Complete Confidence?

by Todd Beeton, Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 11:46:27 AM EDT

President Obama said some really great things at his press conference this morning before boarding a plane to head to Southern California for a pair of townhalls today and tomorrow. He took responsibility for the debacle, saying "the buck stops with me" and I particularly liked this:

I don't want to quell anger, I think people are right to be angry. I'm angry. What I want us to do though is to channel our anger in a constructive way. We need to stabilize the financial system, get credit flowing again to businesses and consumers and make sure that we change how these businesses operate so that they don't put us in a situation in which when things go bad taxpayers have to foot the bill and when things go good folks are getting not just $6 million bonuses but $30 or $40 million bonuses.

He also made a point of calling out the hypocrisy of Republicans "feigning outrage" today when just a couple years ago they were saying the government should not be in the business of limiting executive pay, that compensation should be left up to the market. In addition, the President worked to rhetorically bridge the government/free market divide saying that the government putting "smart regulations" in place are "not anti-market, they are pro-market."

All good. But then when asked about Tim Geithner, President Obama said the following:

I have complete confidence in Tim Geithner and my entire economic team. Understand that Tim Geithner did not draft these contracts with AIG. [...]
Nobody's working harder than this guy. He is making all the right moves in terms of playing a bad hand...

Granted, what else is he going to say? This is a confidence game to a large extent and he needs to make it clear that he is not rattled, that he has full confidence in the folks in whose he's placed this crisis. But come on, Mr. President. I hope you don't actually have "complete confidence" in Geithner and Summers because that would undermine my confidence in you.

Clearly this question is going to be asked often -- possibly even at the townhalls in California this week, both of which I'm hoping to attend -- now that Rep. Connie Mack (R-FL) has publicly stated her call for Geithner to be fired.

Tags: AIG, Barack Obama, Larry Summers, Timothy Geithner (all tags)

Comments

24 Comments

Sort by

permalink

Connie Mack is a he....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connie_Mack _IV

And, unfortuntately new to congress, so you can't ask him how he voted on the Financial Modernization Act and the Commodities Futures act...

Two bills that the Republicans blasted through on a party line vote that allowed this to happen.

You might ask him anyway, or how he will vote if Obama trys to put back the controls (Glass-Stegall 2) and extend the power of the SEC to derivative trading?

We have to NOT let the guys who cause this start to look like they are the champions of the little guy...

They are not, they are the criminals who really caused this.

by WashStateBlue 2009-03-18 11:53AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Connie Mack is a he....

He's also married to Mary Bono Mack, so unless they were one of the 18,000 California couples trying not to get divorced by Prop. 8 I believe the above is right.

by dday 2009-03-18 12:09PM | 0 recs

permalink

One other comment..

Timmy boy should be glad I am not his boss.

If his fingerprints are on that change made to the Stim bill that Oly Snow was talking about, MY fingerprints would be around his neck right about now...

And, I have complete confidence about that!

by WashStateBlue 2009-03-18 12:00PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Complete Confidence?

This is starting to remind me of the French Revolution, where step one was to chop off someone's head, and step two was to figure out what happens next.

Everyone wants to fire Geithner. Who are we going to replace him with that is magically going to execute all the right moves? Paul Krugman?

Look, the cossacks work for the czar. If you're unhappy with Geithner's performance thus far, what you really mean is that you want Obama to take a radically different approach to the economy than he has. Nothing wrong with that, but stop making Geithner the scapegoat.

by Steve M 2009-03-18 12:12PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Complete Confidence?

The goal should be to push them toward policy outcomes. The issue is not whether he has the technical know how to do the righ thing, but whether or not there is pressure to push him beyond his idealogical bent. So, I am fully in favor of saying if you don't change, you will be fired rather than firing him now.

by bruh3 2009-03-18 12:20PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Complete Confidence?

But this assumes a world in which Obama is telling Geithner to act differently and Geithner is refusing to comply. Is there any evidence that we live in that world?

If we convince Obama to pursue a different set of policies, then presumably he will instruct his Cabinet to carry out those policies. Clearly he hasn't been convinced yet. Arguing that Geithner should be fired is a non sequitur.

by Steve M 2009-03-18 12:29PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Complete Confidence?

I agree. I say that in another diary just put up. But there is one advantage- by indirectly criticizing Obama through Geithner, we give Obama the chance to change direction without it being a direct attack on him. The advantage of that can be debated, but overall early in a Presidency it may not be entirely a bad thing.

by bruh3 2009-03-18 02:05PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Complete Confidence?

