Another Inspector General embattled with WH

[Patranus]

The Obama administration?s disputes with government watchdogs do not end with fired Inspector General Gerald Walpin. Behind the scenes, the Treasury Department is embroiled in a disagreement with Neil Barofsky, the watchdog for the $700 billion government bailout Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/polit...inspector-general.html

Good times. Why is Obama so against oversight and transparency?

 

[Fern]

The subject of the disagreement between Geithner and Barofsky remains unclear, but there is something of a paper trail.

In a memo dated April 7, Barofsky ? referring to his office under the name SIGTARP, Special Inspector General for TARP -- clearly felt compelled to defend the independence of his office.

?SIGTARP believes that the Emergency Economic Stability Act of 2008?provides that SIGTARP is an independent entity within Treasury, that SIGTARP is not subject to the Secretary?s supervision, and that attorney-client privilege is not a bar to SIGTARP?s access to Treasury?s records or information,? Barofsky wrote to Geithner at the time.

If Geithner belives that he has supervisory control over the office established to 'watch dog' him, he's dangerous.

Claiming attorney-client priviledge here is worrisome, why is attorney-client priviledge relevent in tracking the TARP funds? Don't like the sound of that.

Fern

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Isn't Ron Paul just a few votes away from getting the fed audit?

 

[Trianon]

I guess the talk about taxpayers making money on TARP is all BS...
I officially despise govt and financial sector moguls for pulling another fast one on general public.

Bailout watchdog expects much to remain unrefunded
1 hr 48 mins ago

WASHINGTON ? The man who watches over the $700 billion in government money given to banks and other institutions to avert a financial collapse said Wednesday he thinks it's too early to say how much will be repaid to the taxpayers.

Just as the Obama administration prepares to announce a new TARP-like program for small community banks, Inspector General Neil Barofsky said he believes that "it's unrealistic to think we're going to get all of that money back."

The Treasury Department has spent more than $454 billion through TARP programs. Forty-seven recipients have paid back nearly $73 billion. That means more than $317 billion remains outstanding with the program set to expire Dec. 31.

Later Wednesday, President Barack Obama is expected to announce the community bank assistance effort. The American Bankers' Association has asked for $5 billion in rescue-fund money to help small banks extend more loans.

Asked on a nationally broadcast interview how he would grade the program, Barofsky said, "I think right now it would have to be an incomplete." Barofsky did say the program was successful in "pulling us back" from a financial collapse, however. At the same time, he told CBS's "The Early Show" that the resumption of huge executive bonus payments by some of the same institutions that benefited from the government bailout has sown distrust and cynicism among many taxpayers.

The mixed and blunt assessment came as the Obama administration takes steps to wind down and refocus the Wall Street rescue effort. Barofsky's conclusions were in a quarterly report scheduled for release later Wednesday.

An administration official said Tuesday that the bailout effort's signature initiative ? a capital purchase program that aimed to inject $218 billion into banks ? would effectively wrap up at the end of the year.

But even as the administration aimed to refocus the massive Troubled Asset Relief Program on small businesses and homeowners, Barofsky said in his report that the effort to save the nation's financial sector came at great cost to taxpayers, to the integrity of the financial system and to the public's perception of the federal government.

"Despite the aspects of TARP that could reasonably be viewed as a substantial success," he wrote, "Treasury's actions in this regard have contributed to damage the credibility of the program and of the government itself, and the anger, cynicism and distrust created must be chalked up as one of the substantial, albeit unnecessary, costs of TARP."

Barofsky said public suspicion was fed by Treasury's decision not to require banks to report how they used their rescue money and its "less-than-accurate" statements describing the financial condition of nine large banks that benefited from large infusions of aid. The TARP program began under the administration of President George W. Bush and has expanded under Obama.

The administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the details had not yet been made public, said the Treasury Department plans to cap two TARP programs at levels below initial projections. A program designed to rid big banks of their bad assets will spend $30 billion instead of $75 billion. Another that supports a Federal Reserve effort to ease bank credit will top off at $30 billion instead of $80 billion. A new initiative aimed at banks ? the Capital Assistance Program ? had no applicants and will also end, the official said.

The overall TARP program has come under criticism in Congress from across the political spectrum. Liberals maintain the program needs to shift its focus from big financial firms to small businesses and homeowners. Conservatives insist the program has been an unnecessary intrusion into the financial sector and should end swiftly.

