Geithner Book: When Obama Blew a Dog Whistle and a Budget Deal

Former Treasury secretary adds context to behind-the-scenes White House budget machinations.

Tim Geithner testifies on Capitol Hill.
National Journal
Ron Fournier
May 12, 2014, 10:30 a.m.

In his forth­com­ing mem­oir, former Treas­ury Sec­ret­ary Timothy Geithner cap­tures a mo­ment at which Pres­id­ent Obama faced a choice between for­ging ahead with a prom­ise to seek GOP com­prom­ise on the na­tion’s debt crisis or bow to pres­sure from his lib­er­al base.

Obama chose sur­render.

This from Stress Test: Re­flec­tions on Fin­an­cial Crises, as ex­cerp­ted by Politico’s Play­book:

At a meet­ing early in 2011 in [Chief of Staff Bill] Da­ley’s of­fice to dis­cuss fisc­al strategy, we de­bated how to re­spond to the Re­pub­lic­an push for cuts in do­mest­ic spend­ing. Dav­id Plouffe, who had just re­placed Dav­id Axel­rod as the pres­id­ent’s top polit­ic­al ad­viser, made the case that we couldn’t ig­nore the pub­lic clam­or for fisc­al dis­cip­line, and, polit­ics aside, the pres­id­ent be­lieved in fisc­al dis­cip­line. “We didn’t run on a plat­form of per­man­ently in­creas­ing the size of gov­ern­ment,” said Plouffe, who had man­aged the pres­id­ent’s 2008 cam­paign. Plouffe wasn’t sug­gest­ing that we lurch in­to aus­ter­ity, just that we couldn’t af­ford to be against ALL cuts. “¦

The quote as­signed to Plouffe re­flects Obama’s nu­anced view of the U.S. budget dur­ing his 2008 cam­paign and the early days of his pres­id­ency — that fisc­al san­ity was not only an ac­cept­able part of a pro­gress­ive agenda, it was a ne­ces­sary ele­ment of any strategy to in­vest in the 99 per­cent and build the pub­lic’s trust in an act­iv­ist gov­ern­ment. As late as his reelec­tion cam­paign, Obama ar­gued pub­licly that “the biggest driver of our long-term debt is the rising cost of health care for an aging pop­u­la­tion” and said “those of us who care deeply about pro­grams like Medi­care must em­brace the need for mod­est re­forms — oth­er­wise, our re­tire­ment pro­grams will crowd out in­vest­ments we need for our chil­dren, and jeop­ard­ize the prom­ise of a se­cure re­tire­ment for fu­ture gen­er­a­tions.”

But there were dis­sent­ing voices in 2011, ac­cord­ing to Geithner:

Dan Pfeif­fer,the pres­id­ent’s com­mu­nic­a­tions dir­ect­or [now seni­or ad­viser] and an­oth­er 2008 cam­paign vet­er­an, of­ten took the oth­er side of the de­bate, say­ing we couldn’t af­ford to ali­en­ate our base and split a weakened Demo­crat­ic Party in pur­suit of an ima­gin­ary com­prom­ise with Re­pub­lic­ans who didn’t want to com­prom­ise.

At an­oth­er meet­ing in the Roosevelt Room, I told the pres­id­ent I thought there was a chance that he could break at least some Re­pub­lic­ans away from their no-new-taxes man­tra and forge a deal to sta­bil­ize our long-term debt. It wouldn’t be a deal that his base would like, but if he wanted to get any­thing through the House, he couldn’t be bound by the de­mands of Demo­crats. “You have a chance to split the Re­pub­lic­ans,” I said. “But only if you’re will­ing to split the Demo­crats.”¦”

I re­mem­ber dur­ing one Roosevelt Room prep ses­sion be­fore I ap­peared on the Sunday shows, I ob­jec­ted when Dan Pfeif­fer wanted me to say So­cial Se­cur­ity didn’t con­trib­ute to the de­fi­cit. It wasn’t a main driver of our fu­ture de­fi­cits, but it did con­trib­ute. Pfeif­fer said the line was a “dog whistle” to the Left, a phrase I had nev­er heard be­fore. He had to ex­plain that the phrase was code to the Demo­crat­ic base, sig­nal­ing that we in­ten­ded to pro­tect So­cial Se­cur­ity.

Obama de­cided not to split the Demo­crats — or to ser­i­ously seek com­prom­ise. Yes, he did pro­pose a mod­est ad­just­ment of en­ti­tle­ment spend­ing in ex­change for tax in­creases to­ward a “grand bar­gain,” but that now ap­pears to have been a mere sig­nal (or dog whistle) to debt-fret­ting in­de­pend­ent voters. It was a game. Lib­er­als played their part and ob­jec­ted to the re­forms. Re­pub­lic­ans played their part and said they would nev­er raise taxes. Des­pite ad­vice from Geithner, fel­low Demo­crats, and top Re­pub­lic­ans who re­cog­nized the GOP ne­go­ti­at­ing ploy, Obama seized on it as an ex­cuse to sur­render to his base. Geithner ul­ti­mately ex­on­er­ates his ex-boss, blam­ing House Re­pub­lic­ans for re­fus­ing to ac­cept tax in­creases and cred­it­ing Obama with be­ing “will­ing to al­li­en­ate some of his Demo­crat­ic al­lies.”

However, as late as a year ago, just a few months after Obama shoved a reelec­tion tax hike down their throats, the GOP lead­er­ship was still open to com­prom­ise. A budget deal would be hard, but not im­possible, to strike. The situ­ation re­quired an able, nimble part­ner in the White House, a pres­id­ent who could help the GOP lead­er­ship reach and sell a deal to their con­ser­vat­ive base. In March 2013, I wrote of the GOP: “Don’t mis­take a ne­go­ti­at­ing po­s­i­tion for real­ity. House Re­pub­lic­ans tell me they are open to ex­chan­ging en­ti­tle­ment re­form for new taxes — $250 bil­lion to $300 bil­lion, or ap­prox­im­ately the amount that Re­pub­lic­an Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania pro­posed rais­ing over 10 years un­der the guise of tax re­form.”

The num­bers were spe­cif­ic be­cause the pos­sib­il­ity of a deal was real. But the White House, quite lit­er­ally, laughed at it. The pres­id­ent had already bowed to his base, giv­en up on com­prom­ise, and dam­aged his leg­acy.

Like a polit­ic­al mem­oir, Geithner’s ac­counts need to be taken with a grain of salt be­cause per­son­al agen­das can shape memor­ies. For in­stance, he quotes Re­pub­lic­an eco­nom­ic ad­viser Glenn Hub­bard as say­ing, “Of course, we have to raise taxes” as part of a broad­er deal based on the the Simpson-Bowles de­fi­cit re­duc­tion plan, “we just can’t say that now.”

Hub­bard, now the dean of Columbia Busi­ness School, told Politico that Geithner made up the story.“‘It’s pretty simple. It’s not true,” Hub­bard said.

I don’t know wheth­er Geithner is ly­ing about his con­ver­sa­tion with Hub­bard. I do know a num­ber of top Re­pub­lic­ans who said they were open to cut­ting a tax-and-cut deal with Obama, and who said they privately told the White House, “We just can’t say that now.”

The Re­pub­lic­ans may have been ly­ing, but we’ll nev­er know. Be­cause Obama wasn’t listen­ing.

Cor­rec­tion: One sen­tence in the ini­tial post in­cor­rectly stated Obama’s ne­go­ti­at­ing stance. He wanted tax in­creases from the GOP.

What We're Following See More »
‘PULLING A TRUMP’
GOP Budget Chiefs Won’t Invite Administration to Testify
1 days ago
THE DETAILS

The administration will release its 2017 budget blueprint tomorrow, but the House and Senate budget committees won’t be inviting anyone from the White House to come talk about it. “The chairmen of the House and Senate Budget committees released a joint statement saying it simply wasn’t worth their time” to hear from OMB Director Shaun Donovan. Accusing the members of pulling a “Donald Trump,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest said the move “raises some questions about how confident they are about the kinds of arguments that they could make.”

Source:
A DARK CLOUD OVER TRUMP?
Snowstorm Could Impact Primary Turnout
1 days ago
THE LATEST

A snowstorm is supposed to hit New Hampshire today and “linger into Primary Tuesday.” GOP consultant Ron Kaufman said lower turnout should help candidates who have spent a lot of time in the state tending to retail politicking. Donald Trump “has acknowledged that he needs to step up his ground-game, and a heavy snowfall could depress his figures relative to more organized candidates.”

Source:
IN CASE OF EMERGENCY
A Shake-Up in the Offing in the Clinton Camp?
22 hours ago
THE DETAILS

Anticipating a primary loss in New Hampshire on Tuesday, Hillary and Bill Clinton “are considering staffing and strategy changes” to their campaign. Sources tell Politico that the Clintons are likely to layer over top officials with experienced talent, rather than fire their staff en masse.

Source:
THE LAST ROUND OF NEW HAMPSHIRE POLLS
Trump Is Still Ahead, but Who’s in Second?
10 hours ago
THE LATEST

We may not be talking about New Hampshire primary polls for another three-and-a-half years, so here goes:

  • American Research Group’s tracking poll has Donald Trump in the lead with 30% support, followed by Marco Rubio and John Kasich tying for second place at 16%. On the Democratic side, Bernie Sanders leads Hillary Clinton 53%-41%.
  • The 7 News/UMass Lowell tracking poll has Trump way out front with 34%, followed by Rubio and Ted Cruz with 13% apiece. Among the Democrats, Sanders is in front 56%-40%.
  • A Gravis poll puts Trump ahead with 28%, followed by Kasich with 17% and Rubio with 15%.
×