Daily Read - 2/22/10

A Swiss court accused a fisherman of torturing a fish because it took 10 minutes to reel it in, and activists are lobbying that animals should have lawyers.  (AP story here; h/t Overlawyered.com)

Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, the vice chair of the Democratic Governors Association, said at a press conference that Congress should pass a jobs bill that includes “whatever they think is appropriate, as long as they do it quickly...the people of our country need to see us fighting...for jobs."  He also argued Democrats should "force Republicans to take uncomfortable votes against measures they've supported in the past. He thinks that would help Democratic candidates on the ballot this year, including him."  (Politico)  I thought the jobs bill was supposed to be about jobs, not about passing partisan bills quickly for the sake of public appearances and elections?  Proposing something just because you think the other party will vote against it is childish and a big part of the reason Americans are getting fed up with their government.  Voters don't want to see their politicians fighting any more - they want results.

"For a year, critics of the Democratic health care plans have been applying the label "ObamaCare" to whatever the current draft was," says Marc Ambinder at the Atlantic.  The President has now unveiled a comprehensive bill as a prelude to Thursday's meeting with Republicans, and Ambinder summarizes the highlights of Obamacare here.

Ambinder says Obama's "new insurance rate increase mitigation authority" will be hard to oppose politically (and will be used to make Republicans look bad), but that the policy probably won't work - citing this National Review column.  I take issue with Obama's grandstanding over "excessive rate increases" by health insurers here.

In the upcoming issue of Vogue, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner says “You can’t do these jobs worrying about perceptions...You have to focus on improving real things that matter. To consider what is popular will lead you astray and you will have no integrity to do the important things that will make the country stronger.” (Jake Tapper, ABC News)

Five former Treasury secretaries wrote a letter to the WSJ in support of the "Volcker Rule," which would restrict FDIC-backed institutions from trading too much for their own profit, and restrict them from investing in hedge funds and private equity.  While this idea is great in theory, I'm still not sure where I stand on this one practically.  The letter was in response to a column by Alan Blinder on Feb 15, where he wonders if "the Volcker "idea" can be translated into a workable Volcker rule. It is devilishly difficult to draw bright lines between proprietary trading and trading, hedging, and market-making on behalf of clients."  It was the likely impact on FDIC-insured institutions that led to the bailout of AIG, so it makes sense for the government to be more strict about who does, and does not, qualify for FDIC insurance.  But, Fannie, Freddie, AIG and Lehman Brothers were not banks -- it wasn't proprietary trading and other investments by banks that caused the crisis, and what the "Volcker Plan" looks to regulate are not a significant part of their businesses.

The Economist weighs in on the challenges facing Obama's deficit commission.  Most importantly, the commission has no authority, unlike the commission voted down in the Seante that could "make recommendations which Congress would be forced to vote on (without amendment)."  Also, "It is scheduled to report by December 1st this year, shortly after the mid-term congressional elections," which postpones the issue until after the election.  The Tea Party movement may be loud and influential now, but the more time passes, the more likely their cries for serious fiscal reform will fade away.  If this commission and the next Congress fails to produce something soon, will it be too late?  On the positive side, the structure of the commission ensures some amount of bipartisan support for whatever it recommends.