Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- A Culture That Condones The Killing Of Children And Teaches Children To Kill
- Slaughter in Connecticut: 20 Children, 6 Adults Dead in Kindergarten Massacre
- How the Mighty (Mississippi) Has Fallen: Historic Drought Plagues US
- 'I'd Rather Fight Like Hell': Naomi Klein's Fierce New Resolve to Fight for Climate Justice
- Study: World's Mighty Giants Dying off at Alarming Rate
- A Culture That Condones The Killing Of Children And Teaches Children To Kill
- 'I'd Rather Fight Like Hell': Naomi Klein's Fierce New Resolve to Fight for Climate Justice
- Save the Children: Tears and Tragedy in Connecticut
- Remember All the Children, Mr. President
- Thinking the Unthinkable: On Mental Health, My Son, and Gun Violence
Popular content
Today's Top News
The War Being Waged on the TARP Watchdog's Independence
Neil Barofsky, the chief watchdog over the $700 billion TARP bank bailout program, is one of those rare creatures in Washington: he takes very seriously his responsibilities of independent oversight and accountability. A career prosecutor, Barofsky is a life-long Democrat who donated money to Obama's presidential campaign. But ever since he was appointed to head the oversight office created by Congress when it enacted TARP -- an office designed to ensure transparency and accountability at the Treasury Department and in the banking industry -- he has repeatedly clashed with Obama's Treasury officials over their lack of transparency in how the trillions of dollars in TARP-related funds are being sent to and used by the banking industry. So seriously does Barofsky take his oversight duties that, as a Washington Post profile noted in March, "he refuses to eat with senior administration officials in the [Treasury] building's executive dining room to maintain his independence."
Barofksy's clashes with administration officials have intensified of late. Last week, he issued a report documenting that the actual amount of taxpayer money theoretically put at risk in the bank bailout -- once Federal Reserve, FDIC and other programs are counted -- is $23.7 trillion, not the widely cited figure of $700 billion, a report that prompted attacks from the White House and Treasury on his credibility. Separately, Barofsky has continuously disputed White House claims that it's impossible to account for what has been done by banks with the TARP funds. Barofsky wants to compel banks to account for those funds and then publicize that information, while the administration opposes such efforts, claiming that accounting for TARP monies is impossible due to the "fungibility" of those funds. To disprove that claim, Barofsky sent out voluntary surveys to the bank which proved that those funds could be tracked (and he found TARP funds were being used by receiving banks largely to acquire other institutions and/or create "capital cushions" rather than increase lending activity, the principal justification for TARP).
Most significant of all, and obviously due to Barofsky's truly independent oversight efforts, the Obama administration is now attempting to induce the Justice Department to issue a ruling that Barofsky's office is not independent at all -- but rather, is subject to, and under the supervision of, the authority of Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner. By design, such a ruling would completely gut Barofsky's ability to compel transparency and exercise real oversight over how Treasury is administering TARP, since it would make him subordinate to one of the very officials whose actions Congress wanted him to oversee: the Treasury Secretary's. Barofsky has, quite rightly, protested the administration's efforts to destroy his independence, and has done so with increasing assertiveness as the administration's war on his oversight activities has increased. Why would an administration vowing a New Era of Transparency wage war on a watchdog whose only mission is to ensure transparency and accountability in these massive financial programs?
It should take little effort to explain the significance of these clashes. The amount of taxpayer money transferred to the banking industry or otherwise put at risk for its benefit is astronomical. Professor Nouriel Roubini argues in a New York Times Op-Ed today that actions by the Federal Reserve over the last nine months helped avert a Depression, while former Governor Eliot Spitzer said this week that the Fed has turned into a "Ponzi scheme" that relies on insider dealing and requires vastly increased scrutiny. Those claims aren't mutually exclusive. It's not surprising that transferring extraordinary sums of taxpayer money to a particular industry will help that industry avoid collapse, but it is still the case that the potential for extreme corruption and even theft in such transactions is enormous (indeed, even Roubini argues that Fed Chairman Ben Bernake played an important role in enabling the crisis in the first place). No matter one's views of the wisdom of the bailout and related programs, transparency, accountability and independent oversight are absolutely vital, and that is what Barosksy's office was created to ensure (though it's unlikely -- given how Washington works -- that Congress actually expected that the person in charge of that office would take those duties seriously and be willing to fight with senior administration officials to protect his independence).
Earlier this week, ABC News' Jake Tapper conducted a 20-minute podcast interview with Barofsky, and I really recommend that everyone listen to it (it can be heard by clicking PLAY on the recorder below or can be downloaded here). Barofsky details the war being waged by the Obama administration -- especially the Treasury Department -- on his independence, as well as their constant and multi-faceted campaign to impede his efforts to bring transparency to what is being done with these vast amounts of money (those obstructionist actions are consistent with the efforts of Senate leaders to block a vote on Ron Paul's bill to audit the Fed, a bill which now has truly bi-partisan and trans-ideological support among a majority of House members). As a hard-core Obama supporter, Barofsky is quite obviously dismayed at what he describes as the failure to adhere to transparency pledges in these areas. Barofsky is particularly worth listening to because his integrity, apolitical independence, and prosecutorial tenacity in imposing accountability are exactly what our political culture so woefully lacks.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


24 Comments so far
Show AllAs good a job as Greenwald does at pointing out the bad guys, he's just as astute in bringing our attention to the real heroes in these awful times (awful for the vast majority of Americans, that is).
More power to Barofsky. The fact that he's obviously rubbed Goldman Sachs the wrong way by definition makes him a good person.
People who can speak truth to power when power has been completely corrupted are courageous indeed.
q
quickstepper July 26th, 2009 12:33 pm...This is what we all could be doing by the millions in DC....
And more effective if we sent, wrote and called the White House first.
Jim Glover July 26th, 2009 3:08 pm....Sounds good to me....Something like, "We're coming to get you, you greedy, corrupt,immoral, power hungry SOBs"!....How's that??
Goldman sachs has taken the cake... now watch them eat it...
"To disprove that claim, Barofsky sent out voluntary surveys to the bank which proved that those funds could be tracked (and he found TARP funds were being used by receiving banks largely to acquire other institutions and/or create "capital cushions" rather than increase lending activity, the principal justification for TARP)."
Barofsky has cajones!
If you listen to the talking-butt-heads that are claiming that accounting for TARP monies is impossible due to the "fungibility" of those funds, then let me sell you the Brooklyn Bridge!
"Fungible", according to The American Heritage Dictionary (New College Edition, 1975): "Being of such a nature or kind that one unit or part may be exchanged or substituted for another equilvalent unit or part in the discharging of an obligation".
Are we to believe that the banks receiving the TARP and other governmental funds are NOT keeping records of the "exchanges/substitutions" taking place; or that they are not keeping books on their obligations that are being discharged?
If they're not keeping track of these transactions, then how the hell did they calculate the "alleged" profits they made?
Furthermore: If these banks can't keep track of these transactions, how do they expect us to believe that the TARP monies have been or are being paid back, especially when we're looking at an expected $24-$27 TRILLION in taxpayers money for the bail-out and recovery?
Fungibility - my ass! It sounds more like a cover-up to me!
It's time that liberal Dems, Greens, Independents, socialists, anarchists and Ron Paul Libertarians got together and broke the Democratic Party into two different parties, Conservative and Liberal Democrats. Lib Dems and others mentioned share some values they can cooperate on in the next elections.
I wonder which of these three major parties would have a majority?
$23.7 trillion of taxpayer money at risk? Pretty soon we'll be talking about real money!
The taxpayers don't have $23.7 trillion, its almost 2 years GDP. The money is simply electrons moved from the Fed to the banks. Spitzer is right, the US $ is now a big Ponzi scheme. Plan appropriately.
What if we had NOT bailed out the financial institutions? Would the economy be any worse off than it is today with the bailout? If the trillions had been given to the taxpayers to pay off debt would the trickle up effect have been more effective than the trickle down effect which hasn't happened yet? Or would that approach have been Socialism?
"The alternative to bailing out the banks was not simply some kind of massive cash giveaway to taxpayers. It was reorganizing the whole financial system, to make it serve the public interest, rather than merely the interests of the financial oligarchy."
I'm not so sure rearranging the system itself would last. The banks would have ways to get around it and we would be back to square one. I would prefer to get more people educated on credit unions and encouraging more of them to switch to those instead or at least their local banks. I switched from a big bank account early last year to a local credit union and so far, I have no regrets. One of my best friends did it too after I convinced her and she feels less stressful about her new account after 5 months. We need more people to do this. That way, banks have less money to operate and the pols will be forced to have less of an incentive to bail them out with our taxpayer money. Credit unions were what more people resorted to when the Great Depression kicked in at a time when big banks were collapsing despite all the free goodies their political cronies gave them.
...This narrative is parasitic in nature.
". . . would the trickle up effect have been more effective than the trickle down effect which hasn't happened yet?"
The trickle-down effect hasn't happened yet because it never will happen. It's a reaganist fantasy.
q
"Why would an administration vowing a New Era of Transparency wage war on a watchdog whose only mission is to ensure transparency and accountability in these massive financial programs?"
Really, GG? Or is that rhetorical?
"Frankly, they (the banksters) own the place (our government.)" Sen. Durbin.
IOW, a senior Senator tells us, point blank, that 'the emperor has no clothes.' And we continue to pretend the emperor is in top hat and tails...
Vowing a New Era of Transparency while becoming more opaque; vowing an end to occupations while expanding the occupations; swearing to support 'single payer' while keeping it off the table; promising an end to mountaintop removal while signing off on it's continuation...
I wouldn't be surprised if, at his next press conference, BO pulls off his disguise and reveals he's actually a white dude from Houston...
Has anyone considered that Barofsky may refuses to eat with senior administration officials out of good taste?
Nice to hear someone's at least trying to watch the store.
Granted that Barofsky probably only got the job by being a staunch 0 supporter, here's to getting him out of that lunchroom, too, before the Kool Aid's served.
Sioux Rose
BARDAMU: Or he might reason that like the kings of yesteryear, he'd best employ a TASTER to make sure the food was not strategically tainted to take one in the know out of the way. "Gee, what's IN those mashed potatoes!"
I'd say, Sioux. I hate to think of the man waiting for his insurance company to OK treatment.
Barofsky, watch your back...these people play for keeps and blood.
my guess is that the usa has been a big ponzi scheme for a long time.
Well, it seems that Neil Barofsky's been misquoted or mis-referenced. He actually says that the figure of $23.7TN needs to be replaced with around $3TN and explains why.
I learned that after reading Glenn Greenwald's article and then deciding to try a Web search to see if there might possibly be a video for the 20-minute ABC News piece between ABC News' Jake Tapper and Neil Barofsky. First I found the following Youtube video and then, with another Web search, found the related ThinkProgress.org article. Reading that article is better than viewing the video, but I'll include the link for it anyway.
"TARP Inspector General Debunks His Own False $23 Trillion Bailout Estimate" (2:07),
posted by thinkProgress, July 22, 2009
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2aj0044jpU
"TARP Inspector General Debunks His Own False $23 Trillion Bailout Estimate",
by Pat Garofalo, July 22, 2009
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/07/22/barofsky-debunks-23-trillion/
QUOTE:
Yesterday, TARP Inspector General Neil Barosky released a report which crudely tallied up the cost of every economic rescue program proposed during the current crisis — including those that have been discontinued or never even began — to state that the total scope of all financial rescue programs comes to about $23.7 trillion. Cable news hosts ran wild with the report, using it to claim that taxpayers will “ultimately” wind up paying $23 trillion in “bailouts.”
The number continued to be cited on cable last night and this morning, with Fox News even claiming that $23 trillion will be the final cost of TARP alone. But Barofsky himself appeared on CNN to explain that the actual outstanding amount for the financial rescues is closer to $3 trillion, including loans that have yet to be repaid. Watch a compilation:
... (video)
Barofsky’s report clearly states that “these numbers may have some overlap, and have not been evaluated to provide an estimate of likely net costs to the taxpayer”:
(indented quote) [S]ome of the programs have been discontinued or even, in some cases, not utilized. As such, these total potential support figures do not represent a current total, but the sum total of all support programs announced since the onset of the financial crisis in 2007.
But this doesn’t go far enough in explaining how unlikely we are to ever come close to spending so much money. As Floyd Norris explained in the New York Times, Barofsky’s estimate “assumes that every home mortgage backed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac goes into default, and all the homes turn out to be worthless. It assumes that every bank in America fails, with not a single asset worth even a penny. And it assumes that all of the assets held by money market mutual funds, including Treasury bills, turn out to be worthless.” If this doomsday economic scenario were ever to occur, the American currency would be rendered worthless.
Media Matters pointed out that both USA Today and the CBS Evening News used the same misleading number. And as Norris put it, publishing such a meaningless number makes Barofsky seem like nothing more than “an irresponsible headline hunter.”
END QUOTE
Mike Corbeil July 27th, 2009 2:41 am
"If this doomsday economic scenario were ever to occur, the American currency would be rendered worthless."
"Our mission, as set forth by the Congress is a critical one: to preserve price stability, to foster maximum sustainable growth in output and employment, and to promote a stable and efficient financial system that serves all Americans well and fairly."
~ Ben Bernanke
The dollar will continue to crumble until Bernanke takes his mission seriously. Personally, I believe that fiat currencies will eventually be replaced with a gold-backed currency. If not sooner - then later.
Does it really matter if the banks are made whole while Main Street is squeezed even more within a deteriorating economy?
In the following article there are only two things that particularly stood out to me after having alread read enough, so far, and one of these parts of the piece is wherein it says that Neil Barofsky's $23.7TN total was from data he obtained the Web sites of the US Treasury and the Federal Reserve.
"TARP cop wants bank accountability
Neil Barofsky says a lot could go wrong with bailouts. He wants better disclosure and stronger conflict rules, and sparks controversy over the total cost",
by Jennifer Liberto, CNNMoney.com senior writer, July 21, 2009
http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/21/news/economy/TARP_report/index.htm?postversion=2009072114
QUOTE:
The oversight czar tracking the $700 billion bailout told lawmakers Tuesday that he's concerned officials are not doing enough to prevent tax dollars from being wasted or pilfered.
Neil Barofsky, the special inspector general overseeing the Troubled Asset Relief Program, testified before the House Oversight and Government Reform committee.
Barofsky was being questioned about a controversial tally he published in a report released Monday. The report tallied all federal rescue efforts, including many far beyond Barofsky's realm, at an eye-popping $23.7 trillion.
Treasury officials dispute that figure and call it "inflated."
Generally, Barofsky criticized the Treasury Department for what he says is its unwillingness to adopt some of his earlier recommendations.
For example, Barofsky said he wants Treasury to require banks to report exactly how they're using their bailout dollars. He pointed out that Treasury does this with a handful of other companies that have received extraordinary federal help.
He also wants Treasury to report the actual worth of the assets it has purchased via the bailout.
"If it's a meaningless exercise, then why are you doing it for Citigroup, Bank of America and AIG?" Barofsky said.
Lawmaker support: Lawmakers agreed they also want more disclosure.
...
The special IG's office, which was established as part of the TARP program enacted last fall, has also launched 35 criminal and civil investigations into a range of allegations from accounting and securities fraud to insider trading and public corruption, the report said.
Some of Barofsky's investigations have already led to criminal and civil charges against those accused of fraudulently benefiting from the government's bailout program.
Disputed total: Some lawmakers seized Monday on Barofsky's $23.7 trillion rescue program total.
Yet, the aggregate figure contains programs that the government is no longer on the hook for. For example, it includes a $12.9 billion bridge loan to JPMorgan Chase to buy failed investment bank Bear Stearns in March 2008 -- that loan was repaid in full with taxpayers making $4 million in interest.
A Treasury official on Monday called the $23.7 trillion figure "inflated," saying it ignores fees and interest that regulators collect to compensate taxpayers for taking on risk.
Barofsky said he took offense at Treasury's accusations that his figure was inflated, saying that he got the data from Treasury and Federal Reserve's Web sites.
"What this attack is is a challenge to the basic transparency that we try to provide in this report ... so the government understands in total what's going on," Barofsky said.
Several lawmakers also expressed their continued support that Barofsky and his group remain an independent agency, one that works within Treasury but is answerable to Congress, not the Treasury Secretary.
Treasury is challenging what government entity to which the TARP special investigator reports, since most inspector generals report to the head of the agency they review.
The Department of Justice has been asked to weigh in, and is still looking into the matter.
But Barofsky said reporting to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner could threaten his ability to do his job.
...
END QUOTE
I think I'd take it farther back in history..
lets start with the enron scandal, shall we?...
and next, we will follow with some very great stories by these following writers....check out all of them, via the web. I found so much more...like the DOD...missing money..billions of wasted or "lost tax dollars and money"..but this is a start here...check these out for now..
1/24/02:
http://www.cpusa.org/article/view/348/
"The last tango: Enron and bush" by Tim Wheeler, PWW Washington Correspondent
1/29/02:
"A walk in the valley of Greed" by Robert Sheer, los angeles times
6/12/03:
"The Plot to Kill Social security" by Farhad Manjoo/salon.com
8/8/07: "Bear Stearns Fat Cats Cashed Out At The Top" by Brett Arends/theStreet.com
6/20/08: "Bear Stearns manager's indictment alleges fraud"
by Gregg Farrell/Usa Today
7/17/08: "Senate Panel hears about European Tax Havens in Leichtenstein"
9/15/08: "Stocks Tank After Wall Street Shake-Up" CBS news/New york
9/18/08: "Lehman Bros Belly Up!" msnbc
9/20/08: "Bush seeking $700 Billion for financial bailout" msnbc.com
9/20/08: "Financial bailout:America's Own Kleptocracy" by global research.com
10/6/08: (AIG=retreat...this one, didnt find a story)
then came these:
10/7/08: "Waxman probes AIG's Post Bailout Retreat!" msnbc.com
10/8/08: "Lawmakers Steamed over glitzy AIG Retreat after bailout." by Cnn.com
11/10/08: AIG hosts 'seminar' at Fancy Resort Point Hilton Squaw Peak Resort in Phoenix, Arizona". by abcnews.com
12/10/08: "Oversight Panel Questions Bank Bailout" by Jim Kuhnhenn
12/15/08: "Bush Administration created executive pay loophole" by John Byrne
12/20/08: "Paulson calls for release of bailout" by washington
12/22/08: "Bailed-out Bankers take home $1.6 Billion" by Frank Bass and Rita Beamish
12/23/08: "lawmaker wants rest of bailout released" by
washington
12/23/08: "Bailed-out banks not disclosing spending" by Matt Apuzzo
12/30/08: "2008 a big year for white-collar crime" by james Walsh/Minneapolis Star Tribune
1/1/09: "Bailout not easy to keep track of" /washington
1/1/09: "Citigroup reins in pay for its top executives" by Ieva M. Augstums
1/2/09: "Merrill Lynch, Wachovia officially in new hands"
by Harry R. Weber
1/2/09: "Wall Street woes left Main Street reeling" by Ellen Simon
1/5/09: "Inquiry seeks answers on Treasury's bailout choices" by Binyamin Appelbaum
1/10/09: "Rubin resigns top Citigroup post" by New York
1/10/09: "Bush prepares request for rest of bailout funds" by David Cho and Lori Montgomery
1/12/09: "Second $350 Billion of bailout sought" by Andrew Taylor and Philip Elliot
1/13/09: "Bush requests rest of bailout" by Jim Kuhnhenn
1/17/09: "Some Companies Getting Bailed Out Have Offshore Tax Shelters" by Susie Madrak/crooks and liars.com
2/12/09: "Texas Firm pleads guilty to bribery" Houston
2/24/09: "Ruling on secret accounts delayed" Miami
3/14/09: "Swiss Banks no longer a haven" Geneva
3/24/09: "How to spend $700B in 6 months by David Goldman, CNNMoney.com
3/25/09: "AIG mess spurs call to tighten oversight" by Jim Puzzanghera/los Angeles times
3/27/09: "Bankers:Take your TARP money Back" by Allan Chernoff, CNN senior correspondent
3/31/09: "Bailout watchdogs: We want more info" by Jennifer Liberto and David Goldman, CNNMoney
4/19/09: "Bailout overseer draws fire from the right" by Lisa Lerer/politico