Would You Put Trump In Charge Of Guarding Your Money?

Most Americans-- including some who voted for him and even some who plan to vote for him again-- do not find Trump honest and trustworthy. Pollsters never ask if respondents would put their pretty under-age daughters in a room alone with Trump or if they would agree to let Trump hold on to their savings for a few months. I think we've all know from the beginning-- albeit New Yorkers more than anyone is Alabama or Wyoming-- that Trump is a crook from head to toe and always has been. And I think more Americans are waking up to that now.

When Congress passed their big bailout bills, they were smart enough to make sure the bailouts would be subject to oversight by a team of honest brokers. But they somehow weren't smart enough to anticipate that Trump would fire the head of the team and replace him with a lackey. It should have brought chills to every Americans' spine when Trump said he himself would be in charge of making sure all the money was spent properly.




Yesterday Washington Post reporters Peter Whoriskey and Heather Long asked the question we'll be hearing a lot between now and November: Who's Getting These Hundreds Of Billions In The Government Aid?. They know the answer; we won't be finding out any time soon and, obviously, "if the names of the beneficiaries of the aid are withheld, it will be difficult to gauge how much of the relief money is being wasted, fraudulently obtained or reaching places it was intended to go, experts and watchdog groups say... The names of businesses that collectively will receive hundreds of billions of dollars in coronavirus relief from the federal government," they wrote, "may not be disclosed publicly, an omission that critics say could make the massive spending program vulnerable to fraud and favoritism. The $2.2 trillion Cares Act approved by President Trump last month requires that the names of recipients of some forms of federal aid be published, but those requirements do not extend to significant portions of the relief. Chief among the omissions is the $349 billion expected to be doled out to small companies in chunks as large as $10 million. The rescue legislation does not compel the Small Business Administration to disclose the identity of the recipients. So far, the agency has said it received about 487,000 applications totaling $125 billion in requests. A potentially even larger gap involves the trillions going out to businesses under the auspices of the Federal Reserve."

The legislation requires that the Fed disclose the loan recipients and the amounts they receive, "but there is a significant exemption: the Fed chairman, Jerome H. Powell, may request that the information be kept confidential, meaning only congressional leaders would be given access." Powell is petrified of Trump and rarely stands up to his outrageous demands.

Though most of the $2.2 trillion in spending has yet to begin, disputes already have arisen about who will be responsible for making sure it is done ethically.

The Cares Act requires several layers of oversight: It calls for a special inspector general, a congressional review commission and a “Pandemic Response Accountability Committee,” a group that will be composed of inspectors general armed with enhanced powers to subpoena documents and testimony.

But President Trump already has taken steps that undermine these reviewers. In signing the Cares Act into law, Trump angered some Democrats, who had insisted on oversight measures, by declaring that the special inspector general cannot issue reports to Congress without “presidential supervision,” a constraint that could compromise the watchdog’s independence.

Then on Monday, Trump removed the chairman of the federal panel Congress created to oversee his administration’s handling of the Cares Act. Glenn Fine, who had been the acting Pentagon inspector general, was informed he was being replaced at the Defense Department by Sean W. O’Donnell, currently the inspector general at the Environmental Protection Agency.

Regardless of what happens to the oversight panels, the public disclosure of who receives the trillions in emergency money could play a critical role in the public debate over the programs.

Publishing the recipient information would enable outside groups-- not just government-appointed bodies-- to check into the spending, said Jordan Libowitz of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a nonprofit watchdog group.

“We are always going to be in favor of as much transparency as possible in government spending,” he said.

But under the $2.2 trillion spending bill, the requirements for disclosure vary by the type of spending.

For example, one of the best known elements in the bill, which allows the Treasury Department to spend $46 billion to help airlines, air cargo companies and “businesses critical to national security,” requires the Treasury to promptly publish the name of the company getting money, the amount of the loan and the contract.

The Cares Act similarly sets out requirements for the Federal Reserve to disclose information about the loans it offers.

