If Harry Reid *does* cave on the IMF provisions, why?

Here’s the basic background: they’re trying to pass a bill to aid Ukraine and maybe give President Obama more sanction tools against Russia.  The hitch? Democrats not letting a crisis go to waste:

…House GOP leaders said they will not support language in the legislation that would ratify quota reforms to the International Monetary Fund.

The IMF provision, they said, would weaken the voting power of the United States within the organization by boosting the voting share of emerging nations, including Russia.

Continue reading If Harry Reid *does* cave on the IMF provisions, why?

Folks: meet Tim Geithner, our Treasury Secretary!

This is his response to the straightforward question of whether he was aware that the IMF had a reputation of having a ‘predatory atmosphere’ when it came to sexual harassment!

Short answer (paraphrase): “No, because I am a man and we do not have the intellectual capacity to recognize sexual harassment.*” Continue reading Folks: meet Tim Geithner, our Treasury Secretary!

Cantor asking questions about our IMF money.

So. Last week, Representatives Cantor and Hoyer had a bit of an exchange over where the money we’re giving the International Monetary Fund is going.  Cantor wants to know why we’re going to be giving countries that don’t like us at all the opportunity to take our money, and Hoyer wants to know why Cantor is ignoring the way that Hoyer is brandishing Reagan’s name like an apotropaic talisman:

CANTOR: Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time. I will tell the gentleman, New York Times, May 27, 2009, pointed out Hezbollah, the Shiite militant group involved in Lebanon and its government, had talks with the IMF to discuss the possibility of the extension of credit…We are very, very concerned. There is a real possibility that some of the world’s worst regimes will have access to additional resources that will be provided to the IMF, and is he not concerned about that?

[possible snip: the Congressional Record transcript is down]

HOYER: The reason the Reagan administration and the first Bush administration–and I might say, although I don’t have a quote from the second Bush administration, the second Bush administration, as well, was a supporter of the IMF as the gentleman, perhaps, knows.

The fact of the matter is the United States will play a very significant role in the decisionmaking of the IMF because we’re a very significant contributor. It is a red herring, from my perspective, to raise the fact that money could go somewhere. Of course money could go somewhere.

…which Hoyer then followed up with this inadvertent comment, which the Hill’s Blog Briefing Room mercifully omitted:

Continue reading Cantor asking questions about our IMF money.