Lying Or Incompetent - Either Way, Geithner Needs to Be Fired

by: David Sirota

Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 08:59


I've never been a fan of Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner - he's a Rubinite who has been too close to Wall Street, and too focused on using government power to protect private shareholders. This is the guy who told the Senate that his primary goal in bailing out the financial industry with public money was not to protect the economy or taxpayers,  but instead to use our taxpayer dollars to preserve "a financial system that is run by private shareholders [and] managed by private institutions." Despite my strong disagreements with his ideology, only today have I gotten to the point where I think it's clear he needs to be fired. Why? Because today he proved he's either lying to the public or totally incompetent.
David Sirota :: Lying Or Incompetent - Either Way, Geithner Needs to Be Fired
Two stories explain why I say this. Here's the first, showing us how Geithner insists he only found out about AIG's bonuses a week ago:

WASHINGTON (CNN) - A new timeline released by White House officials late Tuesday evening reveals the president first learned about the $165 million in AIG bonuses last Thursday...The new timeline was released after White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said he was unaware of when President Barack Obama first learned of the bonus controversy and reporters asked that the White House provide a timeline. It also shows that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner first found out about the bonuses from his staff last Tuesday.

Now here's the Associated Press, refuting this timeline:

For months, the Obama administration and members of Congress have known that insurance giant AIG was getting ready to pay huge bonuses while living off government bailouts. It wasn't until the money was flowing and news was trickling out to the public that official Washington rose up in anger and vowed to yank the money back...The situation has the White House and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on the defensive. The administration was caught off guard Tuesday trying to explain why Geithner had waited until last Wednesday to call AIG chief executive Edward M. Liddy and demand that the bonus payments be restructured. Publicly, the White House expressed confidence in Geithner _ but still made it clear he was the one responsible for how the matter was handled.

For the willfully ignorant who would like to pretend that AP is cooking up this story, recall that AP's story isn't even really "news" in that it is merely corroborating what we already know and what has already been widely reported: the AIG bonus contracts being cited by the administration were signed in 2008, and as the 80 percent owner of AIG, the federal government (ie. the Treasury Department and the Obama administration) have had access to the company's books and contracts for many months. Indeed, even if you believe that only the Federal Reserve bank was told about the AIG bonus contracts, recall that Geithner was a top official at the Federal Reserve bank when the AIG bailout was crafted and when AIG was telling the Federal Reserve about its finances and obligations - and the Wall Street Journal reported that Geithner was intimately involved in the AIG bailout (meaning he had access to their books/contracts months ago).

That means either Geithner is lying to the public by pretending he never knew about the AIG bonuses when, in fact he did.* Or, he's egregiously uninformed/incompetent and therefore absolutely unfit to hold one of the most important economic offices in our country.

This comes on top of Geithner and Summers dishonestly insisting that they are unable to stop the AIG bonuses because of Sen. Chris Dodd's (D-CT) executive  compensation legislation that exempted AIG-style bonuses from limits. In fact, as the Wall Street Journal and Hill newspaper long ago reported, Dodd's original bill would have limited such bonuses, but Geithner and Summers specifically forced him to water down his bill because it was "too aggressive." And yet somehow, Geithner and Summers would have us believe the weakening of that legislation - and thus the AIG bonuses - is Dodd's fault, not theirs.

When looked at in sum, what yousee is a Treasury Secretary that is creating a huge economic credibility gap for the Obama administration. He is, in short, undermining Obama's presidency - and it's time for Geithner to go.

* Arguably even worse is the fact that Obama himself knew about the bonuses before the checks were cut, and did absolutely nothing to stop those checks from being cut - but that's fodder for another post altogether.

UPDATE: AP notes that in January 2009, "Reps. Joseph E. Crowley of New York and Paul E. Kanjorski of Pennsylvania wrote to the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department pressing the administration to scrutinize AIG's bonus plans and take steps against excessive payments." So even if you believe Geithner didn't know about the bonuses from his previous work, he was specifically asked to do the work that would have revealed those planned bonuses as far back as January. He either obliged and did the due diligence that would have revealed the bonus contracts, or he ignored the request. That means, as I said earlier in this post, he's either lying about having just found out, or he's incompetent and didn't fulfill what should be the minimum amount of due diligence when a Treasury Secretary hands over billions to what is effectively a government-owned company.


Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Geithner - a public relations disaster (4.00 / 7)
Geithner may be very smart and his judgments may be very sound, but he is a public relations disaster.    For that reason alone he needs to resign.   His position has to have credibility with the American people.    

Geithner's a wuss (4.00 / 3)
I think Geithner's biggest problem is that he's not tough enough. He comes off as a mousy little mashmallow. We need someone in that job with the cajones to stand up to the bigshots of AIG etc.

job? (4.00 / 1)
Is it really the job of the treasury secretary to "stand up" to corporate big shots?  I think we need to make more of a story about AIG, not Geithner.

[ Parent ]
Are you not jumping to conclusions? (4.00 / 1)
It appears to me that an assumption is being made about Geitner and indirectly the administration's competence based on a contradiction between the White House's statement and an AP reporter's statement.  Why would one view the AP report as definitive truth?  How many times in the past, especially during the election, had the AP falsely reported facts on policy or inserted opinion and assumptions of their own that were anything other than bias?  It seems odd to me that we should be looking to reports by the AP or any other news organization as gospel, with which we base snap judgements against the administration on.  It would be more responsible, in my opinion, to view all reporting critically, make note of the discrepancies, and continue to monitor a story's twists and turns until the "truth", or at least as close as we can get to the "truth" is eventually fleshed out before we make proclamations of incompetence or lies.  I do not think we should take the White House's statement as definitive truth either; however, until Obama's administration proves otherwise, I am inclined to give then the benefit of the doubt over the AP, unless of course the story is collaborated by other sources.

Jumping to conclusions??? Openmouth.com? (4.00 / 1)
you're shitting me.

[ Parent ]
The Senate blocked these bonuses (4.00 / 4)
and, according to Wyden, the block was removed with White House pressure.

[ Parent ]
I agree the White House (0.00 / 0)
missed an opportunity to support Wyden/Snowe's amendment which would have not blocked the bonuses, but rather taxed them at 35%; however, the rhetoric in the APs article, "For months, the Obama administration and members of Congress have known that insurance giant AIG was getting ready to pay huge bonuses while living off government bailouts." strikes of hyperbole.  The administration may have known that AIG had the ability to continue to pay bonuses, but the details of how much and to how many may not have been known by Geitner or Obama until recently.  The Obama administration is large, it is a bureaucracy with many individuals making decisions.  I don't think its unreasonable to believe that Geitner nor Obama would have known the details of the bonuses.  I agree that the administration should have fought to allow the Wyden/Snowe amendment to stay in the legislation, but we were not in the meeting and are not privy to the counter argument. Hopefully the details of that meeting will come to light, at which point we may actually be able to assign blame.  Mistakes will be made, they are human after-all; however, I don't think its particularly fair of David to base a judgement of incompetence or lies in Geitner's lap based solely on the idea that the White House's statement is inconsistent with an AP report, especially a report that uses biased rhetoric. I for one do not trust the AP's reports, or any other news agencies reporting, as the end-all-be-all truth.   I agree that Geitner has not been a PR success and makes Obama's job more difficult, but we really do not know how effective a job he is doing after two months of work trying to clean-up a huge mess.  All I'm saying is that criticism is valid and deserved, but declarations of incompetence or dishonesty are a rush to judgement that I think is not warranted (yet).

[ Parent ]
Third and fourth alternatives (4.00 / 4)
3) Geithner doesn't have the staff that would permit him to be on the ball on this.

4) Geithner didn't pay attention to the bonuses because he thinks that executive compensation in general is the least of the problems he has to deal with.  

Darkness has a hunger that's insatiable, and lightness has a call that's hard to hear.  


Support for 4) (0.00 / 0)
See the linked testimony at TPM today. A commenter at EW;s also observed that everything we have seen is the "tip of the iceberg" in terms of a serious fraud investigation.  

Darkness has a hunger that's insatiable, and lightness has a call that's hard to hear.  

