Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Why Are the Media More Interested in Blago Than in Unraveling the Bailout Mystery?
Have you heard what's going on with the government's almost trillion-dollar bailout and how your money is being spent? Do you know all you need to know about who's managing all that taxpayer money -- and how effectively it's being used?
Not if you're getting your news from cable TV. Judging by where the media are focusing their attention, you'd think the Blago/Burris/Reid and Kennedy/Paterson/Cuomo soap operas are the biggest issues facing the nation -- and that little thing about the potential collapse of the world's largest economy is just a sideshow.
Why have the media shown such relatively little interest in the utter lack of transparency about the bailout. Is it because they are still in campaign mode -- addicted to small bore, quick burn-out stories?
The time has come to recalibrate. As Obama transitions to governing mode, so should the press. Admittedly, governing stories aren't usually as sexy as campaign stories -- but the reason we cared so much about the campaign in the first place was to get to the governing.
On top of it, the bailout is a fascinating story. Not so much a whodunit as a who's-doing-it. This mystery is unfolding right in front of us, and the size of the victim pool could very well depend on whether we unravel the mystery in flashback or while it's still in progress.
Like most good mysteries, this one has a huge cast of characters -- like the Dickensianly named Neel Kashkari, the young Goldman banker put in charge of the bailout at the Treasury Department, the sharp-tongued Barney Frank, and the earnest and increasingly bewildered Hank Paulson, who started off the bailout process by romantically getting down on one knee in front of Nancy Pelosi and proposing to make the whole thing official.
But what we know is clearly dwarfed by what we don't know, because at every point in this story, the government has chosen to draw the curtains.
Just last week, four firms -- Goldman, Blackrock, Wellington and PIMCO -- were selected to manage the $500 billion account of mortgage-backed securities for the Fed. But how they were selected, what they're getting paid, and what they plan on doing with the money is all under wraps. "The selection of these managers seems incredibly opaque," Jeffrey Gundlach, an expert in mortgage-backed securities, told TPMmuckraker.
The head of one of the firms, Bill Gross of PIMCO, assured CNBC last month that "PIMCO would be the leader here in suggesting to the Treasury that we would work for no fee." So is Gross holding to his no fee pledge? We don't know - and the government isn't in any rush to tell us.
As a GAO report last month dryly concluded: "The rapid pace of implementation and evolving nature of the program have hampered efforts to put a comprehensive system of internal control in place. Until such a system is fully developed and implemented, there is heightened risk that the interests of the government and taxpayers may not be adequately protected and that the program objectives may not be achieved in an efficient and effective manner." In other words, the money is flying out the door but no one is watching where it's going.
The report also noted that the government still isn't able to say what the banks did with the first infusion of bailout money. In a response letter, Kashkari wouldn't say, but noted that the Fed has a "different perspective" on judging what the banks are doing with the money. And just what is this "perspective"? He wouldn't say. His perspective is that we can't know his perspective.
Of course, a lack of oversight was a key reason why Paulson's original bailout proposal was shot down. So some controls were written into the legislation so it could pass. And then what happened to the controls? Did they evaporate? Did they disappear up David Blaine's sleeve? Were they too toothless to begin with? We don't really know. As Eric Thorson, the Treasury's inspector general said, six weeks after the bill passed, "It's a mess. I don't think anyone understands right now how we're going to do proper oversight of this thing."
If the media don't go after this story with the same passion they went after morsels from the campaign trail, or with the same intensity they are going after every Blago/Burris nugget, and allow the government and its cronies to disperse a huge pot of taxpayer money behind closed doors, we know what's going to happen. And that's because we've seen this same scenario played out before -- in Iraq. In a devastating Rolling Stone piece, Naomi Klein details "the many worrying parallels between the administration's approach to the financial crisis and its approach to the Iraq War." She writes that "under cover of an emergency, Treasury is rapidly turning into an economic Green Zone, overrun with private companies collecting lucrative contracts." If the reconstruction of our economy follows the path of the reconstruction of Iraq, we are in for a very long, very hard -- and very painful -- economic slog.
There is an all-too-real economic drama playing out behind the drawn curtain -- a mystery waiting to be unraveled. And journalistic careers to be made by those doing the unraveling. So what are the media waiting for?
23 Comments so far
Show AllThe Glue That Holds Chaos Together
Excellent article!
I think that neither the Republicans or the Democrats want us to know where the money is really being used, or how. They have been successfully blackmailed into giving the corporate whores what they want. Another thing is that so much of the success of the bail-out lies in speculation of hoe the bail-out will be used, that the government can't tell us anything without the stock being inversely affected.
A big non-issue for the states is the Gaza situation (which is terrible, and has always been terrible since the creation of Israel), yet the media dangles it like a carrot before a populace who are unemployed, ignorant, broke and starving.
Why is CNN running stories about "consumer confidence"...confidence is part of what got us into this mess...overconfidant Republicans who thought that they could rewrite the laws of economics. Confidence is the last thing we need. We need food, jobs, education, and accountability for arrogant, overconfident people.
Now you got me started...I could go on all day...no, really... I am only working twenty hours a week, and next week I will be laid off like the rest of my neighbors. Viva Detroit!
