Why Is The Administration Fighting Transparency On TARP?
from the this-is-not-good dept
We haven't written that much about the economy lately, as others seem to be doing a great job on it, but back when the TARP program first came about, we were quite concerned with the nature of the program, and specifically the lack of transparency. With the change in administrations -- especially to one that insisted transparency was a key factor, we hoped that things would get better. Now, it's no secret that we've been upset about some of the new administration's failure to live up to its own transparency promises. But there had been some evidence lately that it really was becoming increasingly transparent with how some taxpayer funds are being spent.Apparently, that doesn't apply to the bailout, though.
Here's a disturbing story about the guy who's in responsible for being the independent watchdog over how the TARP money is being spent. While he's a long-term Democrat and Obama supporter (so his views aren't political), he's been quite critical of how the administration is not being at all transparent concerning how TARP is being used. He wanted the administration to force the banks to explain what they were doing -- and was told that was impossible. So he did it himself -- and asked the banks to let him know how the funds were being used, which they did. He used that and some other info to put out a report, suggesting that the funds aren't being used as was expected. That sounds exactly like what the independent watchdog should be doing.
But the administration (mainly the Treasury Department) has been fighting him, and is now trying to have it declared that the independent watchdog actually is under the control of the Treasury Department -- which would basically take away the whole "independent" part. That seems to go against the very concept of the transparency we were promised. It's great that this guy and his very small team of folks are actually monitoring what's happening with our taxpayer money (whether you agree with how it was used or not). It's not a good sign that the Obama administration is now trying to muzzle him. That's not transparency people can believe in.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: obama administration, tarp, transparency, treasury department
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No, but it's the same crap we've come to expect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A: "No. I knew they were lying all along."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tell Me Something
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tell Me Something
Now, with that said, you aren't even arguing the point of the article. It even states "whether you agree with how it was used or not." The point is that the only guy trying to keep the program accountable is being told that he is not allowed to either investigate or publish results. That's a problem no matter how you cut it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Tell Me Something
The Banks of course claim they are doing both, what is the ratio of loans to bonus that you would find acceptable. (do you see my point at all yet?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I know what you're saying, but consider this as perhaps a better way of stating it:
What matter is it the differences between the puppets when the hands jammed up their rears are the same?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dirty as Bush?
BHO has firmly established a "Culture of Corruption" worse than any other administration since Warren Harding. You can read about it in Michelle Malkin's "Culture of Corruption" Hardback version: http://bit.ly/c9KSl E-book version: http://bit.ly/4CNC5d
--
Thanks BHO, for the tremendous stimulus you have give *my* business! (http://www.chl-tx.com)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dirty as Bush?
"read about it in Michelle Malkin's "Culture of Corruption"
You claim your were never a Bush supporter - then recomend getting information from Malkin . . come on, your either really stupid or a liar . . . and no body is that stupid!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Dirty as Bush?
That's like saying someone is stupid for finding value in the Qur'an whilst believing in the Bible, or the other way around. The intellectuals understand the benefit in seeing the debate from all angles. Based on the words of Sun Tzu, you should know yourself and your opposition to efficiently debate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Dirty as Bush?
As for BHO, I knew that he was just a puppet. The puppet master is unkind and ungrateful. Most of the time I think they would rather be the only ones left of this planet. But if they were the only ones, who could they make into slaves?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Dirty as Bush?
Yes, intellectuals will choose to get their info from diverse sources, and make their own conclusions. But they probably also are able to recognize outliers that only distort the statistical analysis. These outliers (as in statistics) are subsequently ignored.
Wish I knew an intellectual...I'd ask them to see if I'm right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Dirty as Bush?
The analogy is no good because those are books about "faith", frankly I would wonder about anyone who thinks they are factual. Political analysis should be fact based, Malkin is not, she is audience (or community based) in that she writes to sell to the sheep. Nothing can be learned from her, as her information is far too often and far too largely simply untrue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dirty as Bush?
Just because you agreed with him (GWB) didn't mean that it wasn't stupid. In fact, I'd say it probably meant just the opposite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tell me exactly how these guys COULD spend tax payer money (replacing thier own lost missmanaged private capital) without upsetting the American people. Give me a scenario where the information reported could be viewed as "good" by the American people . . . I dont see one.
I'll tell you how - first off, back down on HOW MUCH they take. Then get rid of fly overs in New York with Air Force one. Quit giving out contracts to companies that cost billions for researching new ways of hying global warming and at the same time making new bombs that are even more destructive to further dirty up the environment.
I'd say without question that 'governments' with their planes, boats, bombs, and big mansions are the WORST polluters on the planet. How much fuel is wasted on just military training? How much fuel is wasted on their limos and 6 SUV escorts? I bet any one single politician uses 10 times or MORE the resources than any of us do.