The Fed is required to turn over to Congress-- and ultimately put up on the Fed’s website-- the basic items of loans issued: the identity of the business, how much money was lent and the interest rate. Later it will disclose how much of the loan has been repaid.

Powell has stressed repeatedly in recent months that he believes the Fed must be transparent and accountable to the public in all its actions. In a speech Thursday, he also emphasized that the Fed is making loans that it expects will be repaid, not outright financial grants.

“I would stress that these are lending powers, not spending powers,” Powell said. The Fed’s expectation is “the loans will be fully repaid."

As the Fed chair, Powell has the discretion to keep the company name and amount borrowed confidential, sharing it only with certain congressional leaders who oversee Fed activities.

During the global financial crisis, the Federal Reserve refused to turn over to reporters the records of some of its emergency bank lending. Bloomberg, the media company, sued for their release and, in a case that went to the Supreme Court, won three years later.

...There are no such requirements, for example, for the $100 billion destined for health care providers, or the $3.5 billion for companies developing diagnostics, medications and vaccines, or the $10 billion supposed to go to airports.

Those agencies could still release the information, however, and some are planning to do so.

...One of the most divisive of the disclosure debates could arise over the $349 billion promised to small businesses, a figure that could rise to almost $600 billion if a follow up relief bill is approved. The Small Business Administration hasn’t yet said how much has been disbursed.

Keep in mind, Trump absconded with millions of dollars he illegally misappropriated from his Inaugural Fund which was widely padded by crooked businessmen and even other countries to bribe him. Yesterday, Neil Barofsky, the former special inspector general for TARP, penned an OpEd for the Times, Why We Desperately Need Oversight of the Coronavirus Stimulus Spending. He went out of his way to take the high-road and not assert that Trump is a crook, a road that at this point in time is just patently absurd. But he did make note that "More than $2 trillion is about to head out the door, committed in a single news release last week by the Federal Reserve Board. In that release, the Federal Reserve announced how it and the Treasury Department intend to leverage just a portion of the $454 billion that Congress gave the department in the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, known as the CARES Act, with the potential of trillions more in lending to come."

He asked the key question: "Who will conduct oversight of this staggering amount of taxpayer money? We need to ensure that this government aid is not being stolen, wasted or given to political cronies"-- all of the things Trump is best known for. "And we need to make sure that the public is aware of how and to whom those trillions are distributed. In short, we need watchdogs. As it prepares for more relief in the wake of vast economic ruin caused by Covid-19, Congress has leverage-- and must use it."

During TARP, the compliance officials at the Federal Reserve were often careful and thoughtful. But within the Treasury Department, where many of the key decisions were made, officials often had a far less rigorous approach-- and given the rushed nature of their actions so far, I fear this may apply even more so today.

For the CARES Act, Congress demanded the same watchdog function within Treasury-- but so far, that dog is still in the pound. The legislation promised a brand-new agency headed by a special inspector general for pandemic recovery who would keep the programs on the right policy track and protected from fraud. The new agency would also provide the necessary transparency to make sure that when decision makers fall short, as they inevitably do in the haste of an emergency, it could make quick recommendations to correct course and share both the flaws and the proposed solutions with Congress and the American people.

Perhaps most important, it would shine a bright light on the decision-making process within the Treasury Department, deterring policymakers from making decisions-- which are likely to determine which companies survive and which fail-- based on personal connections or cronyism rather than the merits. Unfortunately, President Trump included a signing statement to the CARES Act that suggested he would limit the ability of the new inspector general to reveal to Congress efforts by his administration to obstruct or impede his inquiries.

Some are also raising questions about the president’s intended nominee for the job, Brian Miller. Even in the absence of what the signing statement may portend about the president’s intentions, the job of special inspector general for pandemic recovery would require fierce independence and the steeliest of spines. Mr. Miller demonstrated those qualities when he was the inspector general of the General Services Administration for nearly 10 years. But he is now on the president’s legal team at the White House and apparently played a role in fending off oversight requests during impeachment.

This raises important questions, but Mr. Miller deserves the opportunity to demonstrate at a confirmation hearing that he is prepared to repel any efforts to muzzle his ability to provide unvarnished reports to Congress. That won’t be possible until he is formally nominated and a confirmation hearing scheduled. Until then, the critically important role of the special inspector general remains unfilled.

The money is already flowing. Critics of the CARES Act pointed out that there could be a delay in the appointment of the special inspector general, but we were told not to worry, there would be a Pandemic Recovery Accountability Committee immediately organized that consisted of sitting inspectors general. Even better, the widely respected acting inspector general of the Defense Department, Glenn Fine, was named as its chairman. But that didn’t last long: He was quickly sacked by Mr. Trump with no explanation, leaving the committee leaderless, dormant and very possibly housebroken.

Because Mr. Fine’s dismissal came after attacks on other inspectors general (including another Pandemic Recovery Accountability Committee member, Christi Grimm, the acting inspector general of the Department of Health and Human Services), a chilling message was sent and received by the watchdogs who are expected to play a crucial role in overseeing the trillions of dollars spread throughout the government as part of CARES: Criticize the programs at your peril, and think twice before even raising your hand for the task of overseeing them.

Until there is a new chairperson of this commission who can operate without the fear of being fired merely for taking the position, this watchdog has been effectively neutered.

And then there was a Congressional Oversight Commission, patterned on the Congressional Oversight Panel from the TARP legislation, which a then little-known Harvard professor named Elizabeth Warren turned into a beacon of transparency and accountability. But the commission, like Congress itself, is dependent on cooperation by the administration to provide access necessary to analyze and report on the programs. The recent assertions by the White House that it can ignore congressional subpoenas provide little comfort that the commission will be able to fulfill its role.

Only one of its five commissioners has been named, and we are waiting for the critical chairman to be named by congressional leaders. Keep in mind that, as we wait, trillions are committed and will begin to be spent.

What is the best use of Congress’s leverage? It is already apparent that additional relief will be necessary. Before parting with another trillion dollars, Congress must condition any further funding on the inclusion of protections to ensure that the inspectors general overseeing the Treasury Department’s actions can be removed only for cause shown, the nomination and hearing for Mr. Miller must proceed as soon as possible, provisions must be enacted ensuring that oversight bodies will have unimpeded access to the information that they need to carry out their tasks, and the seats of the Congressional Oversight Commission must be filled.

Otherwise, buckle up for what oversight helped limit in TARP-- vast amounts of taxpayer money lost to fraud, policy decisions made in the dark with little chance of success and scandals that may make us yearn for the relative quiet of impeachment.

Is Obama Finally Taking On The Bad Guys?

If not him... who? If not now... when?

So let me ask again, is Obama starting to get tough on the selfish assholes who have taken it upon themselves to stand in the way of Change and Hope Americans voted for last year? If so-- it's about frickin' time! Greed has certainly been running as rampant under his administration as it did under the previous one-- long considered the worst in the nation's history. Yesterday I listened to a radio report on the Administration's plans to enforce truth-labeling rules and the First lady's attempts to talk up healthy nutrition for children-- a real security concern in a country where so many young people are obese that the military is freaking out and the health care industry is drowning in a sea of fat-- only to have the CEO of Coca Cola attack the endeavors! Similarly a report on CNN about the Baltimore school district's lauditory Meatless Monday program included an hysterical sociopath from the American Meat Institute calling down the wrath of God. God didn't respond, but Satan did-- in the form of his not so humble servant, Lou Dobbs, calling the program "unhealthy indoctrination." If I have to tell you what the insurance companies, the lobbyists and Fox News have been trying to do to scuttle health care reform, you've been asleep for the past several months.

What do all these things have in common? Change can be painful and when the status quo is threatened, the selfish and greedy (and powerful) react, regardless of the well-being of society at large. We elected Obama president, and by a helft margin at that, because we liked the whole Change theme. And now we expect to see some actual, tangible change, and not just a crooked Wall Street Bush hack like Paulsen being exchanged for a crooked Wall Street Clinton hack like Summers.

