HAMP'D: Geithner May Quit

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Obama Administration
Posted on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 06:41:17 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Let's hope this rumor is true:

Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner is considering leaving the Obama administration after a deal is reached to reduce the federal deficit, two officials familiar with his thinking said Wednesday. If Mr. Geithner does exit later this year, he would be the last member of Mr. Obama’s economic brain trust to leave the administration, after two-and-a-half years of turmoil, during which the White House confronted a financial crisis, a historic recession, near double-digit unemployment, and a recovery that has yet to gain traction.

Geithner's record of disastrous service, first as head of the New York Fed, and then as the worst Treasury Secretary since Mellon, should leave him a disgraced man. But one name floated would make Geithner look better:

Erskine Bowles, former chief of staff to President Clinton and co-chairman of President Obama’s deficit commission, commands respect in Democratic policy circles. So does Roger Altman, an investment banker and former deputy Treasury secretary in the Clinton years. Two current officials regarded as credible candidates are Janet Yellen, the vice chair of the Federal Reserve and Gene Sperling, director of the National Economic Council, who previously served as a lieutenant to Mr. Geithner.

Erskine Bowles? WTF?

Speaking for me only

< Mortgage Exec Lee Farkas Sentenced to 30 Years | Saving Casey Anthony's Life >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

HAMP'D: Geithner May Quit | 47 comments (47 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Brad DeLong (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 07:02:06 PM EST

Jared Bernstein.

Bernstein (none / 0) (#8)
by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 07:13:39 PM EST

has jumped ship already.


He asked who I would name (none / 0) (#9)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 07:15:12 PM EST

Not who I think will be named.


Under those parameters ... (none / 0) (#14)
by Robot Porter on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 07:51:11 PM EST

my choice would be Rafael Correa. He's an economist.


: I nominate Dadler... (5.00 / 2) (#32)
by kdog on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 08:50:58 PM EST

he has great ideas about currency, and how it is supposed to serve the human race instead of the human race serving currency.

One way to thread the needle (none / 0) (#16)
by andgarden on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 07:54:45 PM EST

could be Paul Volker. Except, lots of downsides, and he's not amazing substantively either.


One question I have is why.... (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by Romberry on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 07:18:12 PM EST

...Erskine Bowles Jr. "commands respect in Democratic policy circles"? Anyone have an answer that holds up to examination for loyal Democratic (or in my case, formerly loyal Democratic) voters?

It seems to me that a great many of the people who "command respect in Democratic policy circles" are people I don't really regard as Democrats, or at least not people I would regard as Democrats on the side of the working and middle classes.

Is it necessary to be on the side of completely destroying what is left of FDR's New Deal and LBJ's Great Society to "command respect" in Democratic policy circles? Like I said, it sure seems that way...

: With (none / 0) (#11)
by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 07:20:25 PM EST

Erskine I can't say for sure but I was living in NC when his Dad, Skipper, was running for governor. Perhaps it's nothing more than having a long association with the party which his family apparently does.

Doesn't matter who the replacement is (5.00 / 2) (#13)
by shoephone on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 07:46:59 PM EST

The name will change, but the approach will be the same.

With apologies to all those who are (5.00 / 3) (#19)
by Anne on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 08:14:51 PM EST

offended by the invocation of the Lord's name...oh, for the love of God...

Swapping out Geithner for Bowles is just perfect: who better to head up Treasury than the co-chair of the Deficit Commission? Now, there is a man who gets it, who gets Obama, who will be perfectly positioned to see to the implementation of all the austerity measures soon to come.

Can we please - please - dispense with the idea that Obama is some kind of liberal/progressive savant who has any real Democratic sensibilities?

I guess somewhere, Ronald Reagan is smiling.

I'll take an early money (none / 0) (#1)
by BTAL on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 06:53:05 PM EST

long odds bet on that one.

Yeah (none / 0) (#2)
by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 06:54:48 PM EST

Erskine Bowles would not be a good choice. Not sure about Altman or Yellen but no Sperling who's previously served under Geither.

Of course, since I think Erskine Bowles would a bad choice, that is who Obama will pick to replace Geither.

Well, it could be worse, by a hair: (none / 0) (#5)
by KeysDan on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 07:00:58 PM EST

It could be the other co-chair of the Catfood Commission.


Okay (none / 0) (#7)
by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 07:03:19 PM EST

Checked on Altman. He wrote this Op-ed piece in the WSJ. He at least understands that we have a revenue problem.


