The Washington Post is reporting that, although we have committed over $290 billion of the original $700 billion bailout, we have not begun serious implementation of a system of oversight.
Barney Frank is claiming that, because the nature of the giant rescue package has changed, the need for oversight is not as pressing as it once appeared. This line of reasoning is shocking. The fact that the bailout has changed its direction since its passage means that the massive corrections have occurred without congressional approval. We have shifted focus from the original intent, purchasing troubled assets, to purchasing equity and injecting capital directly into companies. (We may not purchase a single “troubled asset” at this point according to Secretary Paulson) This could be a vast improvement from the bill that passed, as seems to be general consensus, but it should be troubling that oversight is losing as a result.
The people making the decisions are not infallible, in fact they are some of the same who helped cause, or at least allowed, the crisis in the first case. And I seem to recall being told by the Bush Administration and Congress that the original bailout plan was urgent and necessary to avoid collapse. Now it has taken on a different look, a life of its own. I submit that this is exactly why we need oversight, more than ever. $700 billion of taxpayer money will be dispersed to thousands of places to save an economy so complex that no one fully understands. We need to be certain that we are spending this enormous amount of our treasure wisely. Simply telling us, with every change to the original plan, “This is urgent and absolutely necessary,” is not enough. This is our money, our investment, and we were guaranteed oversight, regulation, and accountability.
Also disturbing is that lobbyists, apparently predicting a boon from this massive transfer of money, have begun lining up for their slice of the pie before they even have a client. Whether that is just how the system works or not, it is appalling.
From the New York Times, Thursday, November 13 2008
Some lobbyists, Mr. Mason told The Times, had called him even though they did not have any clients looking to get into the program or worried about its restrictions. They were merely seeking intelligence on which industries would be deemed eligible for assistance. He suspects they were representing hedge funds that wanted to trade on that information.
The Times article addresses the rush from lobbyists for business and industry to find ways to get a piece of the bailout pie.
We just came off an election in which all sides called for oversight, transparency, and curbing of lobbyist influence. Why should the government use even one taxpayer dollar without a public disclosure and explanation? If the failure of oversight was a part of the cause of the problem, then the success of oversight has to be part of the solution. I want to be able to read about every transaction immediately as it occurs. We have the technology to make that happen. It would not be difficult or expensive. We were told that such things would be a priority. The next dollar spent should be to provide the public assurance that we will not be swindled. We are sick of talk, especially the kind that substitutes resolute insistence for actual substance.
November 13, 2008...3:36 pm
Bailout Pie in our Face
The Washington Post is reporting that, although we have committed over $290 billion of the original $700 billion bailout, we have not begun serious implementation of a system of oversight.
Barney Frank is claiming that, because the nature of the giant rescue package has changed, the need for oversight is not as pressing as it once appeared. This line of reasoning is shocking. The fact that the bailout has changed its direction since its passage means that the massive corrections have occurred without congressional approval. We have shifted focus from the original intent, purchasing troubled assets, to purchasing equity and injecting capital directly into companies. (We may not purchase a single “troubled asset” at this point according to Secretary Paulson) This could be a vast improvement from the bill that passed, as seems to be general consensus, but it should be troubling that oversight is losing as a result.
The people making the decisions are not infallible, in fact they are some of the same who helped cause, or at least allowed, the crisis in the first case. And I seem to recall being told by the Bush Administration and Congress that the original bailout plan was urgent and necessary to avoid collapse. Now it has taken on a different look, a life of its own. I submit that this is exactly why we need oversight, more than ever. $700 billion of taxpayer money will be dispersed to thousands of places to save an economy so complex that no one fully understands. We need to be certain that we are spending this enormous amount of our treasure wisely. Simply telling us, with every change to the original plan, “This is urgent and absolutely necessary,” is not enough. This is our money, our investment, and we were guaranteed oversight, regulation, and accountability.
Also disturbing is that lobbyists, apparently predicting a boon from this massive transfer of money, have begun lining up for their slice of the pie before they even have a client. Whether that is just how the system works or not, it is appalling.
From the New York Times, Thursday, November 13 2008
The Times article addresses the rush from lobbyists for business and industry to find ways to get a piece of the bailout pie.
We just came off an election in which all sides called for oversight, transparency, and curbing of lobbyist influence. Why should the government use even one taxpayer dollar without a public disclosure and explanation? If the failure of oversight was a part of the cause of the problem, then the success of oversight has to be part of the solution. I want to be able to read about every transaction immediately as it occurs. We have the technology to make that happen. It would not be difficult or expensive. We were told that such things would be a priority. The next dollar spent should be to provide the public assurance that we will not be swindled. We are sick of talk, especially the kind that substitutes resolute insistence for actual substance.
Leave a Comment
Filed under Commentary, Politics, bailout, news
Tags: bailout, bailout pie, Barney Frank, lobbying, lobbyist, oversight, Paulson, Politics, tax