that sense I think you can make an argument that there may be a breaking point in which functions are so different that you don't want a single company doing everything.
We do need to fix our regulatory structure to prevent future AIGs. There should be universal political consensus on that point, because AIG's "oversight" was pure farce: a bank regulator with no insurance expertise regulated the world's largest insurance company.
Obama continues after the jump:
]]>But when it comes to something like investment banking versus commercial banking, the experience in a country like Canada would indicate that good, strong regulation that focuses less on the legal form of the institution and more on the functions that they're carrying out is probably the right approach to take.
In a perfect world, I would agree. A big regulator -- with a smart workforce and ample resources and strong authority -- could do a pretty good job overseeing large financial institutions. We don't live in that world, though, and that's why I don't share Obama's belief (or James Suroweicki's) that size doesn't matter.
Why not? Washington has a terrible history of regulating big businesses -- not just in finance, but also in sectors like aviation and food safety. Regulators will beef up their efforts during a crisis, but once it passes, businesses always start to complain about their regulatory burden. And Congress inevitably starts trimming away at the regulatory budgets.
Also -- I mentioned a "smart workforce." This is a real problem for financial regulators. If you're well-versed in finance, are you going to work for an investment bank that pays six-figure bonuses, or a federal agency that uses the General Schedule? This isn't a slur against all financial regulators -- there are some smart people at these agencies -- but when it comes to attracting talent, the Office of Thrift Supervision can't compete with Goldman Sachs.
So I think the realistic position is to assume that regulators will always be somewhat short on staffing and resources and authority. And if that's the case, you can't expect them to regulate massive financial institutions. They will never be up to the job.
]]>I guess it's a smart political move, because you control the Friday news cycle and then it's the weekend; you give your opponents very little time to process the documents and respond.
But it's a real pain for us journalists with end-of-the-week deadlines...
]]>How would that work? Would we send in a SEAL team to camp out by the nukes until a friendlier government takes over? Or land a C-130 and fly Pakistan's estimated 75-to-100 nuclear weapons out of a newly-hostile country? What active steps can the military take to secure a nuclear arsenal?
There were a few good questions at the presser; Jake Tapper and Michael Scherer asked smart, pointed questions on torture and state secrets, respectively. But Todd swung and missed. Again.
]]>That said, if such a scenario did occur, I know that many people would support using torture. Alone CIA officer faced with that situation might decide, on his own, to torture a suspect for information. But that should never be the official policy of the United States government -- that torture is abhorrent and evil, except for a few circumstances.
Why? There are the obvious reasons: Torture is immoral and illegal. The 24 fetishists always forget that Jack Bauer is breaking the law -- and he knows it. He doesn't stop to ask OLC for a legal opinion excusing his actions (who would play John Yoo, I wonder?). He just does it, even though he knows it's illegal; he makes an individual choice. And invariably there are consequences.
You also start down a slippery slope if you approve torture in certain circumstances. The OLC memos certainly didn't permit killing prisoners, but 100 detainees have died in our custody and more than two dozen of those have been ruled homicides. Torture taps into some of the basest elements of human nature. If you approve torture, no matter how carefully circumscribed it might be, you will lose control; atrocities will occur far beyond what you intended.
The only way to avoid that is to ban torture -- all forms of it, in all circumstances.
]]>A little hysteria isn't necessarily a bad thing, though. The disease is spreading -- slowly, but it's spreading -- and public health officials say the goal is mitigation, not containment. That means people need to take certain precautions: hand-washing, staying home from work if they feel sick, etc. You know the drill by now.
But that's just it: you know the drill. This was an unknown disease circulating in rural Mexican villages a few weeks ago, and now a majority of the world's population probably knows what it is and how to protect themselves. That wouldn't have happened without a massive government (and media) outreach campaign.
So, yes, the coverage has occasionally bordered on the sensational, and by all means we should criticize it. But all of the public health sources I've talked to say the wall-to-wall coverage is actually helping them do their jobs.
]]>Egypt has begun a mass slaughter of all 300,000 pigs in the country in an effort to prevent swine flu spreading.
(Egypt is a Muslim country, but 10 percent of Egyptians are Coptic Christians, and they're allowed to eat pork -- though this is the subject of some controversy.)
]]>As I have said before, although the rise of the Pakistani Taliban in the Pushtun areas and in some districts of Punjab is worrisome, the cosmic level of concern being expressed makes no sense to me. Some 55 percent of Pakistanis are Punjabi, and with the exception of some northern hardscrabble areas, I can't see any evidence that the vast majority of them has the slightest interest in Talibanism.
I'm not an expert on Pakistan, but Cole's assessment seems sensible. We tend to ascribe almost superhuman powers to the Pakistani Taliban when, as Cole points out, it's really just a few thousand guys with light weapons.
It's also not like Hizballah or Hamas -- legitimate political entities that provide social services and enjoy a modest amount of popular support. Most Pakistanis are not pro-Taliban; the group is responsible for violence and unrest and little else.
]]>Wouldn't a more accurate name be the "North American virus"? Since it originated in North America? Why don't we call it avian influenza?
But now it becomes clear: The Iowa Pork Producers Association has a press release about Harkin's comments; he's obviously concerned about the name, swine flu, hurting bacon sales.
There is a real economic impact from pandemics, so I don't mean to mock. I lived in Cairo during the bird flu scare and everyone was outraged because the government ordered them to kill their chickens. I remember driving past a giant pile of burning chickens near the main bus station downtown; my cab driver remarked that it was, quite literally, someone's livelihood going up in flames.
]]>I'm just not following this... it seems like an early detection that's relatively would be, I would assume, pretty inexpensive to take someone's temperature before you get on an airplane... it just seems to me that taking a little more precaution about someone coming in... wouldn't there be something more prudent in between what you're saying... and stop it before it comes in?
It seems to me that there are two fundamental approaches to many of our public policy challenges. One is the "fortress" approach, which focuses on keeping things out -- immigrants, terrorists, microbes. The other is a more realistic approach; it starts from the premise that borders are permeable, and it tries to minimize the impact of a problem once it crosses the border.
Hutchison, it seems, wants the CDC to check every traveler returning from Mexico for symptoms of swine flu. That's unrealistic: I heard a report on the BBC this morning that said 100,000 people cross the border at El Paso every day. It's not good public policy in the 21st century.
And yet it's also startingly similar to the hard-line solutions for illegal immigration (build a bigger fence) and terrorism (tougher border security).
]]>As a candidate, Cheney would have doubtless been as disciplined and ideologically consistent as McCain was feckless. In debates with Barack Obama, he would have been as cuttingly effective as he was in his encounters with Joe Lieberman and John Edwards in 2000 and 2004 respectively. And when he went down to a landslide loss, the conservative movement might - might! - have been jolted into the kind of rethinking that's necessary if it hopes to regain power.
Sure, a Cheney defeat would have been a repudiation of Bush's policies -- though I'd say the 2008 results (a Democratic president and 28 new Democratic congressmen) were pretty damning anyway.
But who would do this "rethinking"? The Republican establishment doesn't have any strong moderate voices. That's why a drug-addicted talk radio host and a disgraced, twice-divorced former Speaker have emerged as its leaders. I don't think a less "moderate" candidate in 2008 would have sparked a renaissance in the party.
]]>I went to a Salazar press conference earlier this afternoon where he announced that he wants to end the "mountaintop mining" rule, approved in December, which allows coal companies to dump the byproducts of mining in streams. Environmental groups never liked the rule, since it basically allowed coal companies to bury streams under a pile of rock. Salazar was pretty blunt about the problems with the rule:
"We're cleaning up a major misstep from the previous administration... this was bad public policy. It simply doesn't pass muster."
The regulation isn't technically dead yet; Salazar asked Justice to file a complaint in court, and a judge would have to formally kill the rule.
There are still plenty of other ill-advised "midnight regulations" approved in the waning days of the Bush administration. But getting rid of the mountaintop mining rule would be a positive step.
]]>