Is the Devil in the Details?

By Mark Riley




Of all President Barack Obama's cabinet picks, I was most nervous about Tim Geithner, his choice for Treasury Secretary. Not that I knew much about him, but the idea that he was an integral part of putting together the TARP (Troubled Assets Relief Program) bailout made me wonder.

Now his plan to spend the second half of the TARP money (and a whole lot more) has others wondering as well. Geithner's plan lacked much of what both lawmakers and the public had hoped for. There were few specifics about how the plan would accomplish its goals of helping banks, unfreezing the credit markets, and slow the ever spiraling rate of home foreclosures.

We do know this. It will be a week or two before the Obama Administration, and not Treasury, unveils a $50 billion dollar plan to deal with the foreclosure crisis.



That's a week or two too long. The public ought to be able to see tangible benefits from both the bailout and stimulus plans, and right now it doesn't look like they will right away.

The other obvious question is this. Is $50 billion dollars enough to help struggling homeowners when 10,000 American families a day are falling into some stage of foreclosure?

Combine Geithner's hazy vision of the bailout with reports that he resisted the effort of presidential aides to impose tough oversight on those financial institutions receiving help, and one can't be optimistic about his tenure thus far.

Some lawmakers are calling Geithner's plan "Son of Paulson", referring to the disbursement of the first half of the bailout money. We still know little about where that money went. We do know it didn't do what Hank Paulson told us it would.

Is Tim Geithner asking the American people to throw good money after bad? More importantly, is he the right person to guide the nation's troubled financial ship of state?

You tell me. I'm not optimistic.