In his weekly “Stories I’d like to see” column, journalist and entrepreneur Steven Brill spotlights topics that, in his opinion, have received insufficient media attention. This article was originally published on Reuters.com.
1. Cheng spy-versus-spy game:
I’m guessing there must be a fun, streets-of-New-York story about Chinese spies (maybe people from the Chinese UN delegation) following New York University’s most famous student, Cheng Guangheng, as he makes his way around Manhattan - and about how American security personnel are not only guarding Cheng but also keeping tabs on those spies. This could, after all, be a good way of flushing out Chinese operatives in the US. And I’m wondering what steps and countersteps have been taken having to do with the security of Cheng’s computer, cell phone and any other digital devices he uses to communicate with friends and followers.
2. Troop suicide surge: What happens to the families?
AP’s disheartening report that suicides among US troops this year came at the rate of nearly one a day and outpaced combat deaths in Afghanistan raises the question of what benefits the families of these fallen soldiers get. Standard life insurance usually doesn’t cover suicides. What about death benefits for members of the military? What exactly are the benefits given to military families whose loved one dies while on active duty, whether through suicide or in battle?
And while we’re on the subject, if suicides are typically the result of mental illness, what are the policy arguments around whether they should be covered, in or outside the military?
3. The Big Board against Nasdaq:
I’ve been waiting to read a story about how the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE Euronext) is moving to take market share from Nasdaq in the wake of the Facebook IPO fiasco. Beyond attacking Nasdaq’s $40 million plan to make up for traders’ Facebook losses by offering trading discounts to clients - with the claim that it’s inadequate and will give Nasdaq a marketing advantage - is the Big Board sending its sales force out to claim it could never screw things up the way Nasdaq did? Or is it simply laying back, assuming it doesn’t need to dance in Nasdaq’s end zone?
With that in mind, Nasdaq has obviously decided that the best defense is a good offense; last week it announced in a triumphant press release that it had lured Kraft Foods into switching to Nasdaq from the NYSE. I’d love to know what goodies Kraft got for making the switch, let alone for announcing it in the midst of Nasdaq’s troubles. Was this switch in the works before the blowup of the Facebook IPO? If so, what, if anything, did Nasdaq then do to save the deal?
I’ve always wanted to see a story about how these exchanges compete over a service that seems like a commodity; the Facebook aftermath obviously presents a great hook.
4. Jockeying over debate rules:
Although aficionados of presidential politics tend to be mired in speculation over the mini-flap of the day (such as last week’s slip by President Obama that the private sector is “doing fine”), it’s time some reporter checked in on an infinitely more important story: What’s happening with the negotiations over the three scheduled presidential debates? With the first one scheduled for October 3 and the last for October 22 (with a vice-presidential showdown slated for October 11), and with the race likely to be too close to call by then, these debates, run by the bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates, are almost certain to be decisive. So which side is pushing for what kind of rules aimed at favoring their guy, and what’s the likely outcome?

You should really follow up on that filibuster / obstruction story and how it relates to finance.
Taibbi has already done his story about how republicans are nullifying passed law against dangerous institutions.
#1 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 12 Jun 2012 at 02:14 PM
But it's ongoing and getting worse.
Important vocabulary: Systems incapacity
http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2012/06/house-republicans-try-to-create-the-worlds-worst-criminogenic-environment.html
"One of the most obvious ways to produce a criminogenic environment is to create systems incapacity to detect and sanction crime. House Republicans are doing that in the context of elite white-collar crime. That context also happens to be the leading campaign donors for both parties.
On June 9, 2012, The New York Times published an important editorial entitled “Lost the Vote? Deny the Money.” The editorial will be ignored by the Obama administration and Republicans but it is well worth reading in full. Here are some key excerpts...
With 710 employees, the C.F.T.C. staff is barely big enough for its current responsibilities, let alone its new mission under Dodd-Frank to oversee the huge over-the-counter swaps market. Its budget is $205 million, which President Obama proposed increasing to $308 million for 2013 to deal with swaps. The House Appropriations Committee has proposed slashing next year’s budget to $180 million.
The agency’s chairman, Gary Gensler, said: “The result of the House bill is to effectively put the interests of Wall Street ahead of those of the American public, by significantly underfunding the agency Congress tasked to oversee derivatives — the same complex financial instruments that helped contribute to the most significant economic downturn since the Great Depression.”
