After Tax Errors Raised, GOP Leaders Defend Treasury Nominee Geithner

[DeepModem Mom]

Source: Washington Post

Was he cheating on his taxes or just sloppy with his finances? Lawmakers vetting the nomination of Timothy F. Geithner to serve as Treasury secretary say they may never be sure. But leading Republicans nonetheless joined Democrats in leaping to his defense yesterday, calling Geithner's tax gaffes small potatoes compared with his qualifications for saving the global economy.

Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (Utah), the second-most senior Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, which is charged with reviewing Geithner's nomination, called him "brilliant" and "honest" and said that, despite his tax errors, "I don't think we can get a better person for this position. . . . He has the kind of background that should be very helpful to us at this time."

Sen. Robert F. Bennett (R-Utah), a close associate of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), said: "If I was a traffic officer, I'd say he may have exceeded the speed limit, but he wasn't weaving out of lanes, he wasn't drunk and he wasn't endangering anybody. He may have some explaining to do, but in the end, I think he's going to be just fine."

The chorus of support from key Republicans suggests that Geithner, president of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, is unlikely to encounter serious turbulence on his path to the Treasury Department, where he would serve as President-elect Barack Obama's top adviser on the worldwide credit crisis and manage a $700 billion financial rescue program as well as the Internal Revenue Service. His confirmation hearing, delayed until Wednesday, takes on added importance, with many fence-sitting Republicans saying they are eager to hear how such a smart guy made tax errors that cost him nearly $45,000.

But while some Republicans were grumbling about Geithner, others were reluctant to criticize what they view as one of Obama's most politically palatable appointments. "He's about as conservative a nominee as you could hope for in that position, so people are hesitant to blow the guy up," a senior Senate Republican aide said....

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/14/AR2009011403682.html?hpid=topnews

[coruscate]

1. I would never have predicted that response

Glad to see it though.

[LaPera]

2. Republicans (corporates) ....Isn't that sweet..no ideology or agenda in play here I'm sure....

[tom_paine]

3. If the Bushies are defending him, we KNOW he must be okey-dokey!

:sarcasm: :puke:

[roseBudd]

9. i think they are just as scared as we are about the economy

[Demeter]

4. Nothing Could Be More Timely Than This Discovery

I think Obama better switch to another candidate, while he has the chance, to maintain his "white knight" image.

I don't think anyone on the Stock Market Watch would object. Geithner is tainted, even without tax issues.

[Grinchie]

5. What was he doing in the IMF in 2001-2004?

Why didn't he come clean with 2001-2003 taxes when he was audited in 2004?

These are not just "Tax Errors". This guy paid 45,000 dollars in taxes, and you really think he did them himself?

Isn't the IMF the organization that has destroyed the agricultural sector in Jamaica and created crushing debt for them as well?

Isn't the IMF linked with all sorth of Economic Sanctions and agreements that force poor countries into more depbt?

The answer is yes, and thats why he's perfect for the republicans and the Blue Dog DLC Democrat Soul Suckers as well.

He needs to step down, no if's and or buts.

If he does recuse himslef, it's gonna be the first sign that Obama has returned from planet Neptune.

[Robbien]

10. Since Geithner was a main architect of the derivative program which tanked our economy

I expect Geithier had his hand in everything awful that the IMF did to enrich the global elite at the expense of the masses

[truthisfreedom]

6. Peanuts. Let's judge him on his character and suitability to the job.

Seriously, folks. Vote him up or down based on if he can handle the gig.

[exboyfil]

8. Actually I think that is the point

I was against Geithner before this came out for two reasons:

1. I consider him the member of the same club as Paulson, Summers, and Rubin - ones that move within the banking economy/academia without any regard with what happens in the real economy. The banking economy more and more can be viewed as only a parasite on the real economy. The latest fiscal crisis demonstrates this. For years much of our GDP growth has been overstated because these "Wizards" find new ways to make a buck on exchanging paper (or electrons) back and forth and calling it more sophisticated "financial services". Yes we are being "serviced" by the financial community - just in not ways that we would like. He has absolutely no real world experience on his resume (unless he cut grass when he was a kid for dollars).

2. His hands are all over the AIG travesty where we sent then $150B for what??? To put this in perspective Social Security collected $600B last year and paid $400B in benefits. The other $200B is supposed to go into a "Trust Fund" which is an accounting fiction which we will see when S.S. recipients start drawing it down.

This latest episode and his excuses ring hollow. Let me understand this - he wants to be in charge of the Department of Treasury which promulgates the tax code, and he doesn't understand even the simplest concept of Social Security withholding? My brother, who owns an ice cream stand, undertands this concept better than him. He also had an opportunity to make it right after the problem was found out, and he did not even ask the simplist question to get prior year taxes resolved even after a problem was discovered? Also, one of the excuses that I heard - "He was working so hard that he did not notice" makes me angry. What people in the real economy don't work hard. Try giving that excuse to the IRS.

If nothing more this incident should be a call for additional tax simplification.

I guess if folks want the Treasury to continue to be the lapdog of banks and insurance companies, then Geithner is your man.

I really don't want to embarrass Obama, and Geithner is a better pick than others, but would it not be better to get someone who has started and run a company in the "real economy" making something (and I don't mean services for the government)? At least Richardson is not going to Commerce (which made no sense).

[Robbien]

11. Yep, it would just have been easier if the GOP had blocked this nomination

But knowing the financial men on Obama's, the other choices would be as bad as this one.

[zbdent]

7. Hatch & Bennett, to their accountants -

"Make sure my taxes are paid up to date!"