- The Washington Times - Thursday, January 29, 2009

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

COMMENTARY:

More than a third of the Senate voted against Tim Geithner’s confirmation as Treasury secretary, though he did pass the test by 60-to-34 early Monday evening. That is the closest post-World War II margin for a Treasury secretary. According to Bloomberg, seven of the last 23 Treasury-secretary nominees - under which actual Senate roll-call votes were taken - were confirmed by an average vote margin of 95-to- 1. (The others were confirmed without an official vote count.)

Interestingly, three Democrats voted against — Tom Harkin of Iowa, Robert Byrd of West Virginia and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin. Independent Bernie Sanders also voted no. Noteworthy on the Republican side, Susan Collins of Maine voted against Mr. Geithner, accusing him of “inexcusable negligence” in his nonpayment of taxes ($43,000) during his International Monetary Fund days.

Arlen Specter told reporters early Monday that he would vote yes, but he changed his mind and voted no. Robert Byrd, by the way, captured the sentiments of John Kyl, Jim Bunning, and many others when he said: “Had [Mr. Geithner] not been nominated for Treasury secretary, it’s doubtful that he would have ever paid these taxes.”

The surprising number of no votes suggests both parties will keep Mr. Geithner on a short leash. And it was President Obama who ran over to the Treasury Department to swear Mr. Geithner in right after the Senate vote. This was unusual, but it’s clear the new president is trying to stop the bleeding of his new Treasury man. Instead of a hoped-for early confirmation to get the next stage of the financial-bailout package moving, Mr. Geithner wound up being one of the last Cabinet officers confirmed.

But Mr. Geithner’s gaffes are not all tax-related. He tripped up again last Friday when it was discovered that he attacked China in written responses to Senate Finance Committee questions. This caused quite a stir on Wall Street, as gold soared and the dollar fell. Mr. Geithner will be the biggest bond salesman in American history as he attempts to successfully finance what will be trillions of dollars in new debt obligations. That’s why it’s hard to understand how he would poke a stick in the eyes of his biggest banker, namely China, by labeling it a “currency manipulator.”

Currency manipulator is an actionable phrase that could trigger a 27 percent tariff on Chinese imports, according to the highly protectionist resolution sponsored by Sens. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican, and Charles Schumer, New York Democrat. Henry Paulson took great care to avoid that phrase during his tenure.

The yuan appreciated close to 20 percent in recent years, before falling as China moved to help its sagging economy by stopping its deflationary currency policy. And during Mr. Obama’s presidential campaign there were numerous protectionist overtones aimed at halting trade deals with Colombia, Panama and South Korea, and at rewriting the North American Free Trade Agreement. But the China card is a new one.

During the Clinton years, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and economic adviser Larry Summers, under whom Mr. Geithner served, maintained a strong and stable dollar policy. So with all these government bonds to sell, you would think Mr. Geithner would also want a stable currency to help his funding efforts. But his attack against China undermines the stable-dollar idea, and could force Treasury rates much higher during his term.

Since Mr. Geithner is something of a wounded warrior from the tax nonpayment controversy, Team Obama’s economic policy is shifting toward a Larry Summers power-center right now. So it is equally important to note Mr. Summers’ clear statements on “Meet the Press” Sunday, when he called for repeal of the Bush tax cuts on investors and successful high-end economic activists.

However, investor capital is on strike against stocks, real estate, and distressed toxic assets. So it’s puzzling that Mr. Summers told NBC’s David Gregory that the Bush tax cuts must be repealed. He left open the date. But he left no uncertainty about the intent.

Of course, this could have a significant deterrent effect on investor decisions. It certainly connects the dots between Obama policy and the rantings of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has similarly called for repeal of the Bush tax cuts. One would think, in today’s deflationary investor environment, that pro-growth economic policies would seek to reward investors, not punish them.

If Mr. Summers and Mr. Geithner propose a new government “bad bank” to purchase toxic assets, then somebody in the private sector is going to have to buy them at resale. This is why some economists have proposed a multiyear capital-gains tax holiday, including a significant increase in capital-loss writeoffs against future tax liabilities. Or at a minimum, the new administration could spur interest in distressed assets by extending the Bush tax cuts, not repealing them.

But even before Mr. Geithner settles into his new job, prosperity-killing threats from investor tax increases, protectionism and a weak dollar could throw a wet blanket over economic recovery.

Lawrence Kudlow is host of CNBC’s “Kudlow & Company” and is a nationally syndicated columnist.


Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.

 

Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide