Council for a Livable World

Peter Orszag is President Obama’s Director the Office of Management and Budget. Only 40 years old, he is the youngest member of the Obama Cabinet assigned the responsibility of developing and promoting the president’s budget. In the rescue of the U.S. financial system, Orszag, Timothy Geithner, Secretary of the Treasury, and Lawrence Summers, the Director of the National Economic Council, are the most influential in determining policy. Of the three, Orszag may have the most liberal sensitivity.

Orszag recently appeared on “The Daily Show”, the television program that offers the public Jon Stewart’s version of raucous commentary, invoking laughter by skewering public figures and public policy, albeit in a non-confrontational style.In the warm-up Green Room before the program, Stewart, feigning innocence and ignorance of detail, asked Orszag, according to the New Yorker magazine: “This has nothing to do with the budget – it’s this thing that I can’t get out of my head. With all that bailout stuff, why are they bailing out the banks? Why not the borrowers? These mortgages went bad, and then they were securitized and blah, blah, blah. So why not fix the mortgages, not the securities?” When Stewart asked Orszag why the government didn’t just bailout borrowers who have defaulted, Orszag replied, “The problem is, if you just focused on the people who defaulted you create this huge incentive to default.” Stewart looked at Orszag in astonishment, pointing out that the government is creating an equally huge incentive to default by bailing out the financial firms.

Behind all the complexities was a very simple fact. Monthly mortgage payments by millions of homeowners were what provided the money for the banks and financial institutions that bought mortgages from the banks and the Wall Street firms that created sophisticated securities based on these mortgages. Bailing out those who took out the mortgages would save millions of families from being foreclosed, would save entire neighborhoods, would eliminate the need for the bank bailout money, would revive the credit of the banks, would save the big bonuses paid to bankers, etc..

Why wasn’t this approach seriously considered? Politically and morally one would expect the Democratic Party officeholders to help the masses ahead of Wall Street. Are bailouts the special province of big business, highly paid executives, major donors to politicians and political parties? Is Jon Stewart right or is he just for laughs?

This post originally appeared on Relentless Liberal on May 3, 2009.

Last week, a panel of three Minnesota judges agreed that Democrat Al Franken defeated Republican Norm Coleman.  This race was too close to call after the November election with only 200 of more than 2 million ballots separating the two candidates.  However, through a lengthy and costly legal battle, more than $12 million in fees, it has been determined that Al Franken won with a margin of 312 votes. Despite this declaration, Coleman is continuing to contest the election results.

Norm Coleman has delayed seating Al Franken in the US Senate for almost four months.  It is time to end this process and accept the will of the Minnesota voters which support immediately seating Franken by 64%.

With Arlen Spector’s recent party shift, Coleman’s appeal will place additional political pressure on Minnesota’s Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty which is already coming from both sides of the aisle.  However, the choice is simple; Al Franken won the election and should be seated now.

Last Friday, the race for the Congressional seat previously held by now-Senator Kirsten Gillibrand was decided, and another progressive – Scott Murphy (D-NY) will be added to the Congressional ranks.

Quite a victory considering that six weeks before the election, polls showed Republican James Tedisco holding a 20 point lead over the relatively unknown Murphy.

Tedisco conceded on Friday afternoon after the New York Board of Elections’ recount showed Murphy in the lead by 399 votes. Sends a strong message of public support for Obama and progressives in Congress.

 

If you’re paying any attention to the news, you know that this week marks 100 days into the Obama administration. While some media is downplaying its significance in light of other events, almost everyone is talking about it.

And so are we.

Given Obama’s high approval ratings – as high as 69% by some counts – most reports are providing a largely positive analysis of his first 100 days.

Some of our highlights?

•    Made public statements with Russian President Medvedev of intentions to negotiate a successor to START by the end of 2009.

•    Committed to “immediately and aggressively” pursue ratification of a Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty;

•    Sent a video message to the people and leaders of Iran, indicating a willingness for dialogue between the two countries.

•    Stated intention to host a Global Summit on Nuclear Security within the next year and secure all vulnerable nuclear material around the world within four years.

Of course, there are always some reliable adversaries and even those who would prefer not to talk about it.

But we’re neither. Find the complete analysis on Obama’s first 100 days from Center ED John Isaacs here.