As Mr. Gensler pointed out, the market in swaps, at $300 trillion, is eight times larger than the futures market his agency has been regulating, and yet the House wants to cut the agency’s budget significantly. The House committee chairman, Harold Rogers, said the agency should return to its “core duties,” a statement that brazenly ignores a new set of duties Congress put on the books"
This is the same Gary Gensler that Richard Shelby attacked for not being on top of the JP Morgan billion dollar bets.
"When did you first learn about these trades?" Shelby inquired.
Gary Gensler, head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, admitted that he had learned about them from press reports.
"Press reports!" Shelby echoed, with mock surprise. He smiled. "Were you in the dark?"
Gensler tried to explain that his agency does not yet have authority to regulate the bank, but Shelby interrupted. "So you really didn't know what was going on ... until you read the press reports like the rest of us?" he asked again.
"That's what I've said," Gensler repeated.
But Shelby wanted him to keep saying it. "You didn't know there was a problem there until you read the press reports?"
First deny regulators the resources and authority to regulate, then - when "the market" actors get in trouble - blame the regulators for not doing the jobs they were prevented from doing.
Heads, market wins. Tails, regulators lose. This is unacceptable.
The press really needs to start pushing HARD to make republicans accountable for this "putting the interests of Wall Street ahead of those of the American public" BS. 300 trillion dollar markets need some damn oversight.
#2 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 12 Jun 2012 at 02:32 PM
Some paraphrasing below:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaS5sTQTqZw
1:10 Shelby: "Although they lost a lot of money, they could withstand to lose 80 billion. So nothing to worry about. Big risk, big reward! Whoopie!"
2:00 Reporter: "The Volcker rule is going to increase costs, annoy banks, suck eggs, right?"
Shelby: "No bank has collapsed because of trades via derivatives, basically. They folded because of bad loans. Capitalization rulez, Volcker not rulez, dude."
Awesome.
#3 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 12 Jun 2012 at 02:51 PM
An interesting perspective on republican brinkmanship - we're failing to play this game properly, and makes everybody a loser.
http://scienceprogressaction.org/intersection/2012/05/tit-without-tat/
"This is not an isolated incident. From budget deals and the debt ceiling, to jobs and the Affordable Care Act, again and again we’ve seen Republicans refuse not only to compromise, but to cooperate. Even when they are given everything they want, they can’t seem to take yes for an answer.
So what’s going on here?
Perhaps what we are seeing is the classic prisoner’s dilemma..
In the above example, both [prisoners] are better off if they cooperate, but it is in the interest of each individual suspect to talk to the police. Matt Ridley in The Origins of Virtue said, “Broadly speaking, any situation in which you are tempted to do something, but know it would be a great mistake if everybody did the same thing, is likely to be a prisoner’s dilemma.”
A simplified understanding of Darwin suggests everyone ought to do the selfish thing. Yet often, when humans are presented with prisoners’ dilemmas, they actually choose to cooperate....
Now consider this prisoner’s dilemma: one political party is able to appoint judges, and the other has the ability to confirm. The confirming body could benefit in the short term if it puts holds on all nominees, thus increasing the number of vacancies when their party gets appointment power.
What prevents them from doing so is the knowledge the other party will do the same to them, Tit-for-Tat. After a few changes of power, it becomes clear no one will ever get confirmed unless both parties cooperate on nominees...
Many conservatives have put their energy into establishing a permanent Republican majority. Instead of working with Clinton, the GOP focused on removing Clinton from office when Republican policy could be implemented unobstructed...
On the other side of the aisle, Democrats were more inclined to continue the strategy of “cooperation” and triangulation of the DLC that had put them in the White House...
To create a stable environment of cooperation means not just cutting deals, but also finding cheaters, retaliating and ostracizing them. It means keeping track of who played Lucy with the football, and choosing instead to cooperate with those who reciprocate when shown nice behavior.
It’s easy to point fingers at the GOP, but the blind ideology of the Democrats and the media are equally to blame for its steady drift to extremism. Democrats never tatted. And the media let the former boundaries of acceptable politics and discourse slide by defaulting to narratives of “both sides do it.” The GOP could have their cake and eat it too: they reaped the benefits of defection without ever having to worrying about becoming ostracized, or about everyone else playing the same game.
This collapse of Tit-for-Tat reached its inevitable conclusion in the ultimate prisoner’s dilemma, the showdown over the debt ceiling. The Tea Party, which saw anything short of defection as a betrayal of its own side, was pitted against a President who campaigned as a cooperator–reported on by a media that, due to inclinations of its own, believed it takes two to fight but one to compromise...
From experience, the GOP knows no matter how many times we play this game, it can defect all it wants and can expect nothing but cooperation in return."
#4 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 12 Jun 2012 at 07:06 PM