That's why they hype global warming - it's not because they care, it's because they are paranoid us 'serfs' will use up all the resources that are "rightly" theirs!
Then get rid of half the needless bureaucracy that's only reason to exist is to support the bureaucracy.
Then maybe we could use a general fund for elections and not allow certain politicians to win only because they can raise more money than the next guy - all the while driving and flying all over the country to try and get elected - basically wasting fuel, paper, plastic, and more for no reason. At least when we drive, it's going to work or out with the family - not just to 'advertise'.
That would be a start. It's not a matter of them *spending money* on things that are really important, it's about the huge, massive amount of waste. Both in terms of money and pollution these so called 'caring' governments put out.
They consume, consume, consume. But they never put anything back - unlike 99% of the 'normal' population.
It's funny how the 'world's largest consumer' complains at us incessantly to conserve isn't it?
For Obama, Al Gore, and others to go on a 24/7 whine fest about global warming - when is the last time they got down on their knees in the dirt and planted a tree?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
One statement has nothing to do with the other? You do however prove my point perfectly. The reason treasurary is not eager for this information to come out, is becuase nothing beneficial can come of it. It will simply be used as part of larger political attacks (as this poster demostrates) and wont really provide much useful insight (cash is fungible - so what they use what money for is pretty irrelevent). Poorly managed financial instutions managed thier money badly (poor regulation allowed them to do this for far too long) and then they were given more taxpayer money to replace what they had lost (to prevent a complete collapse of the industialized world - supposedly). Tracing every dollar, even if possible, is somewhat pointless and is not going to make anyone feel any better about this situation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This makes no sense, because this spending only occurred because of the bailouts. You would be right if you argued that it is a moot point to argue whether one's specific tax dollars went to bailouts or Medicare or abortions or whatever, but spending approved for bailouts/stimulus/bonfires measurably wastes hundreds of billions of money that could have been put to better use and now is owed back at interest.
Poorly managed financial instutions managed thier money badly (poor regulation allowed them to do this for far too long) and then they were given more taxpayer money to replace what they had lost (to prevent a complete collapse of the industialized world - supposedly).
And this is now something like the 500th time some dumbass has blamed lack of regulation for the world's ailments. Regulations caused this, if anything, as homeownership requirements created a huge bubble and monopolies handed to credit ratings agencies eliminated any independent assessment of risk. Not to mention that if an institution is managed poorly, that is its prerogative. The entire point of our economy is to let those institutions fail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
ROFL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Okay, what you say makes sense, except for one thing: there has to be a reasonable level of restraint on military spending. By that I mean that the statement can't be, "We need to have a powerful military so we're going to agree to all spending requests". It also can't be "We're going to just blindly spend away on most/all new projects/weapons proposed". There HAS to be a goal. I think a reasonable goal is to say, "We want to have the most powerful military and spend the most on our military budget". I even think it's a reasonable goal to say "We want to have 1.5 times as large a military as the 2nd place guy". But that isn't even CLOSE to how we spend on the military.
-We spend 229% as much on military as THE ENTIRE European Union
-We spend over 10x as much on military as CHINA, a country with between 5-6 times as many people as the USA
-We spend almost exactly 1/2 of the entire WORLD'S military expenditure
-Our spending represents 70% of the entire military budget for NATO
I'm just saying, our military spending isn't even CLOSE to reality. Those that say there hasn't been a military industrial complex conspiracy going on within our budget since the days of WWII simply have their heads in the sand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Someone should shine a light on this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Someone should shine a light on this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Someone should shine a light on this
As their reputation spreads, they could develop a sizable audience and could choose to monetize two ways:
- a paywall, which would reduce their audience
- ad revenue
If they go with ad revenue, they could sell directly to sponsors, but that might induce bias. If they just placed ads hosted by a neutral third party, say Google, they would be at arm's length from the influence of advertisers.
They could thus pay the reporters with the ad revenues. This could work! Great idea! I sure hope there's no vested legacy business that would bitch, moan, and drag heels when this kind of great idea gets implemented.
YOU wouldn't know of any such, would you, Albert Nonymouse?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If I Tell You What I Am Doing
That's the basic operating principle of this current administration. These are the so called elites who are taking over the economy. They will tell you what to do and when to do it. Very simple, incredibly frightening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If I Tell You What I Am Doing
That's the basic operating principle of this current administration. These are the so called elites who are taking over the economy. They will tell you what to do and when to do it. Very simple, incredibly frightening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perhaps the country needs to have it's nose rubbed in the mess we have created. Sunshine is the best disinfectant. Regardless of how bad it is, the TARP info *should* be published for all to see. To support Obama without holding him to his promises is a fine example of hypocracy and we should know better. We wouldn't let Boooosh get away with it. Why should we give Obama a pass?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Change....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]