[ Parent ]
A few more ideas (4.00 / 3)
I'm sure several of these factors could be operating together and I'd be surprised if 4) wasn't a big factor.  I'll add a couple more:

5) Geithner's in-group membership with the titans of Wall Street means that he's been swimming in a culture where huge financial rewards are expected regardless of performance, and where the public cost of externalizing losses is someone else's worry, and where any public fuss about such things is viewed as a PR problem to be managed, and this ethos shapes his judgment about what a reasonable solution looks like.  He could easily be something short of a purely cynical shill for his peers while still being strongly influenced by the culture he's spent so much time in.

6) Geithner gathered that there would be a battle over the bonuses and wanted to avoid this to keep things moving forward; whether this was timidity on the administration's part or a legitimate perception that people who feel entitled could fight back in a damaging might be hard to say.  Meanwhile they failed to see that the stink over this would be so big once public outrage, attacks from the left, cynical exploitation of the issue by the right and a big media bonanza all came together, and now they look foolish trying to explain themselves without coming out and saying "we rolled over so we could avoid getting hung up on this".  


[ Parent ]
Today's NYT quote (0.00 / 0)
"Late on Tuesday, Mr. Geithner and White House officials sent a letter to Congress seeking quick action on legislation to give the government more power to intervene and wind down companies like A.I.G.--as well as Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers before it-- that are huge players in the financial system but yet are not regulated the way banks are.
The administration had planned to seek such regulatory powers as part of a broad revamping of financial regulations, but it is expediting this piece in response to the AIG conflagration.
In the letter, Mr. Geithner confirmed that the government would subtract $165 million--the amount of the bonuses--from a coming $30 billion loan to A.I.G. that would bring the total loans to $200 billion from the original $85 billion."

I will also admit cheering for the Rahm quote in this article.  

Darkness has a hunger that's insatiable, and lightness has a call that's hard to hear.  


This intellectually insulting shell game (4.00 / 6)
They're going to add money to aig's bill that will never be repaid anyway unless you believe that aig is going to repay back $170B and counting ... mind you the INDIVIDUALS that got this money keep it and won't be paying it back. What mind-splitting nonsense! tarp, talf and now another bullshit little scheme by geithner!

Z


[ Parent ]
Right (0.00 / 0)
Taking the $165 million away is trying to call back the outrage. But trying to give the government more control over how the company is wound down means a) that Geithner is trying to advance more regulation, b) that Geithner is trying to prevent AIG having the government over a barrel in general, and c) that they may get back more of their money.  

Darkness has a hunger that's insatiable, and lightness has a call that's hard to hear.  

[ Parent ]
Lying or Incompetent (4.00 / 4)
Can it be both?

They lie all the time because to tell the truth about contents of int'l negotiations, money to despots and sheikhs, the grim reality of the future "wouldn't sell well".

The incompetence is manifest; the man couldn't do his own taxes.

Keep it up, David. Your peers are coming around to your p.o.v., albeit far too slow and far too late.


simmer down people (0.00 / 0)
not sure how or when Geithner knew, but I am sure it will all come out soon.   We gave AIG Billions upon billions and are scheduled to give them more billions and everyone's got their panties in a wad over 165 million in bonuses that contractually pre-dated any bailout money.  

The truth is if we really wanted to curtail any bonuses, that should have been done during the the writing of the stimulas package.  Geithner and Summers might have tossed blame to Chris Dodd, but it sounds to me that have all the reason to do so.  Chris Dodd ultimately changed the wording in the legislation that allowed the bonuses to go through.  Seeing how he is the largest recipient of AIG's contribution funds ($103K), it makes him look very dirty.  Perhaps Geithner and Summers should have made a better effort to try and stop this, but I don't blame them one bit for pointing the finger where it should be pointed...at Dodd.  It's probably safe to say this will seal his faith for re-election.


more of an effort to prevent Dodd from doing this? (4.00 / 4)
geithner and summers made plenty of effort to prevent Dodd from doing the exact opposite!  It was thanks to their strenuous efforts that Dodd's bill did NOT prevent these bonuses from going to aig big wigs.

http://firedoglake.com/2009/03...

