General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNew Chief Of Staff, A Low Key, Long-Time Insider
*snip*
In choosing Lew to run his White House, President Barack Obama on Monday completed an arc of chiefs-of-staff, from the fiery Emanuel and his grasp of legislative intrigue, to William Daley and his ties to the business community to, now, Lew, a budget specialist with expertise on the inner workings of the executive branch.
At age 56, Lew's career has placed him at the center of power for three decades. He was a top aide in the 1980s to then-House Speaker Tip O'Neill. His office mate in those days was Chris Matthews, now the colorful and occasionally combative MSNBC host.
Lew was director of the Office of Management and Budget, his current post, back in the Clinton administration, serving from 1998 to early 2001, prompting Obama to praise him as the "only budget director in history to preside over budget surpluses for three consecutive years."
"Over the past year he has helped strengthen our economy and streamline the government at a time when we need to do everything we can to keep our recovery going," Obama said. "Jack's economic advice has been invaluable and he has my complete trust, both because of his mastery of the numbers but because of the values behind those numbers."
Lew is well-regarded by Republicans, though he is likely to be perceived as more of a partisan than Daley, who had a close relationship with the corporate community.
More here: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i-k4gmbtaZiUpvw4_8H5T_eSGiqA?docId=798cecc332dc46c2969dd1fd2b778fa9
SixthSense
(829 posts)""only budget director in history to preside over budget surpluses for three consecutive years."
we haven't had a fiscal year surplus since 1957
and the one calendar year surplus we had under Clinton was the product of stealing SS surpluses for general spending
Guy must be amazing if he can preside over things that don't even exist and/or time travel from the 1950s
SunsetDreams
(8,571 posts)"...But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while."
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/
SixthSense
(829 posts)Not a single year since 1957 has the national debt gone down year over year. If there was an actual surplus it would have reduced the debt. How can we have a surplus and yet end up more in debt? The only way to accomplish that is to play pretend games with the numbers as far as what counts towards surplus and what doesn't (off budget, cost-shifting, and other accounting games). The plain fact of the matter is that the national debt has risen every year since 1957.
The debt numbers are more reliable than the official budget numbers because the official budget numbers can be fudged with accounting tricks, while the total debt outstanding on the national credit cannot.
Factcheck doesn't have this correct because it's not accounting for off-budget spending and only in the alternate scenario it presents accounting for Social Security spending, but the money still got spent and the debt still accrued.
If you still want to insist we had a surplus those years, fine - but that just removes the significance of the number you are referring to. The point of a surplus is that you have more than you had before the surplus, an improvement in the net position on the national balance sheet. That didn't actually happen as the debt number shows.
tavalon
(27,985 posts)Why does it still smell bad?
SunsetDreams
(8,571 posts)tavalon
(27,985 posts)Howard Dean.
SunsetDreams
(8,571 posts)Dean told Chris Matthews on MSNBCs "Hardball" that "I didn't do this for the spoils. I did this for the country. I'm very happy that Barack Obama is president, and I think he's picked a great Cabinet. And I'm pretty happy. I wouldn't trade my position for any other position right now. I'm going to go into the private sector, make a living making speeches, and do a lot of stuff on health care policy."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Dean
Edited to add: Howard Dean is with McKenna, Long & Aldridge now http://www.mckennalong.com/professionals-1224.html
tavalon
(27,985 posts)I'm quite sure that Howard Dean is right where he's supposed to be because he's just that kind of guy. Grounded and dare I say it, spiritual. In the right action, right time, right place kind of way.
SunsetDreams
(8,571 posts)I like your preference, and I think he would be awesome in the role! Who knows? Maybe he will come back in the fray at some point.
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)But it's not going to happen. My second choice of Barney Frank is unlikely either.
There is a sign of daylight: "He attended Carleton College in Minnesota where his faculty adviser was Paul Wellstone"
I've frankly been disappointed with the President's choices for this post, and I'm unhappy with Jay Carney too as Press Secretary; would it kill Axelrod and Obama to pick someone with some gravitas. I'm frankly a little worried we aren't cultivating the next generation of Democratic leaders.
Maybe this is why the White House has seemed kinda moribund lately...I mean after the Christmas showdown you'd think they'd come out swinging. Clearly, Daley has been being a drag on the White House and is now being sent packing. I'm a huge Obama supporter, but I don't ignore bad news, and I don't hold my tongue even sometimes where I'm told I should. We can and must do better than what we've been getting - I don't blame Obama for all of this; the White House is a team.
tavalon
(27,985 posts)We'll see how it goes next term. I hope, hope, hope Obama and his team go for a real and magnificent legacy, not at all based on the already given legacy of being the first black President. I would love it if Team Obama hit so many balls out of the park next term that nobody remembered the color of his skin, just the content of his soul.
Mahalo.