Why Can't Poor Tim Geithner Staff Up At Treasury? A Scandal That Calls For Diogenes?

OK, so the heat is on Poor Tim, that's clear. Richard Shelby, that pillar of political rectitude, is leading the charge of the vengeful to secure his resignation. Like Boss Limbaugh, they are happy to see America fail if it means Obama fails--and that's practically Shakespeare's definition of tragedy. For them, the Fall of Poor Tim would be the first step down the road to universal ruination. And they are fine with that.

But real tragedies cut in all directions. Here's an interesting question: why, after all this time, in this moment of desperate urgency, can't Poor Tim fill senior positions at the Treasury Department? Why is he all alone in that echoing building working with office assistants and maintenance people? Why no deputy secretary and no undersecretaries for domestic finance and international affairs?

Well, you no doubt remember that Poor Tim himself slipped past the vetting process with tax issues of his own, no more or less serious than the ones that caused Tom Daschle and Nancy Killefer to slither off stage a few weeks later. Poor Tim just happened to be the first one caught, so he got by--as an "exception."

There has been a lot of chatter about how the unprecedented rigor of the vetting process is responsible for these delays. But the flip side of that is this: could it be that the elite class of American experts on the economy--in business, in government, in academia--does not contain one honest man or woman who can step up to the mark and simply say: I'm clean? No nanny hired off the books, no illegal aliens mowing my lawn, no taxable favors from this or that powerful sponsor or friend?

Is that possible? Is it possible that there is nobody to be found in those exalted precincts who can pass a real integrity test? I believe it is possible, and that's a real scandal.

Calling Diogenes.

Comments

[zanzig]

"does not contain one honest man or woman who can step up to the mark and simply say: I'm clean?"

Isn't it amazing, surely there are people with clean hands, and of ethical bent who actually have a sense of civic duty? Failing that, are there no recent brilliant university graduates who would like to add this to their CV?

[Rog49Thomas]

The people with the skills to do the job aren't so bad off that they need a job at any price.

And it's Congress by the reports I've heard that is doing the an*l probing.

So it's not the Administration, the FBI etc's vetting that is being objected to.

The problem with Congress:

(1) As usual, they haven't the slightest idea what they're doing.

(2) Even if they do by some miracle, they don't have the skills.

(3) And if somehow they stumble on the skills, their motives are political grandstanding (a la the AIG bonus issue).

[argyle]

You think Diogenes chooses a career in finance or academia? You think they let him?
You think he cares what nation a person is legally allowed to work in?
He would have cuffed you at the phrase "illegal aliens".
You think he would have cared enough to follow the thousand and one inane rules this society has set up for itself in order to put himself in a position to help you out?
I suggest you stop looking for a perfection in personality that doesn't exist and focus on the actual malfunction of the rules and regulations that led to our current situation.

[Rog49Thomas]

Actually, Diogenes came from a banking family in the town if Sinope.

He and his father were exiled from their home town over allegations of participation in a currency debasement/defacing scandal.

Thereafter, he became a holy man who renounced luxury and greed.

The history is a bit confused.

It's unclear if he ever knew Charles Keating or served as Senator from Arizona.

But he was one heck of a maverick. You betcha!

[kimk3]

Could be the "clean" ones - Joseph Stiglitz, Dean Baker, etc., are too clean for this crooked bunch of thieves. And I like Obama -- I think he's doing a good job on many fronts. I think he didn't want to rock the boat with a bunch of "progressives" but Geithner was a mistake and a big mistake. Geithner is not up to the task.

[Rog49Thomas]

Probably more an issue of ideology.

And the rock the boat analogy is appropriate.

Representative government generally represents its true constituency.

[caphillprof]

I suspect there are some people who would pass muster with the vetting group and who would be honored to serve if asked, but they will never be asked because they worship at the wrong altars (i.e. something other than laissez faire free market unregulated cutthroat capitalism), live in the wrong zip codes, went to the wrong schools and cannot be trusted by the establishment.

[Brownone]

I've been wondering about this myself. There are many former bank executives who ran successful, large state banks that were bought out by bigger banks who are now out on the golf course. Many of these people could manage these programs that Geithner is trying to do all by himself. Why do they have to be Wall Street bankers? Why do they have to be politically recognizable?

