Today, the Wall Street Journal reported that the “number of consumers with delinquent mortgages is poised to almost double by the end of next year, hitting its highest level in at least 16 years.” In the fourth quarter of 2009, it is estimated that 7.17 percent of consumers will have mortgages that are 60 days or more past-due.

The Wonk Room has been arguing for some time that addressing the housing crisis is the best way to stem the overall financial meltdown. At the forefront of the effort to offer mortgage modifications is Sheila Bair, Chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC). Bair has put forth a plan that — for $24 billion — would help 1.5 million Americans avoid foreclosure. Thus far, however, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has rebuffed her request to pull that $24 billion from the $700 billion Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP).

Today on CNN, Bair was asked where the “the logic” is in Paulson’s refusal to let her implement her plan. Bair only laughed, later saying she and Paulson have “different perspectives on this issue.” Watch it:

A report being released today by the Government Accountability Office states that Treasury has “yet to address a number of critical issues” in combating the financial crisis. Elizabeth Warren, chairwoman of the Congressional panel overseeing the TARP, said that Treasury seems “to be lurching from one tactic to the next without clarifying how each step fits into an overall plan.”

However, there might still be hope for Paulson seeing the light. Yesterday, he signaled that Treasury is “actively engaged” in developing new financial rescue programs to be presented to Congress when they are “ready for implementation.”

Bair’s plan is ready. It would behoove Paulson to give her the money to act on it.

Our guest blogger is Brian Levine, a Senior Policy Adviser at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

The United States faces an economic imperative to develop reliable, affordable, clean sources of energy and use them more efficiently. In the face of deep economic challenges and a rising federal budget deficit, some have argued that the United States should postpone its investments in a clean energy supply. But the opposite is true. There is widespread agreement that running a deficit to pay for an economic stimulus and recovery plan is necessary now. Investing in clean energy creates jobs in the short run, helps combat global warming, spurs long-term growth, and ultimately helps restore fiscal balance by improving our economic circumstances.

Our dependence on oil leaves us vulnerable to higher and higher prices in the coming decades, continued price volatility and shocks, and the demands of hostile and unstable countries. Climate change caused by reliance on fossil fuels is leading to stronger hurricanes and other storms, floods caused by rising sea levels and massive precipitation, droughts, and heat waves that will ultimately cost trillions of dollars a year.

These are the reasons why we need action on clean energy, and it should proceed in two stages. First, we should act immediately to invest in a green stimulus and recovery plan, creating desperately needed jobs and beginning the transition to a clean and more efficient energy future. Second, in 2009 we must begin putting in place an economy-wide greenhouse gas cap-and-trade program—the best long-term solution to catastrophic climate change—as a central component of a comprehensive clean energy strategy.

Yesterday, Gov. Ed Rendell (D-PA), New York Times columnist Tom Friedman, and Obama transition adviser Carol Browner met at the Center for American Progress to discuss these challenges and opportunities. The complete session, introduced by CAP’s Joe Romm and moderated by Bracken Hendricks, can be watched online here. In the following excerpt, Rendell discusses the future of renewable energy, coal, and regional transport, and Friedman explains the meaning behind the title of his new book, “Hot, Flat and Crowded.”

Watch it:

Our nation faces great economic challenges. Immediate government investments will help put us on a path to recovery while also speeding the arrival of an economy powered with clean, sustainable, and secure sources of energy. We cannot be confident of sustainable economic growth in the future unless we also move ahead with the important structural transformation to a low-carbon economy.

Read the full memo on the Economic Imperative for Clean Energy.

Over the weekend, the Wall Street Journal reported that a “face-off is brewing between labor and employers” in regards to the Employee Free Choice Act, which would aid American workers in the path toward unionization. Indeed, despite the bill having widespread public support, the debate surrounding it is becoming increasingly vitriolic.

The Wonk Room previously highlighted Home Depot founder Bernie Marcus’ assertion that retailers who are not fighting the Free Choice Act “should be shot.” Now, the United States Chamber of Commerce has upped the ante, saying that the “coming fight in Congress over the issue” is a “firestorm bordering on Armageddon.”

In its efforts to stifle the act, the Chamber launched a $10 million campaign against it last week:

The chamber deployed a network of operatives in a number of key Senate races this year and campaigned aggressively — on the air and on the ground — against the card-check legislation. It will be maintaining those operations, hoping to win over some senators and peel back others, in addition to running TV ads. Last week it released the first in a series of reports refuting what it calls union rhetoric.

The Chamber claims that the Free Choice Act would end the use of secret ballots in union elections. However, the act is not really about the secret ballot at all, but about elections that “are anything but free and fair.” As Josh Blevins noted, elections are currently “one-sided affairs dominated by the employer.”

American Rights at Work recently released a report showing that “many employers blatantly violate” the National Labor Relations Act by “firing, demoting, or retaliating against workers for their support of a union [and] ignoring their duty to negotiate a contract.” Ultimately, employers have little reason to follow current unionizing laws “as the financial disincentives of violating the law are minimal.”

What the Free Choice Act does is give workers another option — one in which they will be able to avoid these kinds of employer intimidation and delays.