Z


[ Parent ]
Dodd was asked to change the wording (4.00 / 3)
By one Lawrence Henry Summers, and one Timothy Franz Geithner, late of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

So I'd say that we can blame them for pointing the finger at Dodd. Dodd may have been dumb to listen to that pair of kleptocratic knuckle-heads, but the greater part of the blame ought to attach itself, much like an anchor round the neck, to them and their careers in this administration.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog


[ Parent ]
Dodd is a U.S. Senator (0.00 / 0)
he represents the people.  Geithner and Summer's did not.  Dodd made a choice at the behest of the administration.  Well, it was the wrong choice. Instead of chosing the people he swore to protect, he chose politics and money.  no one twisted his arm.  

[ Parent ]
geithner AND summers MUST GO (4.00 / 5)
summers is a behind the scenes operator ... imo, he is geithner's cheney.  

on a macro level, he is very responsible for the lack of government regulations, which he hypocritically decried with his outrage for tv act on sunday, that led to this mess.  on a more micro level, he fought against legislation that would have taken away these sorts of bonuses ... likely fought against retroactive provisions on the bonuses that apparently dodd was supposedly in favor of ... and then assured congress to "leave it to me, i'll take care of it" while he in fact did not.  this is the way that summers operates: taking the teeth out of legislation so that it effectively has no enforcement powers and plenty of loopholes while assuring congress that he's got a better idea that somehow never comes to fruition ... which congress very willingly accedes to.  he also apparently has effectively boxed out Volcker from having any say in these matters becoz he knows that volcker is not wall street centric.  

so, again, that's the way that summers operates: working behind the scenes to make sure that voices that may conflict with his pro-wall street agenda never get heard and have any influence, and neutralizing opposing forces that he can't ignore by assuring them that he is on the same side as them and working on an effective remedy that somehow never comes.  then he goes on tv, feigns outrage about aig, the lack of regulations on wall street, babbles about the rule of law and then tosses his hands up in the air and says that there is nothing we can do about it now as if he is also a victim to it all while he has been deceitfully operating behind the scenes aiding and abetting the whole disaster that benefits the same wall street forces that his work has been serving his whole entire "public" career.  

BOTH summers AND geithner MUST GO IMO.

Z


Rattner (0.00 / 0)
If Geithner goes, it'll be Steve "Bloomberg's Moneyman" Rattner that steps up. Is that really much better?

Geithner is a civil servant. Rattner is a multi-millionaire (billionaire?).


geithner is wall street's servant maasquerading as a civil servant (0.00 / 0)
Z

[ Parent ]
That's Y the republicans never objected to him ... (4.00 / 1)
... despite the absurdity of having a guy that would be overseeing the irs caught cheating on his taxes.  wall street wanted him ... he was knee deep in tarp with paulsen b4 he became sot ... and wall street gets what it wants from both parties.

Z


[ Parent ]
i've had enough (4.00 / 2)
of the fox guarding the hen house attitude in wash, this is just another example of putting an insider in charge of a problem, as an insider geithner is the wrong man for the job, as his performance so far has proved, if you can call what he has done so far a performance.

So far no one has written the word "nationalize" in this thread... (4.00 / 1)
The real reason Geithner needs to go is because of his unconscionable foot-dragging to embrace the Sweden solution, which most sensible economists have leaned towards since the first day of the Obama presidency.

Each additional week and month of this policy is killing us politically & practically.

Harold Meyerson's opinion piece in the Post puts it plainly enough, though I'm sure my learned friends on this site have been reading all of Krugman's deeper explanations.


There's an interview with Charlie Rose (0.00 / 0)
where Geithner seems to comment that most of the adjustment of the financial industry has already occurred, which suggests that it was always about consolidation.

Three peas in a pod (0.00 / 0)
Geithner knew of the bonuses since September of 2008, along with Federal Reserve Ben Bernanke and then SOT Henry Paulson.

fire gietner, summers, bernanke (0.00 / 0)
they never should have gotten the job, they are too much a part of the broken system, we need real progressives, we need people who will stand up to wall street and the fed,

Lets start throwing some names around for replacements,
-that fdic chick,
-spitzer,seriously, we all know he would half all the bozos in jail tomm.
-ralph nader

whatever you think people owe you, that is what you owe people


USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox