Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Treasury's Transparency Two-Step
Is Treasury not getting the message? When it comes to administering TARP, the agency has been warned again and again about its lack of transparency by the three government watchdogs monitoring the bailout. Back in January, the Government Accountability Office concluded that goings on at the agency were so opaque it was difficult to tell whether Treasury even had a "strategic vision" for TARP at all. The agency has even tried to stonewall Neil Barofsky, the Special Inspector General for TARP (or, SIGTARP), refusing to hand over certain documents he requested. Meanwhile, Elizabeth Warren, the Harvard law professor chairing the Congressional Oversight Panel, has said that "without more transparency and accountability...it is not possible to exercise meaningful oversight over Treasury's actions." It must have been all the more frustrating for her when COP recently requested specific information about the stock warrants Treasury received from bailout recipients only to be told that none would be forthcoming.
At issue is whether Treasury is maximizing taxpayers' return on investment, or giving bailed out banks sweetheart deals by allowing them to repurchase their warrants at bargain rates. So far it looks like the latter. The COP's latest report [PDF], released on Friday, found "eleven small banks have repurchased their warrants from Treasury for a total amount that the Panel estimates to be only 66 percent of its best estimate of their value," shorting taxpayers about $10 million overall. While the agency has only sold warrants from smaller banks so far, if it were to unload its holdings under the same terms, taxpayers could lose out on as much as $2.7 billion. Given this, it would seem particularly important to find out how exactly Treasury is valuing these warrants. But this is specifically the information the agency is refusing to part with.
In a June 12 letter, Warren posed a series of questions to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner relating to the repayment of TARP funds, which many bailout recipients are hastening to do in order to avoid the pesky scrutiny that accompanies their participation in the program. Among other things, she asked Geithner to "provide any information relating to Treasury's internal valuations of warrants not yet exercised or repurchased." Imagine Warren's dismay when Geithner came back with this:
It is not Treasury's policy to publish estimates of the fair market value of its investments made under the Troubled Asset Relief Program ("TARP"). In the present case, Treasury believes it would not be in the taxpayer's interest for Treasury to disclose any valuations it has performed in connection with warrants whose repurchase is currently pending or that may be repurchased in the near term.
The panel singled this out as a "disheartening" sign that the transparency message, which "the Panel has emphasized..since its first report," had yet to sink in for Treasury. Pointing out that "the disposition of the warrants is of direct financial interest to the public," the report notes that "it is especially important that Treasury be absolutely transparent about the nature and substance of the decisions it is making and the reasons for those decisions."
Since it is the healthy banks that are currently repaying, the value of their respective warrants has no doubt gone up. In this respect, early sales of these warrants may leave Treasury holding the warrants of weaker institutions with lower stock prices and less likelihood of appreciation in the value of their warrants, at least in the immediate future.
The Panel recognizes that Treasury must protect proprietary information and use care to avoid giving other institutions information that would prejudice the interests of the taxpayer, but it must make any decision to restrict disclosure for these reasons only in the most thoughtful and judicious manner.
This seems like a polite way of saying that COP regards Treasury's decision to withhold warrant valuations as neither thoughtful nor judicious.
18 Comments so far
Show AllSioux Rose
What do these items have in common?
1. TARP's lack of transparency
2. The billions that went to private contractor(s)
army/Blackwater (that can't be accounted for)
3. The billions LOST in Iraq or squandered on so-called
construction projects/contracts that were not fulfilled
4. The revolving door between Goldman Sachs and U.S. treasury
5. The triple A rating of bundled loans that may have slim to
no value
6. Only insurers "at the table" when discussion of health
care is underway.
7. (Lots of other examples, feel free to add them.)
ANSWER: Deregulation of too many elements of industry (added to a covert crippling of the nation's regulatory agencies like FDA & EPA) have granted those with a will to trespass a veritable free pass. With control of media by right wing pro-business maniacs, the public has been given the perception that government never gets it right. Thus identifying with the major corporate trespassers, like citizens of Kansas, they vote against their own best interests, that is if and when they understand these at all.
In this climate of crime-as-public-policy, it's not hard to understand why torture is "legal," and conscientious citizens are spied upon, and bankers who treated the public's money like chips gambled at casino tables have been given yet more access to what's left of our savings. And then there is what's thrown at war, and the return on this investment? A legion of men returned with broken minds, bodies, and spirits. What a sick and sickening legacy! All proof of what happens when Mammon and Mars run a nation's agenda.
"free pass" is putting it lightly...a license to steal with no expiration date is more like it !
