AOL News has a new home! The Huffington Post.
Click here to visit the new home of Politics Daily!
For his part, the player himself, who replaces Peter Orszag, comes widely recommended and is expected to easily win Senate confirmation. Previous to his work at OMB under Clinton, Lew served on the National Security Council, where he worked with then-Director Sandy Berger, who described Lew as "extraordinarily bright" and "very successful." As Berger recounted, "Each year, every agency submits their budgets, which are usually 20 to 30 percent higher than what will fit in the budget. There's an enormous amount at stake for the agencies in these budgets, and Jack had to be the heavy in telling them what would get cut. But everybody always walked away from their meetings [with Lew] having felt that they had a good hearing, and that Jack was very fair. It's a tribute to him."Newt Gingrich and the Republicans are responsible for anything good that came out of the Clinton administration as far as the economy or the budget.
July 17 2010 at 8:24 PM Report abuse Permalink +3 rate up rate down ReplyMr. Lew held the OMB position from, 1998 to 2001, Republicans were in the majority these years, in both houses. Gee, I wonder, why he is considered to be successful. Congress held tight budgets. In other words he had a Congress who did the job right along with him. Smart move on Clinton's part.
Now, does anyone really believe that this Congress will be able to have the discipline to do this? I, personally, don't think so, and when he fails, it will be his fault, never the fault of this Congress, they know to much and they like spending your money.
Supporting 1 party over the other is @ best the 'LESSER of 2 Evils'
... FACT: both parties have SHOWN us there incompetance!! Support NEITHER and Throw out ALL Incumbents!!
What I want to know is "Where was Grover Norquist when Bush and his cronies ran up an additional 5 trillion and then screwed up the economy so bad his successor and he had to spend another trillion and half to keep the country from going bankrupt. They like their philosophy are bankrupt of ideas.
July 16 2010 at 10:32 PM Report abuse Permalink -9 rate up rate down ReplyPeople apparently don't like this comment. Could someone please answer the question?
July 17 2010 at 9:00 PM Report abuse Permalink -2 rate up rate down ReplyI don't know why this author chose Norquist, but at the time Bush was in office, he was doing his own thing. He worked in the Reagan era and the Bush Sr. terms, but after that he was busy doing his own thing. Why would that be of relevance here? He would have had nothing to do with the Bush Administration. This author chose him for his own reasons, nothing more.
July 17 2010 at 10:29 PM Report abuse Permalink +1 rate up rate down ReplyFollow Politics Daily
POPULAR
News From Our Partners




Top News
More News
More on Aol
Local News
More Blog/Sites
Sites and Services
5 Comments