But he's still (none / 0) (#20)
by Warren Terrer on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 08:18:03 PM EST

a deficit hawk. That op-ed is exactly 2 years old, i.e. he was harping on the deficit 2 years ago while the administration was still in stimulus mode. Not good.


Oh, I know (5.00 / 2) (#21)
by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 08:22:05 PM EST

I'm just saying that he's at least half right which is better than Geither who is 100% wrong.

The thing I got about that Op-Ed is that Bush ruined everything and so now we have to cut. WHERE WERE ALL THESE PEOPLE WHEN BUSH WAS RUNNING UP THE NATIONAL DEBT is what I would like to know. And yes, I am shouting.


With all due respect, the first thing (5.00 / 3) (#23)
by Anne on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 08:33:27 PM EST

you ought to consider doing is not buying into any part of the debt/deficit argument, because as soon as you start to question where anyone was when anyone else was "running up the deficit" you have opened the door to the argument that it is up to us, as sane Democrats, to DO SOMETHING NOW to correct this irresponsible behavior.

The problem has never been the deficit, in and of itself, but the refusal of those in power to use the government's ability to spend on programs and initiatives that create jobs and increase aggregate demand.

We need to stop buying into the phony arguments in any way, because once you concede that deficits and debt are a problem, it's all over. They win.


I understand (none / 0) (#25)
by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 08:37:19 PM EST

but if you are going to have a discussion on it without acknowledging there is a revenue problem then you shouldn't even be discussing the issue.

I mean at least Altman, even though he is talking about the deficit, is at least admitting that there's a revenue problem instead of, and yes, i'm looking at the GOP here, acting like you're insane and just thinking that you can ignore 1/2 of the equation.


Thing is (none / 0) (#29)
by Warren Terrer on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 08:42:03 PM EST

there isn't really a revenue problem. There is an aggregate demand problem which needs spending to correct. Increasing revenue drains money from the economy causing a decrease of spending. Saying that there is a revenue problem is still accepting the frame that the deficit is too big, when in fact it's too small.


Well (none / 0) (#30)
by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 08:49:07 PM EST

I wasn't addressing that in terms of the economy. I agree the problem is aggregate demand. My stance is that IF you are going to discuss the deficit without even talking about a revenue problem is just simply insane.

Altman does make a good point about consumers being loaded down with debt but he doesn't really discuss the underlying reason--the housing market and declining wages and offers no solution for that problem.


As soon as you connect revenue to (none / 0) (#34)
by Anne on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 08:59:05 PM EST

the deficit, you are back where they want you; as Warren pointed out, we don't have a revenue problem.

Think about it: where does revenue come from? If it's not coming from the government, it's coming out of the economy.


: I'm talking (none / 0) (#45)
by Ga6thDem on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 09:26:05 AM EST

here about the deficit kind of in a vacuum not as it relates to the economy. Yes, part of the revenue problem is that unemployment is so high.
Basically all I'm saying is that while Altman is a deficit hawk like others, he at least realizes that you can't "cut" your way out of it.

Fair enough (none / 0) (#35)
by Warren Terrer on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 08:59:36 PM EST

I'd take him over Catfood Bowles.


Warren (5.00 / 0) (#22)
by Warren Terrer on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 08:32:58 PM EST

Mosler, Randall Wray, Scott Fullwiler and Stephanie Kelton are the leading MMT economists in the country right now. I'd go with one of them.


We are more likely to see pigs fly (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by Anne on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 08:36:23 PM EST

than see an MMT economist installed at Treasury.


Oh I agree (none / 0) (#26)
by Warren Terrer on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 08:37:37 PM EST

but I'm just adding my two cents.


How about (none / 0) (#27)
by Warren Terrer on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 08:39:03 PM EST

Jamie Galbraith? He's more or less MMT but he's also got that great Democratic adviser pedigree.


Galbraith would work for me, but (5.00 / 3) (#31)
by Anne on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 08:50:40 PM EST

the thing is, if Obama had been appointing people you and I thought would be good for the situation we were facing at the time Obama was elected, not only wouldn't we need to be having this conversation, I suspect our overall economic situation would be considerably better than it is now.

Obama doesn't see things as we do; it's just that simple. And just that sad.


: Agreed (5.00 / 2) (#33)
by Warren Terrer on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 08:56:34 PM EST

Obama is more likely to come out and admit that he's a secret Muslim born in Kenya than appoint anyone your or I would like to see as Treasury Secretary. But I can dream, can't I?