Obama's mission is to maximize profits for the fortune 500 at the expense of the rest of us.
Except for the last sentence which I'm not completely sure about, I agree. The problems were man made and can be corrected. We just gotta keep hunting for the right pols to help us on it.
The fact is the United States (And most Governmnets in the world for that matter) have always been Governments that enrich the few at the cost of the many.
Over the past 100's of years they have had to temper that with legislation directed towards the poor in order to keep them in their place.
The difference today is that the elites now think they have enough control over the levers of power via things like the Patriot act, the total control over ploticians the media and so forth, they feel they can operate OPENLY and shamelessly rather then do so from the shadows.
Police forces have been Militarized. Public servents Corporatized. They can once again openly and publicly proclaim rule by "Divine right"
Sioux Rose
GW NORTH: As usual I agree with you and find that your analysis complements my own. One thing to add is the efficiency and calibre of weapons at the state's disposal, aided by the new high technology so beneficial to the surveillance state. (And our own tax dollars paid for these implements of our psychic enslavement!) No more privacy, Habeas Corpus, suspect Bill of Rights, and we still call ourselves a "free" people, as naive soldiers or kids from depressed neighborhoods seduced into "service" by slick military salesmen/women believe themselves to be making the great sacrifice for "freedom." Bernays meets Orwell meets Pavlov, and all sigh from their graves. Do you hear the rumbling?
The only message that the Treasury gets is we're all either totally ignorant or we're too pissed off to the point of insulting other people and condescending them. Even in the progressive realm, I notice a lot of divisions and insults. If someone disagrees and tries to be polite about it, they get condescended or called a Republican for it. Geithner is a criminal just like Paulson alright but at least he knows how to gracefully get his allies and support. We on the other hand are totally divided and dysfunctional. But since I'm not divisive or condescending unlike the know-it-alls in this crazy world, here's my help to you. First, let's start thinking about CREDIT UNIONS. Second, I direct you to a simple google search on "credit unions" and banks in your search query. Third, Ralph Nader discussed why credit unions can withstand even the worst. Fourth, at least in a credit union people are friendly and kind to help and not condescending know-it-alls unlike some in the big banks. You wanna defend yourself from and possibly take on the US Treasury? Take my advice and pass it on or leave it but don't complain !
Because "The business of the nation is business", "Business is war" and "War is deception".
And don't forget keeping us divided ! Some supposedly have "astute analysis" while the rest of us are condescended as gutless and low "intelligence" just because of slight disagreements and misunderstandings. And you know what ? THEY LOVE IT ! NO WONDER GOD IS PUNISHING AMERICA TO ETERNAL DAMNATION !!
Sioux Rose
It's a funny thing. There was an obnoxious idiotic Max Payne who posted on here about 6 weeks ago and attacked me.
Then there was this OTHER who sounded fairly intelligent, even-tempered, and made some at times excellent points.
Either you are bi-polar, or your name is used by more than one source. I am responding to that, and I feel it strongly and INTUITIVELY.
If you have not done so, try reading the excellent piece posted by Jimmy Carter on Sunday. Then get back to me with your supposedly gender-neutral analysis. You are not ready for Moon Dance. Not by a long shot! Or possibly several lifetimes; but then that other Max, on the other hand, there's hope for him.
I read the article by Jimmy Carter on Sunday and I agree with him. In fact, I'd go one step further to include cruelty to men also since a lot of that gets under reported as well. I have total respect for both genders and I am strongly against either gender controlling the other.
Second, I mentioned this in another thread but here goes. I don't hate anyone or anything like that but I just get sick and tired of people who use gender division stereotyping. When you said "militarism ... rely on strict rules and loyalty to father figures", that's where I disagreed. Why do people have to keep making it look like father figures are always strict and cruel? True, some guys are cruel and strict but most of them aren't. From my experience in life, mothers can be just as strict and cruel as can fathers. Neither of my parents were cruel although both were strict and I didn't mind that.
History has even shown that even mother figures can be just as cruel and strict as father figures. Let's start out with Mother Teresa. Nobody ever talks about the dark side of Mother Teresa (http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/05/mother-teresa.html). I may be a white male Christian but I would never ever force the sick and the poor to convert to Christianity the way Mother Teresa did. And here's the most recent example, the current governor of AZ. That article was posted today on this site. How do you explain a female governor going against women? This is criminally insane and even more so than a male governor doing it. But this isn't the first woman I've seen going against her own gender like that and it probably won't be the last. I've seen state legislatures and candidates similarly. Even in your state of FL, there had to be plenty of cases where a rightwing woman was running against a truly progressive man. I could dig up plenty of examples where there are good mother figures, good father figures, bad mother figures, and bad father figures.
