Quote of the Day

Vanity Fair posted an excerpt from Mark Bowden’s story running in the November issue about the raid on Osama bin Laden. My favorite part:

According to Bowden, Leon Panetta told Obama that he ought to ask himself this question: “What would the average American say if he knew we had the best chance of getting bin Laden since Tora Bora and we didn’t take a shot?”

That’s probably not the best way to make a huge decision as it is purely emotional. But, it’s a pretty convincing line. Read the rest of the excerpt here.

P.S. I know, posting has been terribly slow the past month. It’s midterm time for me so I’m pretty swamped with work – I actually have a midterm in a half hour. Next Tuesday, I’ll be taking part in an eight on eight public debate on foreign policy representing an Obama surrogate. It’s for my class Foreign Policy and the 2012 Campaign taught by former Clinton and Bush adviser Peter Feaver. It’ll be live-streamed online for anyone who wants to see my quivering voice try to defend Obama’s China policies. More on that to come.

More Journalism On Regulation Needed

Journalists need to do a better job covering regulatory agencies.

One of my classes this semester is a seminar called “Journalism of the Economics Crisis,” taught by Phillip Bennett, the Managing Editor of PBS’s Frontline. The reading list for the class is pretty incredible – when Michael Grunwald’s “The New New Deal’ is on the list, you know it’s going to be a good class. And one of the best parts of the class is that Professor Bennett has been able to get a few journalists to talk to our class via Skype. The first one was last Monday when Binyamin Appelbaum from the New York Times took a half hour out of his day to answer a few of our questions. He offered a number of interesting answers on economic journalism in general, QE3 and housing.

But what struck me most was a question I asked him about the media’s covering of regulation. Here’s how I see it:

Regulation is immensely important but very little of the media’s coverage focuses on it. Many regulating agencies perform vital jobs in our society. Imagine our health without the Food and Drug Administration. How many people really know how the FDA works though? What it really does? How much it actually protects us? There are many agencies like this. Now, it’s okay that people don’t really know what they do. If these agencies are working correctly, that’s exactly what should happen. But when Republicans start looking to cut the funding of the FDA and other important agencies, it becomes more important.

Which brings me to my main point: we need more coverage of regulating agencies. More coverage of these will mean greater knowledge of what these agencies do. With that greater knowledge, the public has a better ability to make an informed choice about them. Greater coverage of these agencies will also ensure that they are operating correctly.

Until listening to Appelbaum’s answer to my question, I always believed that journalists simply didn’t like covering regulatory agencies. And to an extent, I think that’s correct. Regulation is boring and wonky. It deals with minutiae in legal speak. That’s not particularly enjoyable to cover. But beyond that, Appelbaum said that covering these agencies is easier said than done. Connecting regulation to the real world is difficult, particularly before regulations take effect. I think this goes a step further: regulation is tough to connect to the real world until something goes wrong. Continue reading “More Journalism On Regulation Needed”

Lack of Updates

As you can tell, I haven’t had time to post here in a bit. Schools been heating up and I’ve been catching up with friends here. I should be more on top of things by next week and will get back to more posting.

Until then, I have a small piece in the new issue of the Washington Monthly that I co-authored with my fellow intern Minjae Park. It’s a short, news-you-can-use sidebar on different options students have for repaying their student loans. Here’s a quick taste:

Graduated Repayment: Under these plans, borrowers have the option to pay between 50 percent and 150 percent of their standard payment, and the payment increases every two years. The plan lasts for ten years, unless it is part of an extended repayment, in which case it can then last up to thirty years. However, the longer the length of the loan, the more the borrower pays in interest. These plans tend to work best for borrowers who are likely to see their earnings increase sharply over time.

That’s just one of nine different options Minjae and I lay out (different borrowers qualify for different programs). Check out the rest here.