Tim Geithner’s Plan

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.


Ezra Klein reports on Larry Summers’ talk yesterday:

Summers […] argued that the administration was right to be vague on its banking plan. Specifics, he said, could only come after the stress tests reveal what action is needed. That sounds sensible enough, though it’s hard to say whether that’s been the plan along or it’s just the plan now that no one liked Geithner’s original banking proposal.

I too think that a bit of vagueness might have been justified here.  It’s better than rolling out a detailed but half-baked proposal that gets immediately shot down.  However, if that was the plan all along, then surely President Obama wouldn’t have said this 12 hours before Geithner took the podium:

[T]omorrow my Treasury secretary, Tim Geithner, will be announcing some very clear and specific plans for how we are going to start loosening up credit once again.

There are a few possible explanation for this: (a) Obama is an idiot, (b) Obama wasn’t up to speed on what Geithner’s plan was, (c) everyone in the administration was under the impression that Geithner’s plan was “very clear and specific,” or (d) they changed their minds a lot in the days and hours leading up to the announcement.  I’m guessing the answer is (d).

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest