How Geithner Became Secretary of the Treasury

Tim Geithner is now the United States 75th Secretary of Treasury and after about a month in office he's already being called incompetent and an improper selection for treasury head by many.

Before passing judgments against Mr. Geithner myself, I wanted to find out a little bit more about who he is and where he came from. So, you like I should be informed, and compliments of the Wall Street Journal please read this brief biography of Mr. Geithner before you continue on.

Now that you know a little bit more about Timothy Geithner, let's take a look at some of the criticism being thrown his way after only a month in office:

After reading his biography and some of the criticism against Mr. Geithner, you, like I, may be wondering why Barack Obama appointed him. This week I decided to take that one step further and find out. My reasons were simple; I couldn't understand why a man in such a powerful position would be so widely criticized after only a few weeks in office. However, after the passage of the Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act and the unveiling of Geithner's bank rescue plan something just didn't feel right. But, in fairness, before passing judgment, I needed to know more.

Tim Geithner's father, Peter, oversaw the Ford Foundation's micro finance program which was implemented in Indonesia during the 1980's. Barack Obama's mother, Ann Dunham, was involved in that same micro finance program from the Indonesian side. This is significant because Dunham, allegedly dealt with Geithner's father through the The United States Agency for International Development ("USAID"). I was also able to find information that stated that she met Peter in person at least one time during their efforts.

Interesting.

In closing, a few weeks back I touched on Alexander Tyler's idea of how societies collapse in "History Repeats Itself."

Unfortunately, the link provided for that article goes to a USAID wiki page. So I did a Google search and although did not turn up the article by Bibbings, I did find applicable info on Tyler...

At about the time our original 13 states adopted their new constitution, in the year 1787, Alexander Tyler (a Scottish history professor at The University of Edinborough) had this to say about “The Fall of The Athenian Republic” some 2,000 years prior:

“A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.”
“The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:
From bondage to spiritual faith
From spiritual faith to great courage
From courage to liberty
From liberty to abundance
From abundance to complacency
From complacency to apathy
From apathy to dependence
From dependence back into bondage.”

...or at least I thought I did. While profound, a further search reveals a Snopes entry which cites a 2003 article "The Truth about Tyler" which states that it was not Tyler (actually his name was Tytler) but Henning W. Prentis, Jr., the President of a cork factory that penned the words. Here is an excerpt from that article:

Perhaps the words speak the truth of democratic governments; or perhaps they do not. But either way, attributing the words to a scholar who never spoke them is to lend to them an authority and reliability that they do not deserve. Anonymous quotes, which these almost certainly are, should not be given fictitious attributions merely to lend credence to the messages they impart. To do so is to favor persuasiveness over accuracy, and to sacrifice truth for the sake of image.

So...while I believe the author of this article is sincere and the "steps" may indeed be valid, it would beneficial to the author to do a little more research if they want to be viewed as credible.

All- I wrote the piece and I assure you I'm not in Tin Foil hat territory. I began putting it together at the beginning of February and I do not believe that the banks should be nationalized. I think they and every other bailed out company should have been allowed to fail months ago. If you read my blog regularly you will come to know this based on my comments and postings.

Next with regard to the math aspect of Geithner being 25 at his treasury hiring this is a response to that comment taken directly off my blog:

1. In the future, please post your comments about a story at the relevant story so that people can follow the comment trail.

2. For an article that was as pointed and political as the Geithner one; I was not going to use the Wiki reference of “Who's Who” (Wiki footnote 7). Who’s Who is a user submitted accomplishment book which solicits biographies from potential “included people.” The way who’s who makes money is that in order to see your biography (which you write) you have to buy the book. In high school inclusion notices were sent to nearly everyone I know, some of them are in the book based on what they submitted; hardly a credible source. Outside of that reference, at the time I wrote the piece, there was no better source regarding that information available that I was able to find. (outside of what was included see 2 below)

3. My article does not say he was 25, it says he was “potentially” 25 because, again, the only credible sources I had available at the time I was writing (Feb 10-15ish) said he was appointed to the treasury in 1988. This is echoed in your wiki reference however, again, at Wiki there is no source. The best I could find was available through the NY Fed website which states: “Mr. Geithner joined the Department of Treasury in 1988 and worked in three administrations for five Secretaries of the Treasury in a variety of positions. He served as Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs from 1999 to 2001 under Secretaries Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers.” The last statement does not make sense to me as it is not consistent with any of the other information that I had available. Hence, again, my use of the word potentially when saying 25 because I was not sure about when he was appointed and it could have been as early as 1988. My confusion on this only added to my idea that something strange exists surrounding Tim Geithner.

In saying all of that keep in mind that I did not spend months researching what I wrote, I did not review all relevant facts and information (though I tried to be as complete in gathering reasonable information that I felt was accurate; note comments above), and I created a theory based on some strange coincidences surrounding Mr. Geithner and the nationalization of our banks.

I am of the impression that using Wiki is only viable as a reference source if the references within wiki are credible. In this case for your argument, I do not think what has been included is useful. In addition to this when I wrote this article the Wiki bio did not look the way it does today and is constantly changing. If you look at the history of the Tim Geithner Wiki Bio it has been changed many times from Feb 10 through today. Sorry if you were confused on it, I did the best I could with the information that I had at the time. All in all Tim Geithner’s background is murky at best and there is a tremendous amount of conflicting information surrounding his past. Thanks for the thoughts, it does seem off if you take it at face value that he was specifically 25.

Lastly, with regard to the information on Tyler, admittedly, I did not go out and snopes the information. Nor did I pursue further validity as the source I got the comment from originally seemed valid. In the CNC post the original reference was broken somehow. At my blog see “History Repeats Itself” written in January. So for not digging deeper on that I am guilty. Irregardless the statements, I believe, are true regardless of historical context. Remember that I am writing material like this piece on a daily basis and that I do my best to keep it accurate and clean; all in all though it is just a blog.

The idea was to present a theory that I found compelling, if you enjoyed it read on, if not it's just a theory that will likely never be proven because of the deception within our government.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.