Good question: Why didn’t Geithner think of it?

From Truthdig:

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has sent Congress an explanation of his plan to deal with the AIG bonus fiasco. Essentially, Treasury will dock the $165 million in bonuses from AIG’s next bailout payment. Here’s a question: If AIG can do without that $165 million, why were we giving it to the company in the first place?

This question, in the end, is the operative one — and one that could damage the Obama administration’s credibility with the American people. The AIG debacle has ignited a firestorm that could engulf Obama and his economic advisers.

The reality is that this mess is wonderfully (sarcasm alert) bipartisan — a bailout negotiated by the Bush administration and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and exemptions for AIG and others pushed by the Obama financial team has created federally subsidized bonuses for bad behavior. What should happen now is that the Obama administration should step up and take responsibility for its role in the AIG fiasco, work to recoup the bonuses and put tough rules in place to prevent it from happening again.

Negotiating a budget

Leading, reacting? Does it matter if the policy that results is a good one? The fact is that the development of a state budget has to be a conversation among many parties — the governor, the Legislature, the state’s citizens, the business community and its advocacy groups. The document, which is the single most important policy document any government can craft, outlines priorities and assigns dollar amounts to allow the state to put them into practice. The process, which begins with the governor’s budget address and unveiling of his budget, only works when everyone speaks his or her mind and is willing to compromise.

A healthy piece of news

The New York Times is reporting today on the unusual cooperation between House committees on health care — which could mean real progress toward reform.

Such agreements, while no guarantee of success, could help build momentum for a bill. A united front could make it harder for lobbyists to derail legislation. White House officials welcomed the prospect of cooperation by House leaders, saying it increased the chances of passing a bill to expand coverage this year, a top priority for Mr. Obama.

Many issues, including the question of how to pay for it, are unresolved. But the House chairmen said they had informally agreed to plow ahead on the assumptions that individuals would be required to carry insurance and that most employers would be required to help pay for it.

This would appear to be good news, though I am concerned that by taking single-payer off the table we are starting from a weak position, creating the likelihood that the reforms that end up being crafted will fail to accomplish what should be the ultimate goal: universal coverage at a reasonable price that includes incentives for preventative care.