Two opinions, taken together, can lead to a slightly different conclusion than if only one or the other is taken singularly.  Two separate opinions out this morning illustrate this. The first is in FT , where John Dizard opines that Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner will likely be relieved of duty soon:

“For the rest of us, the question is who can be the next to take the lead on the national workout. That is probably Sheila Bair, chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. But the FDIC needs serious reinforcement of its talent, and a different capital structure, for this to work.”

Dizard expects Citigroup will be taken over by the government, also soon:

“You can pick out the likely geographical spot where the present bail-out wave will recede: 399 Park Avenue, the Citigroup HQ. Already, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp’s resolution planners are circling the holding company’s shareholders, bondholders, and – at last! – top management.”

The second piece is in the New Republic, where John B. Judis argues the Obama administration is influenced much more than it should be and perhaps even wants to be, by the bank oligopoly:

“President Obama himself has described his role as mediating between the bankers and angry masses. “Be careful how you make those statements, gentlemen,” Obama said in his statement to bankers who were complaining vociferously about the restrictions on CEO salaries and bonuses. “The public isn’t buying that. My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks.”

That’s a great sound bite, but it suggests that Obama sees the administration’s proper role as acceding selectively to pressure from either the people or the banks.  That’s not the way the administration should be conducting itself. A president is supposed to represent the people and banks, and to choose policies based on what is best for the nation.”

The chief mechanism by which the president chooses “policies based on what is best for the nation” is through approval of laws made by congress and enforcement of those laws.  If laws are broken by banks then it is the duty of the president to seek prosecution.  But the symbiotic relation that now exists between the Obama administration and the banks is preventing even an investigation into possible wrongdoing by the banks, even to the point that the government itself is involved in obfuscation and perhaps illegality.  There no way to tell until a champion arises to challenge the secrecy. Mr Judis writes of this:

“Obama has also made the case repeatedly for transparency in government. And there is probably no place where it is more needed than in the relations between the administration and the banking community…Yet, in its dealings with the banks, the Obama administration has been anything but transparent.”

Let’s hope that Mr. Dizard is right and the Obama administration is going to move to cut the current  “inappropriate” relation between the Treasury and the banks and to face up to insolvent banks.  If Mr. Dizard’s predictions come true, then it is more clear that the Obama administration has nothing to hide. Why?, because, if Geithner is fired and Citi is reorganized, it is likely that Mr. Geithner and his pals at Citi will have a few tell all books to write and testimonies before committes to give.  Will they have anything sensational to say?  Not if the Mr. Dizard’s predictions come true.  The Obama administration would never risk it.  However, if Geithner remains and Citi continues as a zombie, what shall we conclude?