Why has the administration’s flagship foreclosure prevention program been so ineffective in helping struggling homeowners get loan modifications and stay in their homes? One reason: The government’s supervision of the program has apparently ranged from nonexistent to weak.

[. . .] “For two years, they’ve known how abysmal servicers were performing, and decided to do nothing,” said Neil Barofsky, the former special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, better known as TARP or the bank bailout, which provided the money for HAMP. “It demonstrates that if you have a set of rules for which compliance is completely voluntary and no meaningful consequences for those who violate them, having all the audits and reviews in the world are not going to make a bit of difference,” he continued. “It’s why the program has been a colossal failure.”

Remember, this was the Obama Administration's major initiative to address the homeowners crisis in America. Geithner is an incompetent scoundrel. If Obama loses next year, it will be because of Tim Geithner.

Speaking for me only

Via Greg Sargent, who writes:

The story here is not what the White House said but that it was asked to weigh in on the protests at all — another sign of the remarkable speed with which it has grown from a crowd chanting at police two weeks ago. As for the substance of the White House response, it would have been a mistake for it to go any further than it did here — registering an understanding of economic frustration. Because if there’s one thing that’s growing clearer by the hour, it’s that this is an entirely organic effort, one that’s about nobody but the protestors themselves.

I think Greg misses an important point - the White House's cozy relationship with Wall Street is part of what is being protested. Hard to see an Administration that has Tim Geithner as Treasury Secretary being in tune with a protest against Wall Street. BTW, as long as offering "an agenda" to Occupy Wall Street seems to be the latest rage, here's my contribution - demand the firing of Tim Geithner.

NYTimes:

The Obama administration asked the Supreme Court on Wednesday to hear a case concerning the 2010 health care overhaul law. The development came unexpectedly fast and makes it all but certain that the court will soon agree to hear one or more cases involving challenges to the law, with arguments by the spring and a decision by June, in time to land in the middle of the 2012 presidential campaign.

This is an interesting development, and to me, surprising. Policywise, I am not sure I see the urgency. As a matter of politics, I need to think about this one. (Alternate thought, POTUS team believes SCOTUS wants to hear the case in 2012. IF so better to look as if you want it too.)

In terms of legal tactics, I think it is not smart. Scalia and Kennedy seem less likely to vote with the Administration in an election year to me. Better for the case to be decided in 2013 it seems to me.

Speaking for me only

Last night, the Senate confirmed six U.S. Attorneys, five of whom were the preference of Republicans. Traditionally, nominations for U.S. Attorneys are presented to the President by the senators of the district. If the district's senators are not in the President's party, representatives from the House who are in the same party are consulted.

President Obama. however, has chosen to ignore tradition and nominate U.S. Attorneys preferred by Republican senators, against the advice of House Democrats. [More...]

President Obama issues a Presidential Memorandum on Major Illicit Drug Transit today.

Obama says he almost put Canada on the list for being a major transit point for Marijuana and Ecstasy. He also praised the African countries that worked on the DEA's Excellent African Adventures.

What effect does the Memorandum have? Legally, it's the same as an Executive Order, but this one doesn't seem to call for any action. It also doesn't seem to be tied to a denial or reduction in aid to these countries. Is it the opposite? A prelude to spending more money on the drug war in these countries? (Added: BBC News article on memo is here.)

Jacob Sullum has the October cover story at Reason on President Obama: Bummer: Barack Obama Turns Out to Be Just Another Drug Warrior." As if anyone should be surprised.

I'm not. I've been writing since 2007 that he would do little to temper the War on Drugs. I would have called the article "Bummer: Barack Obama is Still A Drug Warrior." Why?

[More....]

Here's President Obama just after he was elected in 2009, promising "reform" of both Medicare and Social Security.

President-elect Barack Obama pledged yesterday to shape a new Social Security and Medicare "bargain" with the American people, saying that the nation's long-term economic recovery cannot be attained unless the government finally gets control over its most costly entitlement programs.

..."What we have done is kicked this can down the road. We are now at the end of the road and are not in a position to kick it any further," he said. "We have to signal seriousness in this by making sure some of the hard decisions are made under my watch, not someone else's."

.... "Social Security, we can solve," he said, waving his left hand. "The big problem is Medicare, which is unsustainable. . . . We can't solve Medicare in isolation from the broader problems of the health-care system."

[More....]

President Obama has unveiled his $447 billion jobs proposal

President Obama is now speaking. "It's an urgent time." Live blog follows:

Having to watch Boehner behind him ruins it from the outset. Obama says something speechy and gets a standing ovation.

He's sending Congress the American Jobs Act. There's nothing controversial about it. Everything in it will be paid for. Everything. It will create more jobs teachers, construction workers.

It will cut payroll taxes in half for every worker and every small business. It will provide a jolt or a stalled economy. You should pass this jobs plan right away.[More..]

The SuperCommittee Henchmen meet today. Raising medicare eligibility to age 67 is on the table for discussions. The Democrats have submitted a memo with various proposed changes and a discussion of each. Here's the memo. Raising the eligibility age appears on page 7.

President Obama proposed raising the Medicare eligibility age as part of the debt-ceiling agreement, but Democrats are hardly united behind the policy.

The Democrats note that it's not going to be a money saver -- it's just going to shift who pays the money. They give the same reasons I gave last month. [More...]

Matt Yglesias writes:

Henry Blodget has an intelligent article arguing that Bank of America may soon be in need of another bailout, and proposing a Swedish-style nationalization as an alternative. He lays it all out and it’s pretty compelling.

That said, I’m not sure that any of the underlying problems with the early 2009 version of this idea have actually been resolved. [. . .] Blodget['s] proposal, however, is for Geithner to “set a ‘trigger price’ for Bank of America stock” that is kept secret from the public and from Bank of America. Then if the price if breached, Treasury will nationalize the bank and do various things. Nowhere does Blodget note that this would be illegal. My read of the views inside the Treasury Building is that they think illegal seizures of private property would have undesirable impacts.

Consider it your daily reminder that in the American system of government, things generally require coordinated action between the executive branch and Congress to happen. What do you think the prospects are for timely congressional action on a new bank nationalization program? Not good. So we’ll muddle through.

I'm not sure on the legality of the proposal, but consider this proposal regarding Bank of America:

Via Atrios, HuffPo on OFA's idea of rallying the progressive troops:

The Obama campaign's point person in New Mexico recently sent an email to supporters defending the president's position on the debt deal and bashing the "Firebagger Lefty blogosphere," including the Nobel Prize winning New York Times columnist Paul Krugman.

That'll work.

Obama's approval rating is tanking -- it's now below 40%, the lowest of his Presidency.

Congress is faring even worse. More than 80% of Americans disapprove of the job Congress is doing, and plenty don't plan to vote for incumbents:

Just 18% of registered voters in a Washington Post survey said they were inclined to vote to re-elect their representative in Congress -- the lowest number in more than two decades (only once before had it ever dipped below 30%).

Obama and the Democrats should promise a lock box on the Medicare eligibility age and on social security benefits. And warn the Republicans that tax hikes for the rich are coming whether they like it or not. (Someone has to pay for the wars Republicans got us into.) Seniors vote in huge numbers and Medicare and Social Security are major issues for them. As for Republicans and the Tea Party: all wind but no sail. I'm not even paying attention to them. As bad as our incumbents are, they are worse. And most people know it. People may be amused by crackpots, but they don't vote for them.