Treasury Department watchdog, the inspector general of TARP, Neil Barofsky made clear today that Change is not what we're seeing so far. In terms of his end of the world, everything is pretty much as screwed up and gamed for the rich and powerful as it was when Bush and his cronies were running the show. "The American people's belief that the funds went into a black hole," he warned, "or that there was a transfer of wealth from taxpayers to Wall Street, is one of the worst outcomes of this program, and that is the reputational damage to the government." Listen to his assessment:



Perhaps in anticipation of Barofsky's report today, the Obama "pay czar," Kenneth Feinberg, cut the compensation for the CEOs and top mangement staff (25 highest paid executives) of the seven companies that got the biggest federal bailouts.

Under the plan, which will be announced in the next few days by the Treasury Department, the seven companies that received the most assistance will have to cut the cash payouts to their 25 best-paid executives by an average of about 90 percent from last year. For many of the executives, the cash they would have received will be replaced by stock that they will be restricted from selling immediately.

And for the 25 best-paid executives, the total compensation, which includes bonuses, will drop, on average, by about 50 percent.

The companies are Citigroup, Bank of America, the American International Group, General Motors, Chrysler and the financing arms of the two automakers.

...And at all of the companies, any executive seeking more than $25,000 in special perks-- like country club memberships, private planes, limousines or company issued cars-- will have to apply to the government for permission. The administration will also warn A.I.G. that it must fulfill a commitment it made to significantly reduce the $198 million in bonuses promised to employees in the financial products division.

What's Wrong With Kentucky's Other Wing Nut Senator, Jim Bunning?

Poor old Jim Bunning can never get his story straight

Historically, whenever Bush has nominated someone to oversee something that had to do with money, it had a lot to do with a transference of great sums of taxpayer dollars to friends, family and financiers of his regime's key players. In mid-November, under intense pressure from all sides, he broke that mold and nominated Neil Barofsky, an assistant U.S. attorney general in New York, to oversee the Treasury's $700 billion bailout. It is widely considered to be urgent to get someone in there before a classic combination of Republican venality and incompetence send that money into the same pockets as all the billions and billions of dollars meant for stabilizing and rebuilding Iraq.

It seemed as though, with Paulson and the crumbling, Armegeddon-minded Bush Regime changing "plans" for how to spend the hundreds of billions of dollars they haven't already stuffed down the crapper, the Senate Finance Committee had tremendous and well-placed concerned for some real oversight. Even Max Baucus (D-MT), a reliable tool of Wall Street interests, understood the urgency. "This effort urgently needs the stronger oversight and increased accountability that the special inspector general can provide. I will do everything in my power to thoroughly and quickly vet Mr. Barofsky, and to see a confirmed IG on the job without delay.”

A month has gone by and the Senate Finance Committee still hasn't reported on Barofsky to the full Senate. No, they weren't waiting for all the money to disappear. They were waiting for lunatic fringe Kentucky Senator Jim Bunning to remove his "anonymous" hold on the nomination. And he did that yesterday, just a day or two short of it becoming public record who placed the hold. Now Barofsky's nomination should sail through the Senate confirmation process.

And Bunning? Mad as a hatter-- and up for re-election in 2010. Hopefully Menendez, the new chair of the DSCC won't make the same mistake Schumer did by forcing a reactionary from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party onto the voters of the Bluegrass State. They've already proven they aren't going to buy that bullshit a few weeks ago when they rejected the worst Democratic senatorial nominee anywhere this year, Bruce Lunsford. Lunsford wasted $7,534,823 on the losing race against McConnell and is now threatening to jump in against Bunning, who is sick, senile and will turn 79 before election day. Fortunately, more credible Democrats-- as in real ones-- won't let Lunsford drag the party down to another disastrous defeat. Many hope that state Auditor Crit Luallen will run or that Lt Governor Daniel Mongiardo, who almost beat Bunning in 2004, will take him on again and finish the job. Kentucky's Attorney General, Jack Conway, is also being rumored to be considering a run and, if Bunning retires, dies or is declared mentally incompetent before the election, Rep. Ben Chandler might give it a shot.