But it's not up to us to decide who the person running Treasury will be. All we can say is "we don't like the way this is going and Geithner is the most publicly recognizable face on that policy". To me, it is analogous to when Bush replaced Rumsfeld. Sure, Bush could have told Rumsfeld to do something different, but people were upset enough with the way things were going that someone new was really needed. Geithner is not Rumsfeld, but the point remains. He has a certain experience and worldview that becomes manifest in his policies. Obama can't run the Treasury by himself, so he gives broad outlines of what needs to be done and then tells the Treasury Secretary to work out the details. So far, Geithner has been less than inspiring in that regard. Plus, saying "Geithner must go!" is a lot more direct than saying "You're economic policies effectively socialize risk without socializing reward!".

by the mollusk 2009-03-18 01:27PM | 0 recs

permalink

the optics are bad

I totally agree that Geithner and Summers should be fired (actually should never have been hired), but I can't see Obama tossing them until he can claim to have given them a real chance. I don't think he would want to admit this early that he made a big mistake with those appointments. It's unfortunate, because the longer they are there the more damage will be done to his presidency.

I can't wait for the health care debate, when the "smart guys" who wanted to throw trillions at Wall Street explain why we can't afford to provide universal health care.

by desmoinesdem 2009-03-18 12:14PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: the optics are bad

What will be interesting to see if they start giving Paul Volker a more prominent role. That would be a sign that Geithner and Summers are on their way out.

by jmnyc 2009-03-18 12:50PM | 0 recs

permalink

Geithner

He can't fire him unless he had a strong replacement that could be confirmed in 24 hours.
Plus he would would look weak, just like Jimmy Carter after his cabinet shakeup in 1979.

Obama is stuck with him. Who's out there with the knowledge, judgment, experience and political skills to quell this faux-populist "revolt?" Maybe Paul Volcker, but I don't know who else. Maybe someone has some ideas.

by esconded 2009-03-18 12:23PM | 0 recs

permalink

Volker is the name I come up with

The confirmation hearings to replace Tim G. right now would be a free fire zone.

Volker has seen this before, or at least, has been way around the block more then anyone else I can see....

by WashStateBlue 2009-03-18 12:35PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Volker is the name I come up with

My thought as well although I wonder if he wants that kind of a job at age 80.

by jmnyc 2009-03-18 12:49PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Volker is the name I come up with

I wonder that as well.

What a spot to step in, but, talk about a seasoned veteran.

I did a diary weeks ago, saying Summers should be fired, there were rumors he was trying to undercut Volker.

Volker is the only one of these guys that isn't tied directly to Bob Rubin, and therefore directly to CitiGroup.

I get that Obama wanted inside guys, but it IS his fault, they appear too cozy with the industry they are trying to reign in.

by WashStateBlue 2009-03-18 12:54PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Volker is the name I come up with

I think Volker would be great. Having led the Fed during the 1981-82 recession he is the only person in the Admin who has dealt with a major economic crisis.

The one thing I have noticed about Obama is he can stumble sometimes but he is very good about getting his footing and changing direction. If he is smart, Volker will soon become the public face of the financial crisis response even he doesn't become Treasury Secy.

by jmnyc 2009-03-18 01:03PM | 0 recs

permalink

will the town halls be on TV?

or streamed on the internet?

John

by John DE 2009-03-18 12:27PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Complete Confidence?

Geitner is an idiot. He should never have been nominated in the first place. He and Paulson should be in jail for letting Lehman brothers fail.

by Kent 2009-03-18 12:54PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Complete Confidence?

I am no fan of either Paulson or Geithner but I don't think letting Lehman, while a very stupid move in retrospect, is a criminal act under US law. Just saying.

by jmnyc 2009-03-18 01:18PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Complete Confidence?

meant to say "letting Lehman fail"

by jmnyc 2009-03-18 01:19PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Complete Confidence?

They should be investigated for it. What they did was reckless and there needs to be further investigation into what happened.

by Kent 2009-03-18 01:29PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Complete Confidence?

The people who should investigated are Fuld and other leaders at Lehman. It is really not the govts role to step in and save companies except in extraordinary circumstances which we now have with AIG, Citi, etc. If it were not for the probably collapse of the what's left of our banking system, I'd let them go under too.

by jmnyc 2009-03-18 01:39PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Complete Confidence?

Hang all these AIG economic traitors.

Obama should just declare that all derivatives and credit default swaps are instruments of economic terrorism and as such, there are null and void and thus worthless. Force AIG into bankruptsy (sic). Let the chips fall where they may. Eight years of Bush Republican financial deregulation and Republican Wall Street greed have combined to make quite a little mess, no?

by Oval12345678 2009-03-18 01:36PM | 0 recs

permalink

Another voice wanting to shoot the foot soldiers

http://www.mydd.com/story/2009/3/17/2152 13/729

BTW, every fly in a commerical airline in the US?

Drive AIG into bankrupcy, you might not do it again for a while....

The answer is, to break them up, and take the financial services divisions, the traitors as you call them, and isolate them from the insurance company.

Or maybe, that should be a rule for all companies?

Maybe we even HAD those rules before the REAL traitors removed them in their Ayn Rand zeal to let the free market eat the world...

by WashStateBlue 2009-03-18 01:44PM | 0 recs

permalink

If anyone was paying attention to Liddy today

that's exactly what they're planning on doing..

by DTOzone 2009-03-18 02:04PM | 0 recs