Below John writes about the testimony of Treasury Secretary TurboTax Tim Geithner before the Senate Budget Committee yesterday. As he had previously with Acting OMB Director Jeff Zients, Senator Sessions sought to elicit a straightforward answer to a straightforward question. Does Obama’s FY 2013 budget increase spending over the levels provided under current law? Geithner evades the question. For some mysterious reason, he prefers to talk around it.
What’s going on here? It’s time for another multiple choice test: (a) If Geithner answers the question about spending levels, the boss will order the Attorney General to open a criminal investigation into Geithner’s failure to pay $35,000 in self-employment taxes for the years 2001-2004 and for deducting the cost of his kids’ sleep-over children’s camp as a childcare expense. (b) Geithner really, really wants Obama to appoint him head of the Federal Reserve when Ben Bernanke’s term expires in January 2014. (c) Geithner is under strict orders to protect Obama’s false talking points. (d) All of the above.
Is it possible Geithner actually had something worthwhile to say in his testimony yesterday? GOP Budget Committee staff have identified a newsworthy admission in Geithner’s gabble. They have posted the following comment on another video excerpt of Geithner’s testimony yesterday:
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner today admitted under questioning from Sen. Sessions that the president’s own budget is “unsustainable.” Sec. Geithner made a similar admission last year, when he said that “with the president’s plan, even if Congress were to enact it and even if Congress were to hold it and reduce those deficits to three percent of GDP over the next five years, we would still be left with a very large interest burden and unsustainable obligations over time.” To view last year’s testimony, please click here. To view a chart showing spending increases under the president’s plan, please click here.
Hot Air has more here. Senator Sessions and Rep. Ryan also write about Obama’s budget in this Washington Post column today.
Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.