In his report, Barofsky credited the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department for adopting some of his accountability recommendations over the past several months. But he said several of his agency's proposals for greater transparency have gone unheeded.

The report describes a patchwork of initiatives carried out under the TARP umbrella ? some designed to assist the biggest of Wall Street institutions, others to bail out the struggling auto industry and yet others to help homeowners struggling to stave off foreclosure.

Even within those programs, Barofsky found inconsistent attempts to hold recipients of the bailout accountable to taxpayers.

INCOMPLETE

 

[K1052]

The Treasury has been using the TARP loans to exert influence over the banks and hasn't been allowing much to be repaid. Most of the money will eventually come back into government coffers.

 

[Trianon]

Originally posted by: K1052
The Treasury has been using the TARP loans to exert influence over the banks and hasn't been allowing much to be repaid. Most of the money will eventually come back into government coffers.

Links to back up that claim? "most" to me is not equal to "all of it + interest"="make money on TARP"

 

[Ausm]

Blaming president Obama for being "against" it I think is not the reality. I think he can be blamed for maintaining lack oversight or transparency carried over from previous Presidencies.

 

[miniMUNCH]

Originally posted by: Fern

The subject of the disagreement between Geithner and Barofsky remains unclear, but there is something of a paper trail.

In a memo dated April 7, Barofsky ? referring to his office under the name SIGTARP, Special Inspector General for TARP -- clearly felt compelled to defend the independence of his office.

?SIGTARP believes that the Emergency Economic Stability Act of 2008?provides that SIGTARP is an independent entity within Treasury, that SIGTARP is not subject to the Secretary?s supervision, and that attorney-client privilege is not a bar to SIGTARP?s access to Treasury?s records or information,? Barofsky wrote to Geithner at the time.

If Geithner belives that he has supervisory control over the office established to 'watch dog' him, he's dangerous.

Claiming attorney-client priviledge here is worrisome, why is attorney-client priviledge relevent in tracking the TARP funds? Don't like the sound of that.

Fern

Sadly this more of the status quo from the executive branch of our government (I consider Tres. sEc. to be a an extension of the POTUS due to POTUS appointment). Out with Bush, in with Obama... same ol shit.

Chaney used many of the same type of arguments to claim the the VP office was not answerable to various forms of oversight... meanwhile he was quarterbacking the massive rape of our constitution and the basic human rights for 'lord only knows how many people'.

I voted for Obama on the hope that he would play the presidency straight up and do what was right for our country... but the longer I watch his administration that more convinced I become that he is just as bought and controlled, and crooked, as any other POTUS we've had in the last 20+ years.

 

[Budmantom]

What, we will be losing TARP money.... I know a saw a number of threads here saying we are making a profit....

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: miniMUNCH

Originally posted by: Fern

The subject of the disagreement between Geithner and Barofsky remains unclear, but there is something of a paper trail.

In a memo dated April 7, Barofsky ? referring to his office under the name SIGTARP, Special Inspector General for TARP -- clearly felt compelled to defend the independence of his office.

?SIGTARP believes that the Emergency Economic Stability Act of 2008?provides that SIGTARP is an independent entity within Treasury, that SIGTARP is not subject to the Secretary?s supervision, and that attorney-client privilege is not a bar to SIGTARP?s access to Treasury?s records or information,? Barofsky wrote to Geithner at the time.

If Geithner belives that he has supervisory control over the office established to 'watch dog' him, he's dangerous.

Claiming attorney-client priviledge here is worrisome, why is attorney-client priviledge relevent in tracking the TARP funds? Don't like the sound of that.

Fern

Sadly this more of the status quo from the executive branch of our government (I consider Tres. sEc. to be a an extension of the POTUS due to POTUS appointment). Out with Bush, in with Obama... same ol shit.

Chaney used many of the same type of arguments to claim the the VP office was not answerable to various forms of oversight... meanwhile he was quarterbacking the massive rape of our constitution and the basic human rights for 'lord only knows how many people'.

I voted for Obama on the hope that he would play the presidency straight up and do what was right for our country... but the longer I watch his administration that more convinced I become that he is just as bought and controlled, and crooked, as any other POTUS we've had in the last 20+ years.

Open/transparency means that others have the opportunity to question why actions were done.

Those that are running the show do not have the ability to allow their egos to handle such a challenge.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Trianon

Originally posted by: K1052
The Treasury has been using the TARP loans to exert influence over the banks and hasn't been allowing much to be repaid. Most of the money will eventually come back into government coffers.

Links to back up that claim? "most" to me is not equal to "all of it + interest"="make money on TARP"

Only in June of this year did the Treasury set terms on how the funds were to be repaid. They specifically constructed them to require the banks to raise fresh capital specifically to pay off the loans. Raising that kind of capital and getting little in return isn't an attractive option for many banks and not all were even allowed to participate. Then there was the "stress testing" that certainly had ramifications for any bank attempting to do this.

The bulk of the money will eventually return. While a profit will probably not be made the I think the benefit of arresting the near free fall of the financial/banking sectors to be far more than worth the cost.

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: Patranus

The Obama administration?s disputes with government watchdogs do not end with fired Inspector General Gerald Walpin. Behind the scenes, the Treasury Department is embroiled in a disagreement with Neil Barofsky, the watchdog for the $700 billion government bailout Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/polit...inspector-general.html

Good times. Why is Obama so against oversight and transparency?

Silly person, oversight and transparency are only a good thing when it's the "other side" that's doing something. When your side is doing crooked things, oversight and transparency is not important. There's your Hope and Change

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: Patranus

The Obama administration?s disputes with government watchdogs do not end with fired Inspector General Gerald Walpin. Behind the scenes, the Treasury Department is embroiled in a disagreement with Neil Barofsky, the watchdog for the $700 billion government bailout Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/polit...inspector-general.html

Good times. Why is Obama so against oversight and transparency?

Silly person, oversight and transparency are only a good thing when it's the "other side" that's doing something. When your side is doing crooked things, oversight and transparency is not important. There's your Hope and Change

Wasn't it Bush's Sec. of Treasury that just wanted the money for him to spend as he saw fit with no questions asked? I guess you hacks forgot what kind of "oversight and transparency" the "other side" had.

 

[woodie1]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: Patranus

The Obama administration?s disputes with government watchdogs do not end with fired Inspector General Gerald Walpin. Behind the scenes, the Treasury Department is embroiled in a disagreement with Neil Barofsky, the watchdog for the $700 billion government bailout Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/polit...inspector-general.html

Good times. Why is Obama so against oversight and transparency?

Silly person, oversight and transparency are only a good thing when it's the "other side" that's doing something. When your side is doing crooked things, oversight and transparency is not important. There's your Hope and Change

Wasn't it Bush's Sec. of Treasury that just wanted the money for him to spend as he saw fit with no questions asked? I guess you hacks forgot what kind of "oversight and transparency" the "other side" had.

Well then that makes the current situation okay then. Please forgive our forgetfulness.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: Patranus

The Obama administration?s disputes with government watchdogs do not end with fired Inspector General Gerald Walpin. Behind the scenes, the Treasury Department is embroiled in a disagreement with Neil Barofsky, the watchdog for the $700 billion government bailout Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/polit...inspector-general.html

Good times. Why is Obama so against oversight and transparency?

Silly person, oversight and transparency are only a good thing when it's the "other side" that's doing something. When your side is doing crooked things, oversight and transparency is not important. There's your Hope and Change

Wasn't it Bush's Sec. of Treasury that just wanted the money for him to spend as he saw fit with no questions asked? I guess you hacks forgot what kind of "oversight and transparency" the "other side" had.

Not to excuse Bush, but it was Obama who made it such a big part of his Presidential platform. Don't promise what you can't or won't deliver.

 

[BriGy86]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: Patranus

The Obama administration?s disputes with government watchdogs do not end with fired Inspector General Gerald Walpin. Behind the scenes, the Treasury Department is embroiled in a disagreement with Neil Barofsky, the watchdog for the $700 billion government bailout Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/polit...inspector-general.html

Good times. Why is Obama so against oversight and transparency?

Silly person, oversight and transparency are only a good thing when it's the "other side" that's doing something. When your side is doing crooked things, oversight and transparency is not important. There's your Hope and Change

Wasn't it Bush's Sec. of Treasury that just wanted the money for him to spend as he saw fit with no questions asked? I guess you hacks forgot what kind of "oversight and transparency" the "other side" had.

