Now that Samantha Power has left Barack Obama’s presidential campaign, attention should perhaps turn to Obama foreign policy adviser Robert Malley. Perhaps best known for his gushing over Yasser Arafat and Camp David revisionism, Malley’s true danger lies in the extent to which he has called key events in the Palestinian arena–his supposed area of expertise–blatantly wrong. As I noted a few weeks ago, Malley supported allowing Hamas’ participation in the 2006 Palestinian parliamentary elections, and welcomed last year’s brief period of Hamas-Fatah “unity governance,” predicting that a “wholesale breakdown of relations between the two groups” was unlikely. In short, Malley has a consistent record of supporting policies that ultimately strengthened Hamas and undermined Israeli-Palestinian peace prospects, thus warranting the scrutiny he has received as Obama’s adviser.
But Aaron David Miller, Malley’s former peace-processing colleague during the Clinton administration, won’t have any of this. In yesterday’s LA Times, Miller ignored these substantive criticisms, attributing the backlash against Malley to Jewish paranoia. Miller argues that the charges against Malley stem from “the tendency of many American Jews active in pro-Israeli causes to worry about everything”; he continues:
I’ve lost count of the number of times Jewish activists or friends have said to me that this official or that journalist or this academic must be anti-Semitic. On other occasions, I have been told that I myself should not be so publicly critical of Israel, lest we give our enemies grist for their propaganda mills.
Yet Miller’s charge that Jewish identity politics–rather than Malley’s own faulty ideas–have informed public scrutiny of Malley is profoundly ironic. After all, insofar as Miller depicts criticisms of Malley in “us versus them” terms, he is guiltiest of playing identity politics.
Still, if Miller’s utter misrepresentation of the case against Malley in a major U.S. newspaper requires further proof of its substance, examples of Malley’s dubious policy analysis abound. So, here’s another one. While addressing the Council on Foreign Relations in the aftermath of Hamas’ Gaza coup last June, Malley argued that the United Nations had erred in not engaging Hamas:
The UN, of all entities, has made the biggest mistake, because they had no restrictions on talking to anyone-their role is to speak to everyone. To talk to Hamas and to give them more realistic things that they should be doing: imposing a ceasefire and empowering Abbas to talk to Israel.
Of course, the notion that Hamas would empower Abbas to talk to Israel is delusional. But perhaps more disturbing is Malley’s belief that the UN should talk to terrorist organizations. And, to correct Miller, one need not be Jewish or paranoid to say so.
What is so difficult? He was short on cash,he shortcutted the IRS;and he couldn’t make up the shortage. This is a fairly common situation in life. If that disqualifies him,cut the cord. He’s completely replaceable.
Geithner’s obviously a bad choice for the job, because he so clearly has no valid explanation for failing to pay a tax that appears, in the preparation process, in flashing neon red — and that he was compensated for by the IMF.
But if it’s “inappropriate” for anyone to “take advantage of the statue of limitations,” then we should either lengthen the terms of the statute, or get rid of it. There is no “appropriateness” at issue here, there is only compliance or non-compliance.
While there is generally a three-year statute of limitations, there is no limitation on when tax may be assessed where a false or fraudulent return is filed with intent to evade tax. If Geithner had been an ordinary citizen and not a high-ranking Fed official, the IRS would probably have been more aggressive in going after the unpaid taxes from 2001 and 2002.
With all the evidence gathered, the forms he signed, the erroneous deductions he took, the only conclusion is Geithner simply thought he could get away with it. “It was Barack-like-boneheaded, I thought nobody would notice.” The IRS has always tweaked our returns to kingdom come; they must have given him a pass, he figured he lucked out, and just kept the money. The man is a crook. As RCAR says, Geithner is replaceable.
‘Gee, I don’t know why’ I pay my taxes.
And Larry, what about PENALTIES? Were those just waived??? Last time I checked, “I goofed up” was no excuse for having a penalty waived. Last time I checked, penalties are really onerous as well. Haven’t heard a peep about penalties.
We need a new nominee. I’m sure Geithner is intelligent and talented, and he does not sound like a bad fellow. If he were wildly talented, I might be willing to overlook his indiscretions for the sake of the greater good. But if he were wildly talented, we would not be in the situation we are. His ideas and solutions have been the same as the rest of the Paulson group, and he has overseen a massive economic collapse in New York and the nation.
But more to the point, we need, especially at this precarious moment in our nation’s economic history, a Treasury Secretary of unquestioned integrity. The decisions he made regarding his own taxes, saving himself tens of thousands of dollars, are not isolated incidents–because they are decisions and not incidents, and no decision is isolated. Decisions reflect character, and with our decisions we establish patterns and habits of behavior that affect the future. The more white lies I tell, the more I have eroded the principle of honesty, and the more prepared I will be to lie when more is on the line. Faithful with little, faithful with much. Geithner was not faithful in his own tax filings–so how can we believe that he will be faithful when he is responsible for our national finances? If he will bend his principles for the sake of a $40K, how can we believe that he will not bend his principles when his honesty will cost him even more? It’s important that the American people are confident that everyone is held to the same standard, and those who govern us must follow the same rules we do. And it’s important that they trust their economy is being guided by men and women of integrity. Geithner is eminently replaceable, and we should take advantage of that fact.
Let Obama put forward someone who will steward our economy with complete integrity, and someone whose talent rises to the same bar as the challenges we face.
Amen to Ahithophel. A two-bit tax chiseler should not supervise the IRS. What part of all this is hard to understand?
In a previous post, Jennifer suggested Geithner might be a chiseler. That word is kind of out of fashion these days, but it’s really appropriate in describing Geithner. The country doesn’t need a chiseler running the Treasury Department. Maybe that’s “The Chicago Way.” But most Americans will be pretty annoyed by it.
That having been said, I don’t know which is more depressing, Geithner as Treasury Secretary, or Republican senators like Lindsey Graham running interference for the appointment.
I say boot Geithner and bring in Larry Summers.
#8,”But if he were wildly talented”
Unfortunately,the wildly talented are excluded because they tend,well to be wild. For example, there is no doubt that a fine fellow like George Soros is infinitely more knowledgable on our crisis than Geithner. However,his perceived political agenda would make everyone here very uncomfortable,but he is more talented/more knowledgable than TG. I’m afraid that our political process,even in a economic s–t storm,requires the mediocre.
There is no wildly talented here – there is limited ability to make any real impact as the treasury secretary outside of running your office well. His integrity is probably as important as anything. Soros couldn’t do the job because while he is wildly talented in some respects, his talents tend to be a mismatch for the job in question. Being overly political is always in bad form at Treasury, and of course he is. As are many others. In reality, what does the Treassury secretary do? Look calm in a storm in order to assuage the market? The rest of it is all admin. Paulson’s talent would not seem to be all the great inasmuch as many economists when asked felt the TARP wouldn’t do what was expected. They were vindicated, Paulson was not. I guess my point is that there is “technical” talent and then there is “running things” talent. Technical talent is not the key here. Part of “running things” often entails having at least a smidgeon of integrity. Geithner seems to be missing on that score. I am sure they can find another ex exec of Goldman to run treasury. Or maybe Bears? Isn’t that really the only real experience necessary? I hear lots of them are now out of work.
By the rules of the IRS, Tim Geithner would be turned down for a job because of his “forgotten” taxes.
Enough said.
What I have in mind is someone like General Petraeus. In our Iraq effort we burned through several top Generals before we found the right General with the right strategy. Petraeus came in with new ideas, a formidable intellect and will, and the ability to get things done. I don’t see why the skills required to run Treasury would be any different than other skills–there are those who are talented in those skills and those who are not, and there are some who are exceptionally talented in ways that surprise and inspire us. I don’t know what other folks think of Sheila Bair, but I think she has shown considerable talent. I’m not recommending her for this post–she’s doing good work at the FDIC, as far as I can tell–but she’s an example of the kind of talent that allows people to do more, and have more of an effect, than one would expect.
But beyond the talent issue is the character issue. Surely there must be someone out there who is as talented or more talented than Tim Geithner, and who in addition has shown the kind of integrity that merits the trust of the American people. Geithner is not a bad person; his “crime” is not heinous, as far as I can tell. But neither does he possess the combination of talent and character that the times require. Is there no one out there who was crafted “for such a time as this”?
A guy I know who’s not a lawyer thinks that he knows more about the law than I, a lawyer, do.
Hey, I don’t mind him pontificating about many SCOTUS cases since the majority makes it up as they go along, but I keep telling him that he can’t keep taking a cetain percentage of his income as a charitable deduction when he never actually gives a nickel to charity.
He tells me “everybody does it”. I tell him “BS” & in any event, he’s not gonna get away if he gets audited without receipts; that he’ll be fined & made to pay interest. He says he’ll blame it on his accountant, which is counter-intuitive to his assertion of knowing more about the law than lawyers, but nevermind.
I dread our next lunch.
Look, if Derek Jeter has some tax issues about whether he’s a resident of NYC or FL, I say that, tho he seems to be slipping due to the aging process, he’s still indespensible to the NYY & let’s kinda go slow & wait ’til, say, he hits 40 to get him. But Timmy G is not the only finacnial guru in the world. Get someone who pays what he owes without a bunch of philadelpia lawyers explaining why his cheating wasn’t really cheating, you see.
Good grief
Spellcheck
“certain”
“indispensable”
“financial”
“Philadelphia”