Call me bi-polar or whatever. Maybe there's something I didn't understand which may have lead to my earlier disagreement but calling me gutless and without an intellectual pissed me off. You didn't tell me what the Moon Dance was but I found someone nice who just so happened to know so now I see the basics. I'm sure that even Moon Dance does not tolerate gender discrimination of any kind.
Update: I saw your post on Mother Nature in today's article on getting kids outdoors and I'll agree with that so I think I see where you're coming from. However, with reference to your comments on the Carter article, I don't know that we will be able to move away overnight from a world where Mars rules to one where Venus rules. However, if moderation has its way, I think there should be some leeway for a genuine compromise and then we might be able to live in a world where Venus rules for all. Who knows?
Hi maxpayne,
It's not about man vs woman. Here's an excellent article written by Sioux Rose that you should first read so that you can understand the basics. She doesn't mean any harm to you.
Our Anthropological Archetypes: Mars and Venus
Author: Sioux Rose
http://www.siouxrose.com/article.venus.htm
I would also recommend reading George Lakoff's "Moral Politics" 2nd edition. He talks about how the idea of Strict Father Morality goes against itself similar to how Sioux Rose explains how Mars goes even against itself. Lakoff also discusses the Nurturent Parenting Model where both parents work together in harmony for not only each other but also for the good of their children and others close to them. Similarly, Sioux describes how Venus actually unifies us all and stands for both oars unlike Mars who stands for one oar that results in an infinite loop to anger and confusion.
Venus is not about women controlling men. Venus is about equality and collective reasoning as you have been wishing for on the posts all day. Nowhere did Sioux say so and neither is she blaming men. She is putting the blame straight where it belongs, on the forces that have corrupted society's mindsets.
JenniferBedingfield,
Thank you for kindly pointing me to the article to read. I didn't know Sioux Rose hosted a site of her own and wrote such articles and books. It would have been nice if she had at least pointed me to that article instead of leaving me in limbo and condescending me like that. That was a very powerful and interesting article and this reminds me of so much pain and suffering I went through like everyone else. If I understand the "Mars rules" slogan as I think I do, then this means that even within our progressive and liberal realms there's so much war and division amongst intellectuals. I have read George Lakoff's "Don't Think of an Elephant" but I have heard of "Moral Politics" before. I believe that it is an expanded version of DTOAE. I will be glad to read that book as well. George Lakoff warns that when intellectual progressives call others who are not up to par dumb and/or Republican, it just turns them off and actually strengthens the opposition. Most conservatives are united although on the occasion, they'll botch and election or two. I've been to conservative meetings and most of the members are friendly although sinister in their plans. If I understand Venus like I think I do, they borrow from Venus and team up and they plan long term. In sharp contrast, up until recently, I would rarely find a progressive organization or meeting locally or even statewide. Even when it was there, everything was so disorganized and people would engage in name-calling and shouting down. I had to punch someone in the face for saying "Oh my god, you're not smart enough so you can't possibly be a Democrat! You're a Republican covert !" Even on this site when I first came, I was mistaken as some paid operative and showed my anger and went nuts although I was able to finally knock some sense and prove that I wasn't or at least get enough people to understand where I'm coming from and sympathize so that I wouldn't feel left out. I was still trying to get my mind back into focus too but that's another story. I don't expect praises all the time but insulting based on even simple disagreements and/or misunderstandings is pushing it. It's like two people having to row a boat. One person has the oar and claims to be very skill at rowing. The other one needs some help or just disagrees on the method so the first one refuses to give the second one an oar and then blames the second one for being stupid. Maybe I sound silly saying this but the infinite circle result is what happens when there is lack of team work as her article admits. How about we take education and how dysfunctional it is. In high schools, teachers don't prepare the students well. In college, professors assume you know everything and the courses turn out to be hard and thus struggling. Again, Rose's oar analogy would come into play. Is it any wonder that our educational system is broken almost beyond repair even though simple cooperation would actually fix it?
Again, thank you for the article and I will take this into account on future discussions about Mars and Venus. I will also read Rose's other articles and pass them along for others where I think it can be helpful. God bless you.
Sioux Rose
OKAY, Max, I will extend an apology. If you read my long diatribe on Venus & Mars then you are a male willing to learn and that is a VERY VERY good sign.
