Senior Bush administration officials are preparing to ask lawmakers for the second half of the $700 billion financial rescue package [TARP] despite intense opposition in Congress and then have President Bush use his veto if the request is voted down, three sources familiar with the matter said.
The initiative, which is being coordinated with the Obama transition team, may be taken within days, the sources said, speaking on condition of anonymity because no announcement has been made.
Well, after all, it is the Bush + Reid + Pelosi + Obama + Paulson bill, Big Money wants it, and the whole Village
wants it, so if a few representatives actually listen to their constituents, they can go fuck themselves, right? Anyhow, don't you think this whole "two party" concept is highly over-rated?
And all this on the day that Elizabeth Warren released the report on what Paulson did with the first tranche. Housing Wire has some details on Paulson's looting:
The Congressional Oversight Panel in its first report since issuing a list of questions Dec. 10 — many of which went unanswered — on Friday called for increased bank accountability in the use of TARP funds, transparency and asset evaluation, increased efforts to prevent foreclosures, and a clearly defined strategy.
“The Panel’s initial concerns about the TARP have only grown, exacerbated by the shifting explanations of its purposes and the tools used by Treasury,” read an executive summary from the panel. “It is not enough to say that the goal is the stabilization of the financial markets and the broader economy. That goal is widely accepted. The question is how the infusion of billions of dollars to an insurance conglomerate or a credit card company advances both the goal of financial stability and the well-being of taxpayers, including homeowners threatened by foreclosure, people losing their jobs, and families unable to pay their credit cards.”
The panel called for the Treasury to clarify exactly the types of institutions are deemed eligible and ineligible to receive funds, and to clarify the use of TARP funds. It had previously sent a list of questions to the Treasury on Dec. 10 asking for such clarifications, which it did not receive. The Treasury’s response answered few of the questions and ignored others entirely, according to the panel. ...
In addition to criticizing the Treasury’s failure to answer questions it posed on Dec. 10, the panel also drew attention to the TARP’s ineffectual use in preventing foreclosures and the “significant gaps” in the ability of the Treasury to track the vast amounts of taxpayer money injected into financial institutions. “Treasury needs to be clear as to what, if anything, it has done, and if it insists on taking credit for private sector efforts, it must explain what ‘help’ means,” the panel said.
You know, you'd think Obama'd be using the Congress as leverage to get some control over TARP, instead of using Bush to get some control over Congress.
Then again, given Obama's role in passing TARP in the first place, maybe you wouldn't think that.
Where'd the money go, Hank Barack?
- lambert's blog
Printer-friendly version- Login or register to post comments
Front page
Comments
I think this story is highly confused and confusing.
I've read several accounts of the Obama transition team working on a complete overhaul of TARP, meant to apply to the second half of the money. The Wa Po's version of the story is here.
Geithner has been working night and day on the eighth floor of the transition team office in downtown Washington with Lawrence H. Summers and other senior economic advisers to hash out a new approach that would expand the program's aid to municipalities, small businesses, homeowners and other consumers. With lawmakers stewing over how Bush administration officials spent the first $350 billion, Geithner has little chance of winning congressional approval for the second half without retooling the program, the sources added.
That challenge is underscored by a report from a congressional oversight panel scheduled to be released today that hammers the outgoing Treasury Department for its handling of the financial rescue, including "what appear to be significant gaps in Treasury's monitoring of the use of taxpayer money."
edit
Much of the work by Obama's team has focused on establishing principles that would clearly define the program's course and the conditions of government aid to financial firms.
With Geithner leading the discussions along with Summers, who will head the National Economic Council in the White House, the group is devising plans that would use rescue funds to help homeowners avoid foreclosure and unclog the credit markets that finance loans to consumers, small businesses and municipalities. The team is also planning to have the government take more stakes in financial firms, but companies receiving federal aid would have to submit to greater restrictions on executive compensation than were imposed by the Bush administration.
I'd wait to see what the Obama transition team response is to this Bush pronouncement.
Since what Obama wants to do with the second half of the funds is similar to what Democrats have been talking about I don't know why there should be any anticipated problem with congress releasing the funds to Obama, as opposed to Bush.
It also strikes me as wildly inaccurate to say that Democrats are anxious to give the second half of TARP to either Paulson or Bush. What evidence do you have for that? Barney Frank has been working on legislation as well to use the TARP money to forestall foreclosures; I know you didn't approve because it wasn't a carbon copy of the FDR program, but it was the Democrats who appointed Elizabeth Warren.
It would "wildly inaccurate," had I written it
The story isn't confusing as all. Obama, according to sources, plans to use Bush to get the Congress into line. I've helpfully underlined the salient point. You'll note that I reinforced that in the final paragraphs. To the detail.
Leah writes (which is good, hi):
What I wrote:
Factual, though snarky, in all respects (unless you think the Village
is a squishy target.
That wasn't your expectation? Why? Using Bush to get leverage over Congress seems quite remarkable to me. It doesn't to you?
And Frank may well be working on legislation -- to remedy the initial Clusterfuck
, which he had a large part in creating. Since so much of this is closing the barn door after the two trillion have been lost, I hope you will pardon my skepticism, as well as my efforts to shove the Overton Window
left before it gets nailed into place.
NOTE As for the tendentious "carbon copy" -- Oh, come on. There are numerous HOLC proposals, all of which I covered. The principles are the New Deal's -- and why not? I don't think any of them are "carbon copies." I might think that it's a bad idea because it forces people -- unlike Big Money -- to declare bankruptcy before getting help -- but I haven't posted to that effect, at least not recently, and in any case, that has nothing to do with being a "carbon copy" of HOLC or anything else.
NOTE Yes, the Democrats appointed Elizabeth Warren. I noted that "good news" at the time. Last I checked, Warren wasn't a Senator or a Congressperson. So what's your point? That I should issue the Dems a free pass because they appointed a good person to a panel without subpoena power? Pas si bete.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi