The US Treasury is Weakened Due to Having too Few Appointees - What is the Impact?

[iNow]

Right now, in the midst of one of the single greatest economic challenges our country and our planet has ever faced, the United States is trying to "win the battle" with just "one guy on a horse."

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/business/economy/19geithner.html

Mr. Geithner is shouldering more crises on his slight frame than most Treasury secretaries ever have. And he is doing so without the usual complement of Treasury assistants because of administration delays in vetting potential nominees — a consequence in part of its efforts to avoid embarrassments like the disclosures of Mr. Geithner’s past tax lapses, which nearly doomed his nomination.

 

Since before his confirmation in late January, Mr. Geithner has juggled a crushing workload: overhauling the Bush administration’s discredited financial bailout program; helping with Mr. Obama’s nearly $800 billion economic stimulus plan; and managing the government effort to salvage the auto industry.

 

Mr. Geithner is now fashioning a new federal regulatory structure for the financial industry to replace the one that failed. He has developed a housing program that aims to avert up to nine million more foreclosures, and programs for getting credit flowing to small businesses and consumers as well as the major financial giants.

 

At 47, the same age as the president, Mr. Geithner works out at 5:30 a.m., gets to his desk by 6:30 and leaves 15 hours later.

 

 

I'm curious to hear your thoughts on why appointments in the US Treasury aren't moving through right now. I want to hear your speculations on what this limited staffing actually means for you and me, John and Susie Q. Public. I am interested to understand your concerns about the lack of a large talented team in place, and our current reliance on a single "clean-up batter" to bring home the proverbial trophy.

[Pangloss]

Er, how would we know why his appointments are being held up? All we know is what we read. It's an interesting question and I've not read a lot about it so far. Perhaps others can pass along articles and we can try and find out together what the holdup is.

 

It does seem odd, because it's not as if they need to have Republicans on board in order to pass these appointments. Is Congress fighting their own president on his appointments? And if so, why would they do that?

 

Or is this just an example of the normal process, exacerbated by the current rapid-fire agenda and the fact that Treasury is at the heart of all of the problems on the agenda?

[ParanoiA]

Well the pessimist in me just shouted out something about jealous control and too many minds spoiling the intentions of the administration, ruining their "opportunity" to capitalize on a crisis; to take advantage and manipulate the people while they're insecure and fearful. Got to admire someone who advocates taking advantage of fear. Didn't we just have an administration like that? Ah well...

[The Bear's Key]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/business/economy/19geithner.html

.....

Since before his confirmation in late January, Mr. Geithner has juggled a crushing workload: overhauling the Bush administration’s discredited financial bailout program; helping with Mr. Obama’s nearly $800 billion economic stimulus plan; and managing the government effort to salvage the auto industry.

.....

Anyone notice how for Bush they call it "bailout", and for Obama they call it "economic stimulus"?

 

Is there a difference? Because if not, such journalistic infidelity might -- unwittingly -- lend credibility to the neocon media pundits.

 

And, regardless if the necocon machine has done worse (from even before the 70s to present), one can't travel down similar avenues to right a wrong.

 

Is Congress fighting their own president on his appointments? And if so, why would they do that?

To respect Separation of Powers?

 

Hopefully....yet unlikely within any political group (but I'd wager it's f**kloads more likely to occur now than within the previous Bush Administration).

[Pangloss]

Anyone notice how for Bush they call it "bailout", and for Obama they call it "economic stimulus"?

 

The bailouts and the economic stimulus packages are two different things, and in fact they were addressed via separate bills.

[The Bear's Key]

The bailouts and the economic stimulus packages are two different things, and in fact they were addressed via separate bills.

Whoops, thanks! At first it seemed to be talking about only the bailouts. On second glance, obviously not. My bad.

 

Guess I'll have to catch up on economic stimulus news/terminology.

[bascule]

Anyone notice how for Bush they call it "bailout", and for Obama they call it "economic stimulus"?

 

Is there a difference?

 

Yes, the "bailout" followed the Dow nosediving... "economic stimulus" came amidst a much slower but continuing downward trend.