Welcome Home, Tim Geithner

You can’t blame the former Treasury chief for cashing in. But let’s not whitewash him either.

Geithner: Believes swaps have less risk.
National Journal
Michael Hirsh
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
Michael Hirsh
Nov. 18, 2013, 9:32 a.m.

No one should be­grudge Timothy Geithner his new job. It was in­ev­it­able that a man who had been spir­itu­ally cap­tured by Wall Street would someday join it in the flesh. In truth the former Treas­ury sec­ret­ary held out far longer than the band of Ru­bin­ites he sprang from. And by join­ing a re­spect­able private-equity firm, War­burg Pin­cus — rather than one of the banks he bailed out — at least Geithner is avoid­ing the path to repu­ta­tion­al ru­in fol­lowed by his ment­or, Robert Ru­bin, who while he was in Wash­ing­ton freed up Cit­ig­roup to be­come an eco­nomy-des­troy­ing mon­ster and then went to Wall Street to join it, stand­ing by in be­fuddle­ment while the bank nearly im­ploded.

Geithner has a fam­ily to feed after all; he has every right to cash in with the vast in­dustry he saved and pro­tec­ted. It seems a bit over­ripe for Den­nis Kelle­her, head of the Bet­ter Mar­kets ad­vocacy group, to sug­gest that Geithner’s “spin through the re­volving door” will “fur­ther erode pub­lic con­fid­ence in gov­ern­ment,” when such con­fid­ence is all but un­detect­able today.

But neither should Geithner get a full pass, as CN­BC’s Ben White seems all too eager to give him in a Web piece today.

CN­BC, of course, tends to cov­er Wall Street in some­what the way Pravda once covered the So­viet Uni­on, with a lot of boos­t­er­ism and without ask­ing too many fun­da­ment­al ques­tions. But White, who also writes for Politico, is a re­spect­able fin­an­cial re­port­er and should know bet­ter. White ar­gues that the cri­ti­cism of Geithner “neg­lects to men­tion” that the former Treas­ury chief  “in­her­ited the Wall Street bail­out” and “fails to ask the fun­da­ment­al ques­tion of what, ex­actly, the ad­min­is­tra­tion was sup­posed to do with the bank­ing sec­tor, let it fail and turn a crush­ing re­ces­sion in­to a last­ing de­pres­sion?”

This is an egre­gious mis­rep­res­ent­a­tion of his­tory. No know­ledge­able ob­serv­er doubts that the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion in­her­ited the crisis (though Geithner, as head of the New York Fed, did not), and that the new pres­id­ent was faced with a stark choice of bail­ing out the bank­ing sec­tor in the nerve-wrack­ing months of early 2009 or send­ing the eco­nomy in­to a De­pres­sion.

But by the time Con­gress began de­bat­ing ser­i­ous re­form in late 2009, the banks were much health­i­er. The pan­ic had passed. Yet even then Geithner re­fused to tamper with their struc­ture and bal­ance sheets — to the point where even seni­or Fed of­fi­cials like Gov­ernor Dan Tarullo today think that Dodd-Frank doesn’t have enough re­straints on the banks. Geithner’s fel­low Cab­in­et mem­ber, At­tor­ney Gen­er­al Eric Hold­er, has pub­licly ques­tioned wheth­er the banks are not only too big to fail, but also too big to pro­sec­ute.  As Har­vard Uni­versity’s Ken­neth Ro­goff, a former ad­viser to John Mc­Cain, said of Geithner in a 2011 in­ter­view with me, echo­ing the views of many fin­an­cial ex­perts: “He was too gen­er­ous to the fin­an­cial sys­tem. He fol­lowed a set of policies aimed at pre­serving the status quo.”

White also cred­its Geithner with the best of the Dodd-Frank fin­an­cial-re­form law, say­ing, “It’s a big stretch to sug­gest Geithner stood in the way of stronger re­form in or­der to win a place for him­self on Wall Street.”

A truer his­tory of that law would re­cord that Geithner res­isted many of its toughest pro­vi­sions, in­clud­ing the “Vol­ck­er Rule,” which he avoided un­til the pres­id­ent in­sisted on it. As former Fed­er­al De­pos­it In­sur­ance Corp. chief Sheila Bair wrote in her frank mem­oir this year about her ma­jor battles with Geithner, Bull by the Horns: “I couldn’t think of one Dodd-Frank re­form that Tim strongly sup­por­ted. Res­ol­u­tion au­thor­ity, de­riv­at­ives re­form, the Vol­ck­er and Collins amend­ments — he had worked to weak­en or op­pose them all.”