And, secondly, where are the best and the brightest in the university system? I'm certain graduate students and professors would love adding "bailout" experience to their resumes.

I can only assume that Geithner doesn't want to share the spotlight, or doesn't want anybody to contradict him?

[clarryr]

I wonder how many people in the entire world there are that are snow white in paying their taxes. That know enough about the tax codes to have never misinterpreted one and had to pay back taxes. That have accountants that don't try to get the best return for their clients. That keep meticulous enough records to know how to claim their various sources of incomes and deductions.
And among those that pass that test, how many are knowledgeable and capable enough to take a high level government position, that haven't been using their skills in the industry we're asking them to oversee including direct employment, lobbying, and consulting.
And among those either don't have or are willing to give up lucrative jobs in order to server.
And among those are willing to sell any related assets (at a huge loss in a down economy) to avoid conflicts of interest.
And among those are willing to suffer throught the vetting and then the confirmation process.
Sounds to me like we'll have to make some exceptions for every one of the otherwise highly qualified candidates.

[joeinvt]

Where is Rahm in all of this?

[gbowser]

A few reasons:

1) The lobbyist rule cuts both ways here. Many of the people who would be interested in the position from the usual pool have probably been registered lobbyists or have close ties to various lobbies. The stink raised earlier about the exceptions made in the beginning has made them uneasy about going back to this particular source.

2) Some of the more obvious choices and ideas for the various posts that are out there are probably unlikely to give up their already lucrative or stable situations for something that may only last four years and eight at the most. It's hard to justify such a radical switch in lifestyle unless you're already working in DC. This takes out any economics academic from the pool (sacrificing a cushy teaching job with tenure for a temporary gig is a poor idea), and most other private-sector types.

3) Of course, the massive scrutiny both during confirmation and once you take the job. Treasury especially would be under fire if they hired some of these people that worked for the investment banks (even if it was in the past). Could you imagine the firestorm on HuffPost (and the rest of the media) if they brought in somebody who worked for AIG, even if they were some low level wetworks guy?

[thinkagain2]

And 4 -- who in their right mind would want to jump into this no win situation? Very unfortunate that those who know enough to help know enough to stay away. Just what do they know?

[nevadaandy]

There are many highly capable people who would do a good job of helping Geithner, but who are unwilling to subject themselves to the intense scrutiny they will face by the blood sucking vultures on the Hill. It's going to be very hard to find people who want to work in the environment that Geithner is being subjected to on a daily basis.

[cdub1991]

You and gbowser have pretty much said it all. It's a thankless job and the people who can do it don't want it. This is one of the few cases where you probably do need the foxes guarding the hen house. As long as you have someone watching the watchmen, it's doable..

[hildutus]

Or is no one answering the call because they can make a lot more money ripping off the American people than helping them? Patriotism is for us suckers, not for the Capitalists who rule us.

[apoyo]

That is exactly the problem. The rules were loosened to the point that everyone played fast and loose. No one has perfectly clean hands. But, that is not the scandal.

The scandal is that we were too preoccupied with our own fake upward mobility that we let it happen.

[henrywolff]

Well, unfortunately for America to succeed Obama and Geithner do have to fail. They will fail, eventually, and its better sooner rather than later.

[clarryr]

So after Obama fails, be sure to tell your uneducated (couldn't afford it), unemployed (can't compete in the global market and no local industries), sick (bad air causes breathing issues and no health care), grandchildren how you helped make sure he did fail.

[henrywolff]

The only reason my kids won't be able to afford school will be punitive taxation. They also have great health care and clean air. Have you ever breathed the air in Beijing? I have and its alot worse than Minneapolis.

[ProgressiveVoice]

I somehow doubt it is an inability to find people with integrity. I suspect that it is the vetting process that is at fault.

It shouldn't be that black marks are found on a person's record; it should be what the black marks are and how the nominated party explains both problem and remedy of said problem.

OK, maybe there aren't any honest people in the financials industry . . . do we really need a so-called expert?

[HeevenSteven]

I think that there's nothing new here; it's the way things have always been. We've just become less realistic.­....er....­.better-in­formed finger-pointers about "leaders"--people in high places.

[HeevenSteven]

"--people in high places."....

Maybe people IN GENERAL... We're all hypocrites now!