Don't forget, Obama instructed congressional Democrats to line up in support of this obscene transfer of wealth--looting actually. Now Obama has shifted from a WPA style infrastructure stimulous plan to private investment--and that worked so well in the black hole of Iraq.
It is interesting how quickly the bailout money story disappeared from the news. As I remember (and it was only a couple months ago) this was a need-action-now crisis; if that money wasn't forthcoming within days, the entire global economy would collapse. The money was dished out, the global economy didn't collapse but didn't show much signs of improvement. We keep hearing that the money was meant to "unfreeze" credit, but that credit is still "frozen," loans are not being made, the banks are still afraid (so they say) that anyone they deal with will go bankrupt, and we keep hearing vague accounts of the money being used for big banks to buy up littler ones.
"Follow the money" stories are among the most important but aren't often covered because they reveal too much information about whose hand is in the cookie jar.
As far as I'm concerned, the bank bailout money has been stolen. I have been saying for years (based on my 8 misbegotten seasons as a corporate yuppie years during which I worked for one of those big banks) that large financial institutions are criminal conspiracies; they only reason they aren't all in jail is that they are rich enough to keep the politicians bought and paid for. The bailout caper is one of their biggest, and that money is money that won't be used as part of the Obama New New Deal. The bankers will continue to enrich themselves and stash their cash in overseas accounts while the rest of us slide quickly into big-time poverty.
That would be my guess and that is why the stock market isn't tanking despite the dire news. They are awash in our money and feathering their own nests before the bottom falls out.
After us, the deluge.
An apt response to Obama's mantra of change:
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
I agree that Blagojevich is a red herring, but here is my point: Blago is no doubt a corrupt politician, but he is a choir boy compared to Bush, Cheney, Paulson, Condi and the rest of the criminals that are guilty of: The perdition of our Constitution and The Bill Of Rights; The plenary ability to steal our $, without accountability; The egregious lies that caused so many innocent people being maimed, murdered and tortured; and on and on and on ad naseum. The whore press at its best!
Absolutely true, Paul Revere January 9th, 2009 1:41 pm, and the worst part is that Blagojevich has been convicted in the media strictly on public accusations from the prosecutor who has yet to even present his case to an indict-a-ham-sandwich Grand Jury. Contrast this with the way Fitzgerald handled Scooter Libby -- he got Grand Jury indictments before arresting Libby. In this case, he arrested first and then kept investigating, and now he's received an extension until April to indict Blago. Amazing. If the Governor of Illinois is on the 'crime spree' that Fitzgerald claims, he's isn't doing much to stop it.
Blago may be as corrupt as Boss Tweed, but Fitzgerald has to prove it in a court of law; so far, all we have is a press conference where he editorialized on Blago's guilt, violating DoJ policy and tainting the jury pool. Weird.
Also, why is it that the Illinois House can send up articles of impeachment against Blago so quickly and yet, after eight long years and Bush and Cheney ADMITTING publicly that they violated the Constitution, the Dem-controlled US House can't find anything that rises to the level of an impeachable offense? Rove must have amassed some horrible stuff on the Dems, especially Reid and Pelosi -- it's either that, or most of them have been bought off by the Multi-National Corprocracy. Those are the only two possible explanations for their inaction, IMO.
I think they just don't have the smarts. After all, this isn't the Edward R. Murrow press we have here, its more like an Alfred E. Neuman one.
moonpie January 9th, 2009 1:56 pm, the reporters for the Big Media are mainly both dumb and lazy, and their idea of journalism is to rewrite govt. press releases and regurgitate talking points, usually from the GOP. But they are also employees of the same kind of mega-corporations that own our political process, and their superiors, from CEOs and division presidents to editors and program directors, are mostly conservative, or else they know well on what side their bread is buttered.
As George Orwell wrote, referring to the assimilated news media, "Circus dogs jump when the trainer cracks the whip, but the really well-trained dog is the one that turns somersaults when there is no whip."
The American media has the most well-trained dogs in the business. What's really incredible is that some of them are so coopted they don't even realize they are spreading propaganda for their corporations.
The story is "Socialism for The Rich"
The corporate controlled media wont report this.
The story is also "The failure of free market economics and the Failure of tax cuts to stimulate the economy."
Both "free markets" and "tax cuts" are third rail ideas (thanks to 30 years of Republican rule) that the media wont touch.
In related media news, there's this item predicting the demise of the NY Times and several other metropolitan newspapers. Given the leading role the Times has played in promoting death and destruction of innocents worldwide during its existence, is it all well and good that it's print version at least is likely to soon die? Will electronic news media be any better than print? (No, obviously, if TV and radio are included as electronic; here I mean computerized.) Unfortunately, the writer (Michael Hirschorn, an Atlantic contributing editor) thinks "it will seriously damage the press’s ability to serve as a bulwark of democracy," to which I ask, when was that ever done? I will admit the Times renders one less ignorant than other Propaganda System brands, but that distinction isn't worth much.
Why is HuffingtonPost more interested in celebrity gossip rather than in-depth analysis of economic issues?
To anyone paying attention over the last 8 years... the stock market & real estate bubbles were going to burst... a matter of if not when...
Thousands of articles on Commondreams, Counterpunch, Globalresearch, and Buzzflash gave in-depth analysis about the situation... two years ago predicting to the month of when the stock market would take a dive, and predicting the bailout, recession, and eventual depression that would follow suit...
It follows the same cycles of boom and bust as the stock market crashes of 1890... 1929... the dot.com bubble... and today....
By delaying the inevitable downturn, the banksters allowed it to snow ball through derivatives and other ponzi schemes... with the characteristic "pump & dump" that we are experiencing right now...
An answer to the question in the title:Because the numbers are smaller and they don't have to do much homework, or know much. The only thing missing is sex. If they can find sex in the bailout disappeared money.....nah, they'd only talk about the sex.
Where did the money go???
Easy, the oil speculators that bought at 140 dollars a barrel.
The 140/barrel price never reached the pumps, rather the price dropped like a landslide to our current levels over three from June to October.
My guess is the banks where heavily invested in oil speculation in an effort to recoup loses from the housing bubble breakdown and mortgage defaults. They guessed wrong.
George and Dick rescued their rich banker and wall street buddies, and of course the oil industry.
No Brain er.
BornFreeMen
The big speculators made money running up the price of oil to 140 with their speculation. After this, they began shorting oil, and made money as the price dropped since it was no longer being propped up with their speculative buying. The market makers win 80% of the bets since they know the outcome, since they make the outcome. They did not guess wrong, and even the housing market bubble earned them enormous profits over a 10 year period, money in the bank, while the government covered their short term losses booked in the US, while profits from those holding the other side of the derivative bets were booked in the tax havens.
"My guess is the banks where heavily invested in oil speculation in an effort to recoup loses from the housing bubble breakdown and mortgage defaults. They guessed wrong."
Investment banks at one point, and whether this continues I do not know, were taking delivery of oil contracts and hoarding the oil in order to drive up the price. There may very well be much to what you posit. After reading your comment I remembered reading a story some time within the last couple years regarding this issue. Below is a link to just one of many stories I found when I googled "investment banks oil storage".
http://marketplace.publicradio.org//display/web/2009/01/09/pm_contango/?refid=0
Don't forget the purpose of the FED was to operate in conjunction with commercial banks, not investment banks and not insurance companies. Only in the last year when investment banks like Bear Stearns began to go belly up did the FED unilaterally decide that investment banks and insurance companies also fall under its aegis. There was no legislation out of the house or senate. The FED's Ben Bernanke and Treasury's Hank Paulson, formerly CEO of investment bank Goldman Sachs, just decided that 700 billion borrowed dollars to be repaid with interest by the taxpayers should be given to the investment banks and insurance companies like AIG. These dollars have been disbursed without public oversight and Paulson and Bernanke refuse to account for those disbursements.
This stinks to high heaven. In a country with involved, awake, aware citizens Paulson and Bernanke would be hanging from lamp posts by now.
Its an outrage. Its the grand theft of the last two centuries.
-- ekaton aka d.k.shaw
EKATON January 10th, 2009 12:36 am, excellent point regarding the Congress not approving the use of taxpayer money to bailout insurance companies and investment banks. Obviously, our solons in the mass media either don't understand, or don't want to understand, this important fact, and I'm wondering how many of our dimwit legislators are aware of this illegal plundering by Paulson and Bernanke.
I read three decades ago that some old retired Washington pol had said (paraphrase), "If the American people ever got wind of what we are really doing in their name, there would be a line of crucified politicians on every road leading out of the nation's capital." It seems some things haven't changed.
Give us all equal shares of stock in return or let them die.
This is always the case. In fact, back in 2001, all through the summer, even as the hijackers were communicating over the phone and net and raising red flags, the media was busy chasing Gary Condit just because he happened to admit to having an affair with Chandra Levy. It turned out he didn't kill here later. Nevertheles, 9/11 happened. The same things happen on the economic side. The American electorate would much rather be glued to a petty political scandal or even a personal one than they would try figuring out all this corporate mess. Lucianne Goldberg, a perennial Clinton hater, knew what she meant when she said that "sex scandals are fun and juicy while investing Enron is boring" back in 2002.
If capitalism is flawed, we can never bail it out.
Today Obama said, "If you have a solution, show me"
Well we can definitely show you Mr. Obama, in fact WE'LL SHOW EVERYBODY!!!
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/hueyplongshare.htm
(thanks hootowl!)
Arianna if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. I used to like the Huffington Post when it first came out, but now it's gotten so tabloid. BTW I'm getting fed up that your publication censors legitimate non-inflammatory comments. Thank goodness for Common Dreams. Take a lesson Arianna.
I totally agree about the tabloid quality of Huffpost...
And forget about the comment section after the articles...
An excercise in futility...
It feels like a favorite destination for hatewing trolls to antagonize any progressive fool enough to share their ideas on that forum...
Arians is a strong willed and intelligent liberal pundit on the cable news shows...
And I admire her prolific writing and tireless presence in the public eye...
But her blog sucks...
Why? The newspapers are not run by journalists.
Joe