Balance of Power

The fact that 34 senators voted against Timothy F. Geithner for Treasury secretary didn’t stop him from being confirmed. But the harsh words about his failure to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes while he worked at the International Monetary Fund — and about his honesty in testifying about what happened — doesn’t bode well for his future in the job.

Yes, it was mostly Republicans who voted against him, and if the story ended there, it might be easy to write the whole thing off as partisan politics.

But the “no” vote by Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, who’s not afraid to vote against his party when he sees a real problem ahead (he was the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act in 2001), can’t be dismissed as easily.

And Tom Harkin of Iowa, another “no” vote, almost never votes against the Democrats unless there’s a pretty big reason.

It’s also worth reading the words of Sen. Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, a Republican who is so deeply committed to congressional oversight that he even did it when George W. Bush was president. (It wasn’t exactly the popular thing for Republicans to do when they were in the majority.)

In his floor statement, Grassley explained that “nominees who had tax issues as serious as this nominee’s, and some who have had less serious issues, have not attained Senate confirmation. I feel it is improper to judge this nominee by a different standard. I realize that times are tough right now, but if anything, that should be an incentive for us to raise our standards and not lower them.”

And for those who would argue that Geithner’s tax liabilities weren’t really a big deal — especially when the nation is in the depths of an economic catastrophe — Grassley argued that other people in similar situations “end up having their houses seized, bank accounts frozen, and other assets taken by the government to pay their tax debts. Some people even go to jail.”

Under the circumstances, the Senate decided it could live with a Treasury secretary who couldn’t get his taxes right. But in past confirmation battles, the concerns expressed by the dissenting senators — even those in the minority party — have been a pretty good guide to what actually happened later on.

Four years ago, for example, Dianne Feinstein of California had a remarkably good crystal ball about Alberto R. Gonzales as the Senate considered his nomination to be attorney general. His guarded, “legalistic” responses to the Democrats’ questions were a sign the Judiciary Committee might end up struggling to get information from the Justice Department if Gonzales were attorney general, she said.

Gonzales was confirmed, and sure enough, the Judiciary Committee had trouble getting straight information from Gonzales about anything. When enough senators suspect they can’t trust a Cabinet nominee, that’s usually a good reason for them to keep their eyes open.