Chart of the morning: Guess who’s paying the Cover Tim Geithner’s A** “Bank Tax?” Y-o-u.

Chart of the morning: Guess who’s paying the Cover Tim Geithner’s A** “Bank Tax?” Y-o-u.

By Michelle Malkin  •  March 8, 2010 09:47 AM

In January, I deconstructed the White House “Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee” fakery for you:

1. The bank tax will inevitably be passed on to consumers and the White House has no way of stopping them from doing the dumping.

2. The tax won’t apply to non-banks, black holes Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, or the bailed-out auto companies.

3. This isn’t about getting “our money” back. It’s about redistributing it again under the guise of faux populism.

More to the point, this is what I call the Cover Tim Geithner’s A** Tax. Making banks the whipping boys takes the heat off Geithner for his incompetent, complicit, and transparency-subverting tenure as New York Federal Reserve chair.

Team Obama wants you to keep your eyes on its fatcat barbecue charade.

My friends at the Heritage Foundation compiled a handy graphic that underscores chicanery.

Heritage’s Mike Brownfield sums it up:

President Obama announced his bank tax during his State of the Union Address in January and claimed it would be a way to recoup money dished out to banks as part of the Troubled Asset Relief Program bailout. The truth, though, is that those banks already paid-back the bailouts, with interest; the real deadbeat offenders are Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, Chrysler and General Motors, who have yet to repay their debt. (Take a look at the above chart to see who has repaid – and who hasn’t.)

The President’s proposal was a not-so-thinly-veiled populist proposal, intended to play to an America disgruntled with government bailouts and those institutions that won government handouts.

He better brace himself for an America that finds itself even more disgruntled when they realize they’re getting hit with the very tax that was meant to appease them.

Geithner aired concern on bank limits-sources

Geithner aired concern on bank limits-sources

Fri Jan 22, 2010 2:02am GMT

* Geithner has concerns over proposed bank limits–sources

* Treasury chief worried about competition, root of crisis

* Geithner tells PBS that limits not politically motivated (Adds comments from Geithner and Summers, analyst comment)

By Karey Wutkowski and Steve Eder

WASHINGTON/NEW YORK, Jan 21 (Reuters) – U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has expressed some skepticism behind closed doors about the broad bank limits proposed on Thursday by his boss, President Barack Obama, according to financial industry sources.

The sources, speaking anonymously because Geithner has not spoken publicly about his reservations, said the Treasury chief is concerned the proposed limits on big banks’ trading and size could impact U.S. firms’ global competitiveness.

He also has concerns that limits on proprietary trading do not necessarily get at the root of the problems and excesses that fueled the recent financial meltdown, the sources said.

But a White House official said Geithner was on board with Obama’s economic team behind the proposals.

Geithner and Lawrence Summers, the director of President Barack Obama’s National Economic Council, worked closely with Paul Volcker, who heads a panel of outside advisers, in developing the proposals, the official said.

“The plan was submitted to the president with a unanimous recommendation from the economic team,” the official said.

In a television interview, Geithner said the proposal was driven by a desire to ensure a stable financial system, not by politics.

Geithner told PBS NewsHour the Obama administration decided to unveil the proposals months after its original sweeping financial reform plan to bring “a little more clarity” to how big banks could be reined in. Geithner had backed a proposal last fall to give regulators power to curb a firm’s size.

Summers, in an interview with CNBC, said the latest proposal was written before a Democrat, Martha Coakley, lost a closely watched race for the Massachusetts Senate seat on Tuesday. Obama had painted her opponent, Republican Scott Brown, as a friend of Wall Street.


Obama’s proposals would prevent banks or financial institutions that own banks from investing in, owning or sponsoring a hedge fund or private equity fund.

He called for a new cap on the size of banks in relation to the overall financial sector that would take into account not only bank deposits, which are already capped, but also liabilities and other non-deposit funding sources.

The proposed rules also would bar institutions from proprietary trading operations that are for their own profit and unrelated to serving customers. For details [ID:nN21200151]

The administration had already sharpened its rhetoric against Wall Street where the announcement was met with disdain. Bank shares slid and the dollar fell against other currencies. [ID:nN21145261]

The proposals were largely driven by Volcker, a former Federal Reserve chairman who for more than a year has advocated curbs on big financial firms to limit their ability to do harm.

The White House official said Obama’s economic team considered the concern that proprietary trading was not at the heart of the problems that fueled the financial crisis.

But it concluded that reform needed to be about more than just fighting the last war, it needed to address sources of future risk as well, the official said.

Lawrence White, a professor at New York University’s Stern School of Business and a former regulator, said Obama’s proposals were “a solution to the wrong problem.”

“They have this rhetoric that it was proprietary trading that was the problem,” White said. “That’s wrong.”

Obama has recently tried to capitalize on populist anger against the big banks, proposing last week a major tax on banks to recoup taxpayer losses related to the bailout.

Underscoring the high level of public anger at banks, a majority of 1,006 Americans surveyed in a Thomson Reuters/Ipsos poll said executive pay was too high. [ID:nN21222779]

Douglas Elliott, a former JPMorgan investment banker now with the Brookings Institution, said he didn’t know Obama’s motivations, but thought his move was “smart politics.”

“Everybody hates the bankers now and when you come out with something saying we are going to keep them from getting bigger and taking outrageous risks, of course it comes out favorable,” Elliott said. “I do have some concerns about the public policy aspects.” (Reporting by Karey Wutkowski in Washington and Steve Eder in New York with additional reporting by Jeff Mason and Glenn Somerville; Editing by Kenneth Barry and Diane Craft, Gary Hill)

A Fool And Your Money

A Fool And Your Money

By J.C. Arenas

The Obama Administration has led a faux populist charge against Wall Street, and their newest proposed method to allow them to con you out of more of your money confirms it.

The New York Times reports that the administration is encouraging the creation of new investment vehicles known as “bailout funds”:


The idea is that these investments, akin to mutual funds that buy stocks and bonds, would give ordinary Americans a chance to profit from the bailouts that are being financed by their tax dollars.


Treasury Secretary Geithner has clearly run out of ideas.


He can not get the big money to play along unless he creates avoidance from strict impositions from Congress for banking institutions participating in government programs and guarantees that their investments in these toxic assets are risk free.


The Congressional Oversight Panel recently reported that the economic crisis is “far from over”.


Trillions of dollars have been pumped into financial institutions here and abroad, borrowed from our sworn enemies, and printed by the Fed, and we are still not out of the woods?


How are “ordinary Americans” going to make money from bailouts that have not worked?


Once again we have stubborn liberals who refuse to admit that their strategy is wrong and will not work, and instead not only give credence to their agenda with this scheme, but do so under the guise of “fairness”.


Massachusetts Democrats recently advocated voting rights for illegal immigrants because it is an issue of “fairness”.


President Obama aims to change the social fabric of this country because as is the system lacks “fairness”.


Now they want people to sacrifice more of their hard earned money, not only playing on people’s levels of greed, but asserting that they, the philanthropists they are, want you to be able to make money because this “vast profit” should not just go to the rich.




The Treasury Department continues to conceal details about TARP and TALF, and they have decided to withhold the results of the bank stress tests, which were recently called a “Potemkin model” by University of Missouri-Kansas City Economics and Law Professor William K. Black.


Bernie Madoff’s crime does not compare to the felony being perpetrated by the Federal Reserve, U.S. government, and large financial institutions.


Even if this proposal were legit, how can anyone make an informed decision when all the information is being kept away from them?


The less you know, the better — for them.


It is the government; you can trust them, they’re looking out for you, your money, and your best interests.


They always have, and once this nation becomes the largest nanny state in the history of the world, they always will.

Page Printed from: at April 10, 2009 – 04:05:06 PM EDT

Calls Grow For Geithner To Resign Or Be Fired

Calls Grow For Geithner To Resign Or Be Fired

March 18th, 2009 Posted By drillanwr.



Florida Republican Rep. Connie Mack called for Treasury Sec. Tim Geithner to lose his job Wednesday, becoming the first Capitol Hill lawmakers to call for his ouster over AIG’s using tens of millions of taxpayer dollars for executive bonuses.

“Quite simply, the Timothy Geithner experience has been a disaster. The Treasury Department is in disarray. Taxpayer dollars are being wasted. America’s economy hangs in the balance. America needs and deserves a treasury secretary who can truly lead us forward,” Mack said in a written statement.

He called on Geithner, the former New York Federal Reserve chief, either to resign or be fired, and said President Obama should nominate a new secretary with “the experience and leadership skills America deserves.”

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Tuesday that Obama has “complete confidence” in Geithner, as lawmakers began to question why the Treasury Department didn’t do more to prevent American International Group from paying $165 million in bonuses even after receiving more than $170 billion in federal bailout money.

Though the administration claims Geithner found out about the bonuses only last Tuesday, Mack suggested he was more involved.

“Before Timothy Geithner became secretary of the Treasury, he was working hand-in-hand with AIG and other financial institutions to provide them hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money as one of the key architects of the financial sector bailout,” he said. “I’ve had serious concerns about Secretary Geithner from the moment he was nominated. In the months since, he has shown us time and again why he was the wrong choice for this critical post.”

Geithner faced criticism during his nomination over personal tax problems but ultimately won confirmation