Along with several other new media reporters, I got to sit down with several Treasury officials, including Secretary Tim Geithner, yesterday, in a background setting; Sam Stein covers the basics here. Kevin Drum asks if it was worthwhile at all to meet with these anonymous officials. I'd say yes. First, the two newsiest things we learned:- They're going to change HAMP. As Shahien Nasiripour reports, Treasury officials conceded that the Home Affordable Mortgage Program is going to shift, likely in the same direction as the FDIC, toward principle write-downs. While the ineffectual HAMP program has come under criticism for months, this is the first time Treasury officials have conceded that they'll need to substantially change the program's mechanics. Maybe they're reading TAP.
- They Think Republicans Will Filibuster Regulatory Reform Efforts. Treasury officials conceded that they agree with Sen. Chris Dodd that 60 votes will be needed to pass a financial regulatory overhaul in the Senate. (Maybe they're not reading TAP). They also suggested that the administration will only begin lobbying on financial reform after the negotiations between Dodd and Corker reach some conclusion, acknowledging the difficulties of the banking committee and their hope that the bill can gain bipartisan support on the floor and in conference with the House.
On Drum's broader criticism, this meeting wasn't Treasury "spin" -- the broader message wasn't anything new, and very little of what was said would have been problematic were it on the record -- either market-moving or politically unpalatable. Most of the time, officials declined to talk about messaging or communications at all, preferring to talk policy -- the attendees, on the other hand, frequently asked the officials about their political and communications strategy. As Salmon points out, though, this is indeed part of a broader messaging push from Treasury to try to improve Geithner's image, but it's not through some kind of secret plan but rather through exposing him to people in settings where his strengths are clearer; he's known to be more convincing in small groups than in big speeches.
But what Drum doesn't understand is that this isn't an ancient Washington tradition; the SAO insistence is actually a legacy of recent partisanship. I've met veteran Washington reporters who used to walk in to Clinton administration Defense Secretary Bill Cohen's office on a Saturday morning just to say hey and see what was going on. But in today's political and media environment, the kinds of things that people do when having a regular conversation -- tell jokes, air hypotheticals, misspeak, think aloud -- are more likely to be printed by reporters and more likely to be used to attack the speaker. The incentives aren't there for officials to share real insight with reporters outside of settings like this one.
While I agreed with Stein that the meeting should have been on the record, this wasn't one of the cases where anonymous officials leveled attacks at political opponents, even though some participants practically begged the Treasury folks to do so, or discussed policies that haven't been publicly aired before. The other thing to keep in mind is many of the people at this meeting weren't actually reporters per se -- they were independent bloggers, think tankers, etc. -- and in the past probably wouldn't have had a chance to meet Treasury officials in this kind of setting at all, and if they did, wouldn't have been able to publicize it without telling reporters about it anonymously.
[Also, Yglesias.]
-- Tim Fernholz