My anger is NOT at you. It's at the powers that are killing our planet. Mars rules the first Zodiac sign and has much to do with the monotheistic pronouncement popularized by patriarchal religion in the form of, "And God sayeth, let there be no other Gods before me." Former polytheistic beliefs were expunged on threat of death and the basic archetype most take for God really is a Mars-Saturn (old father time) hybrid. The other intended counter-balancing principles were either negated or went underground. Next on the wheel of cosmic time is Venus in her FIRST embodiment, as Taurus, the sign of nature, that is MOTHER nature. She is intended as PARTNER to Mars, but instead he enslaved her (and women, as well). Jim Morrison's words spring to life, "What have they done to the earth? What have they done to our fair sister, ravaged and plundered and knived her and bit her, tied her with fences and dragged her down."
Interestingly enough we see the same pattern in the mysticism of China, as per the I Ching where the first kua/hexagram signifies YANG the supreme male, and the next Yin, the supreme female.
As JENNIFER related, I hold as ideal the grand balance, and see the genders as intended LOVERS and helpmates intended to grow through involvement in a dynamic partnership.
When you say glib things about the genders, it reminds me of the white slaveowner who says he really likes Black people. Until there is gender parity and equivalent power in the relationship between the two, all talk of not maligning one or the other is moot. And as for WHY some women are cruel, if you had no power, you would use what tools you had. The beautiful woman who has many suitors is perceived as cruel by the men she rejects. But how many lovers should she take in a society that up until 50 years ago would have called her a whore or worse for having more than one or two?
The SOUL has masculine AND feminine qualities, and that is why persons of either gender are capable of expressions across the entire gamut, as in what flesh is heir/heiress to. My point is taken with collective values, and the absence of caring, of nurture, of respect for and investment in the arts (compared with macho competitive sports, i.e. what is funded as educational curricula) of LOVE, added to the genuine rape of women, the proliferation of a most insidious form of pornography, and the dead zones on our beloved planet: all of this speaks of the dearth of Venus, that when Mars rules, the great cosmic balance is off. Not only She suffers... this lack of reverence for both sides of the great force is killing us all, and ruining this incredible planetary sphere. THAT is the source of MY pain and anger. Some of your words triggered it, as you are naive and see life through the prism of the privileged white male who has not really learned enough empathy to walk in the female mocassins. Again, having read the article, and showing a willingness to learn (and open your mind) warrants my respect. Thank you. I'll remember this discussion.
Thanks Sioux Rose and I even went back and took a second look at the article on Mother Teresa's supposedly dark side. Well, I had to since over at dinner, my wife got very upset with me and cried when I asked her about it. She was even angrier when I told her that I got the idea from Christopher Hitchens. She's a big fan of her and I'm in a pickle. I should have realized that this was the same Christopher Hitchens who kept cheerleading the Iraq war on the media until it went too sour for him to bear.
She plans on giving me a one lecture about how the Hindus were always so divided and too strict amongst themselves. Her great grandparents had converted to Christianity because of economic reasons and being lulled into that feel-good feeling. Hindu women were the biggest casualties in all those centuries. Mother Teresa, she says, had no real intention of sacrificing the sick and the poor but the conditions were already bad enough in the country that she actually did a far better job trying to stop some of the bleeding that most Hindus had no training at. Well, I'm about to go in for the lecture in about 10 minutes so I'll let you know all about it next time.
The program is called TARP for a good reason: a tarp/tarpaulin is a protective covering of canvas or other material waterproofed with tar, paint, or wax that one uses to cover over something.
In this case TARP is hiding the skulduggery.
Recently, Michael Paese, who worked as Rep. Barney Frank's (Chair of the House Financial Services Committee) top staffer, was hired as a top-lobbyist for Goldman Sachs. And, the revolving door revolves again!
"The difference today is that the elites now think they have enough control over the levers of power via things like the Patriot act, the total control over ploticians the media and so forth, they feel they can operate OPENLY and shamelessly rather then do so from the shadows."
I agree!
"In the present case, Treasury believes it would not be in the taxpayer's interest for Treasury to disclose any valuations it has performed in connection with warrants whose repurchase is currently pending or that may be repurchased in the near term."
Not in the interest of the taxpayers or not in the interest of Timothy Geightner's friends receiving the TARP funds?
What bull$hit!
The problem is BIG GOVERNMENT. The Libertarians would fight to abolish the Treasury so that you the taxpayers would have more money in your pocket. The more money in your pocket, the more freedom you have. MORE TAX CUTS !