Not to excuse Bush, but it was Obama who made it such a big part of his Presidential platform. Don't promise what you can't or won't deliver.

But then how will politicians get into power?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Ausm
Blaming president Obama for being "against" it I think is not the reality. I think he can be blamed for maintaining lack oversight or transparency carried over from previous Presidencies.

I'm not sure I understand what that means. That's like saying that one administration isn't corrupt, it's just following the example of Grant's. To fire people put in a watchdog position because they are doing their jobs isn't passive, it's a calculated decision.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: woodie1

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: Patranus

The Obama administration?s disputes with government watchdogs do not end with fired Inspector General Gerald Walpin. Behind the scenes, the Treasury Department is embroiled in a disagreement with Neil Barofsky, the watchdog for the $700 billion government bailout Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/polit...inspector-general.html

Good times. Why is Obama so against oversight and transparency?

Silly person, oversight and transparency are only a good thing when it's the "other side" that's doing something. When your side is doing crooked things, oversight and transparency is not important. There's your Hope and Change

Wasn't it Bush's Sec. of Treasury that just wanted the money for him to spend as he saw fit with no questions asked? I guess you hacks forgot what kind of "oversight and transparency" the "other side" had.

Well then that makes the current situation okay then. Please forgive our forgetfulness.

I never said it was OK, I'm just pointing out the partisianship going on. I guess it depends on how you look at it, but I see progress and it's in the right direction.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: Patranus

The Obama administration?s disputes with government watchdogs do not end with fired Inspector General Gerald Walpin. Behind the scenes, the Treasury Department is embroiled in a disagreement with Neil Barofsky, the watchdog for the $700 billion government bailout Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/polit...inspector-general.html

Good times. Why is Obama so against oversight and transparency?

Silly person, oversight and transparency are only a good thing when it's the "other side" that's doing something. When your side is doing crooked things, oversight and transparency is not important. There's your Hope and Change

Wasn't it Bush's Sec. of Treasury that just wanted the money for him to spend as he saw fit with no questions asked? I guess you hacks forgot what kind of "oversight and transparency" the "other side" had.

Not to excuse Bush, but it was Obama who made it such a big part of his Presidential platform. Don't promise what you can't or won't deliver.

You mean like Osama's head or WMD's? Or getting the people who outed Plame? Cry me a river.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: Trianon
I guess the talk about taxpayers making money on TARP is all BS...
I officially despise govt and financial sector moguls for pulling another fast one on general public.

they've long said most of the money previously given to the car companies will be un returned; gonna have to make one hell of a return on the rest just to make that back up let alone hit profit levels.

 

[Trianon]

Originally posted by: lupi
they've long said most of the money previously given to the car companies will be un returned; gonna have to make one hell of a return on the rest just to make that back up let alone hit profit levels.

So sad to realize that doing a right thing doesn't pay. Does anyone watch American Greed series? Very insightful, makes you wonder how many financial schemes DON'T get exposed...

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: Ausm
Blaming president Obama for being "against" it I think is not the reality. I think he can be blamed for maintaining lack oversight or transparency carried over from previous Presidencies.

Nice you blamed Bush for it without using his name. Kuddos.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: Patranus

The Obama administration?s disputes with government watchdogs do not end with fired Inspector General Gerald Walpin. Behind the scenes, the Treasury Department is embroiled in a disagreement with Neil Barofsky, the watchdog for the $700 billion government bailout Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/polit...inspector-general.html

Good times. Why is Obama so against oversight and transparency?

Silly person, oversight and transparency are only a good thing when it's the "other side" that's doing something. When your side is doing crooked things, oversight and transparency is not important. There's your Hope and Change

Wasn't it Bush's Sec. of Treasury that just wanted the money for him to spend as he saw fit with no questions asked? I guess you hacks forgot what kind of "oversight and transparency" the "other side" had.

So it makes it ok for the current admin to do something because the previous admin did it?
Typical thinking of leftiest. Along with If it's something bad it has to be because Dear Leader inherited this mess from Bush, but if it's good, regardless if it was Dear Leaders plans or resulting from Bush's actions Dear Leader gets the credit. That's a great way to do things. I thikn I'll fuck up at work and just blame the person that was here before me 9 months ago.