Jamie Gaibraith (none / 0) (#28)
by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 08:40:54 PM EST

is the best name anyone here has put forward IMO. I would be all for that! No chance of Obama appointing him though.


See. Out of the frying pan and (none / 0) (#3)
by inclusiveheart on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 06:57:27 PM EST

into the fire. Depressing, but not at all surprising.

Here's a ditty (none / 0) (#12)
by Jackson Hunter on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 07:39:48 PM EST

to celebrate his long overdue departure, I just hope I am as trashed as them when Geithner goes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSCvvn5Hn4w

I'm not sure if I can embed, but just click or copy/paste. It's a crappy performance, but that makes it better in a way. LOL

Jackson

Think about this: (none / 0) (#15)
by NYShooter on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 07:54:26 PM EST

And Geithner makes 5. This means that not a single inner circle adviser has stuck it out for even one term.

Can you imagine? After sticking up for his team all this time, against the advice of so many superior economists, and not one of his closest aides wants to have his name, and reputation, associated with this debacle.

He has to do something very dramatic, none of the names being floated comes close.

As it stands now, the election is the Republican's to lose.

As I stated in another thread, the only name I can think of with the creds needed is Elliot Spitzer. I know, I know, but he scares the crap out of Wall St, and I think the public would rally behind him. Let's face it, there's nothing like a little revenge to boost the moral.

Whoa! Wait a minute......Hillary Clinton? Talk about your poll numbers going through the roof. And, I think its something she would relish.

: I think (5.00 / 3) (#17)
by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 08:01:04 PM EST

there's a reason Hillary went to the State Department and you're seeing it right now.

Yahoo News (none / 0) (#18)
by the capstan on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 08:03:48 PM EST

"Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said Thursday he'll stay in his job for the "foreseeable future," addressing speculation he might leave the Obama administration following the current round of budget negotiations.

"I live for this work. It's the only thing I've ever done. I believe in it," Geithner said when questioned about his plans by former President Bill Clinton onstage at a meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative."

I think Obama would choose a Republican (none / 0) (#36)
by desmoinesdem on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 09:01:20 PM EST

to look all "bipartisan" now that Gates is gone.

Most people don't realize that Geithner has been pushing Republican priorities already.

: Geithner is an ex Republican (none / 0) (#38)
by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 09:25:49 PM EST

I think he claims to be an Independent now.

Kudlow says that it is Michael Bloomberg :) (none / 0) (#37)
by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 09:22:00 PM EST

I honestly don't know who in their right mind would want this season in hell.

lol~ (none / 0) (#39)
by nycstray on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 09:50:34 PM EST

that would be a style clash :)


I'm sure (none / 0) (#40)
by lilburro on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 10:27:58 PM EST

there are a lot of valid reasons why Krugman isn't involved directly in the Administration, but sometimes I wonder how many Nobel Prizes does a guy have to get to help shape policy in a Democratic Administration!


The country needs an Independent Treasury Sec (none / 0) (#41)
by Politalkix on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 10:32:19 PM EST

not a Republican or Democratic one.


: So Krugman (none / 0) (#42)
by lilburro on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 11:00:52 PM EST

declares himself an Independent...
really, we know most (60% plus) "independents" are Republicans anyway.

: You mean (none / 0) (#43)
by Warren Terrer on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 11:38:39 PM EST

like Geithner? Yeah his being an Independent has really been great for the economy.

: There are people (none / 0) (#46)
by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 11:41:41 AM EST

of both party affiliations who would end the insanity. Who cares about party affiliation at this point. We need to avoid another depression, and for all these quacks with big degrees and cred who say they have studied the Depression did they notice that it wasn't the crash of Wall Street that killed us back then, it was the crash of Main Street a few years later.

WTF - you mean win the future of course (none / 0) (#44)
by Bornagaindem on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 07:41:23 AM EST

My my aren't the rats leaving the sinking ship quickly.

I suggest Paul Krugman for Treasury or better yet Bruce Barlett. How are the repugs going to oppose a reagan guy. In reality Obama will appoint some even more appalling than Geitner and say the repugs made me do it.

I wish the GOP presidential field actually had a credible candidate- they could win.

: Atrios is willing (none / 0) (#47)
by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 11:43:01 AM EST

My vote is for Atrios at this point. He may be the only sane person willing to take this job at this point.

Well, here's the thing... (none / 0) (#48)
by masslib on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 11:06:21 PM EST

Maybe they think having Erskine Bowles on hand can help them pass the rest of their deficit reduction panel's recommendations.