‘Whom the gods wish to destroy, they first call promising.” Tim Geithner was much more than promising — he was brilliant, enormously talented, indispensable, and a man of unparalleled ability to serve as Treasury secretary. The public detected a faintly rank odor produced by the act of installing a tax evader as head of the IRS, but a number of Republican senators judged Geithner’s nomination the way Geithner had judged Bear Stearns: too big to fail.
Perhaps that sentiment is less unanimous today than it was a few months ago, when he was confirmed, since Geithner’s raggedy performance so far suggests anything but indepensability. If one needs to be reminded of just what it was that made Geithner “uniquely qualified” — Orrin Hatch’s phrase stuck to him, for some reason — then there are ten Republicans who ought to be consulted. They are Senators Shelby, Snowe, Corker, Cornyn, Crapo, Ensign, Hatch, Gregg, Graham, and Voinovich, the only Republicans who voted for his nomination.
Hatch was particularly fulsome in his praise of Geithner. He was eager to dismiss the nominee’s tax problems, saying, “Even the most intelligent and gifted — two adjectives that certainly apply to Mr. Geithner — make errors in their financial dealings.” He went on to praise Geithner’s “impressive education and intelligence,” calling him “a very, very competent guy.” And not just very competent, but superlatively competent: “You’re not going to get a better person for this job,” Senator Hatch proclaimed. And a good thing that the best imaginable candidate happened to be available, because Senator Hatch treated the cabinet opening the way practically everything else is being treated when it comes to economic policy at this moment: as a dire emergency. “I do not believe we have the luxury of leaving this position unfilled for another day,” he said.
Senator Hatch may have been right to treat Geithner’s tax evasions, galling as they were, as a secondary issue. But what about Geithner’s performance as head of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York? What about his actions in the period leading up to the current panic, his role in implementing the first bailouts, and, perhaps as significant, his role in the non-bailout of Lehman Brothers? Are Geithner’s intelligence and education, impressive as they are, so formidable that none of this gave Senator Hatch pause?
Senator Shelby was, by his own account, less impressed by Geithner’s credentials than by his willingness to grovel. “He called me on the phone and asked me to please support him,” Shelby reports. “I was thinking about not voting for him, but then I thought more about it and decided to do it.” In all fairness, there’s a good deal of groveling going on at the intersection of finance and politics, a precedent established by Henry Paulson and his down-on-one-knee act in front of Nancy Pelosi. And Geithner did say “please.”
Not all of the Republicans who supported Geithner did so while singing hosannas. Senator Snowe, one half of the comedy duo known as the “Maine ladies,” said of Geithner’s troubles only that “these regrettable issues ultimately should not preclude support for his nomination at this time of monumental challenges for our economy.” She left unanswered why Geithner in particular ought to be entrusted with addressing this monumental challenge. Senator Ensign likewise dismissed Geithner’s “honest mistakes,” though this magazine has documented that they do not appear to be precisely that. Senator Crapo was tight-lipped and Senator Cornyn was gimlet-eyed, merely averring that he believes the president should have wide latitude in cabinet appointments. He pronounced himself “willing to give Mr. Geithner the benefit of the doubt.” Conservatives ought to note that Senator Cornyn was in this instance more generous than such jelly-ribbed specimens as Senator Specter and that other Maine lady. Senator Cornyn instead placed himself in the company of Senator Voinovich, who Republicans might forget is one of their own if he didn’t have that “R” next to his name on C-SPAN. Senator Cornyn is presently entrusted with the task of building a conservative majority in the Senate, so his judgment in these matters is of interest.
Senator Gregg ought to be reminded regularly of his words. He lectured his fellow Republicans: “We gotta stop looking at the ridiculous and look at the serious.” Like Hatch, he seemed to be more informed by Geithner’s curriculum vitae than by his recent job performance: “He’s the type of person you want as your Treasury secretary. And I just think this is a lot to do about nothing. . . . We are facing one of the most significant financial crises in the history of this country. Talented people like Tim Geithner are needed right now.”
Senator Graham took a similarly condescending view. “These are not the times to think in small political terms,” he proclaimed.
Senator Enzi, who voted against the nomination, asked the obvious question: “Are we saying there is only one person in the whole world qualified to handle this job today?”
There is a certain satisfying symmetry to all this. Just as some Republicans were attracted to Obama not for his documented political record or for his policy proposals but because he seemed to be the right kind of person — Ivy League, best-selling author — here we have Obama’s Treasury secretary entering office under a cloud at a moment that all agree is of historic significance, on the strength of his good résumé, not his mixed record. To these senators, and presumably to the president, Geithner isn’t a person, he’s a “type of person,” in Senator Gregg’s words. But decisions are made by people, not by types, and the senators would have done better to take a harder look at Geithner’s record at the New York Fed while they were worrying about his admittedly worrisome tax shenanigans.
The nation (and the Obama administration) would have been better-off if Geithner had suffered a clear if ignominious defeat rather than this pyrrhic victory. Treasury-watchers report that the department at present is effectively crippled. Geithner left blood in the water, and the enhanced interrogation of potential Treasury staffers is putting off some of the best financial talent, who tend to be, as Megan McArdle notes, a particular type of person, those “who have made enough money to have tax and nanny issues.” The Obama administration does not have the stomach for another Geither-style battle, so the Treasury Department languishes. Geithner himself is making vague and contradictory statements, has floated multiple versions of his programs, and visited the Senate to explain the administration’s financial-crisis plan, which turned out to be a plan to have a plan. If ten Republican senators were annoyed by having their time wasted, they have nobody to blame but themselves. We have them to blame, too.