Geithner, in truth, of­ten seemed in deni­al of the deep­er sys­tem­ic dangers on Wall Street that he, as a mem­ber of Ru­bin’s team back in the 1990s, had helped to cre­ate. Their sig­na­ture policy, the 1999 re­peal of Glass-Steagall, en­sured there would longer be any strong fire­walls and cap­it­al buf­fers between Wall Street in­sti­tu­tions and their af­fil­i­ates, and between banks and non­banks and in­sur­ance com­pan­ies. A year later, in 2000, then-Treas­ury Sec­ret­ary Lawrence Sum­mers and Geithner pushed for the Com­mod­ity Fu­tures Mod­ern­iz­a­tion Act, which cre­ated a glob­al lais­sez-faire mar­ket worth tril­lions in un­mon­itored trades. With the re­peal of Glass-Steagall, sys­tem­ic fail­ure was largely for­got­ten while at the same time, with the pas­sage of the CFMA, huge new sys­tem­ic risks were be­ing cre­ated.

Yet Geithner, throughout his ten­ure, did not ac­know­ledge these mis­takes and res­isted more fun­da­ment­al re­forms like the Vol­ck­er Rule, which harked back to the spir­it of Glass-Steagall by seek­ing to bar fed­er­ally in­sured banks from the ris­ki­est trad­ing.

Per­son­ally, I don’t be­lieve that Geithner took the po­s­i­tions he did “in or­der to win a place for him­self on Wall Street.” He’s not that kind of fel­low. I think he did it be­cause he be­lieved in Wall Street. Wel­come home, Tim.

What We're Following See More »
TRUMP CONTINUES TO LAWYER UP
Kasowitz Out, John Dowd In
2 days ago
THE LATEST

As the Russia investigation heats up, "the role of Marc E. Kasowitz, the president’s longtime New York lawyer, will be significantly reduced. Mr. Trump liked Mr. Kasowitz’s blunt, aggressive style, but he was not a natural fit in the delicate, politically charged criminal investigation. The veteran Washington defense lawyer John Dowd will take the lead in representing Mr. Trump for the Russia inquiry."

Source:
ALSO INQUIRES ABOUT PARDON POWER
Trump Looking to Discredit Mueller
2 days ago
THE LATEST

President Trump's attorneys are "actively compiling a list of Mueller’s alleged potential conflicts of interest, which they say could serve as a way to stymie his work." They plan to argued that Mueller is going outside the scope of his investigation, in inquiring into Trump's finances. They're also playing small ball, highlighting "donations to Democrats by some of" Mueller's team, and "an allegation that Mueller and Trump National Golf Club in Northern Virginia had a dispute over membership fees when Mueller resigned as a member in 2011." Trump is said to be incensed that Mueller may see his tax returns, and has been asking about his power to pardon his family members.

Source:
INCLUDES NY PROBE INTO MANAFORT
Why Yes, Mueller Is Looking into Trump Businesses
3 days ago
THE LATEST

In addition to ties between Russia and the Trump campaign, Robert Mueller's team is also "examining a broad range of transactions involving Trump’s businesses as well as those of his associates, according to a person familiar with the probe. FBI investigators and others are looking at Russian purchases of apartments in Trump buildings, Trump’s involvement in a controversial SoHo development in New York with Russian associates, the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow, and Trump’s sale of a Florida mansion to a Russian oligarch in 2008, the person said. The investigation also has absorbed a money-laundering probe begun by federal prosecutors in New York into Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort."

Source:
Mueller Expands Probe to Trump Business Transactions
3 days ago
THE DETAILS

Special Counsel Robert Mueller's team is "is examining a broad range of transactions involving Trump’s businesses as well as those of his associates", including "Russian purchases of apartments in Trump buildings, Trump’s involvement in a controversial SoHo development with Russian associates, the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow and Trump’s sale of a Florida mansion to a Russian oligarch in 2008."

Source:
ANALYSIS FROM CBO
32 Million More Uninsured by 2026 if Obamacare Repealed
3 days ago
THE LATEST

"A Senate bill to gut Obamacare would increase the number of uninsured people by 32 million and double premiums on Obamacare's exchanges by 2026, according to an analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. The analysis is of a bill that passed Congress in 2015 that would repeal Obamacare's taxes and some of the mandates. Republicans intend to leave Obamacare in place for two years while a replacement is crafted and implemented."

Source:
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login