Remember how the oversight mechanisms were one of Congress's big contributions to Paulson's original three-page bill? See this Washington Post article by Amit R. Paley:
Yet for all this activity, no formal action has been taken to fill the independent oversight posts established by Congress when it approved the bailout to prevent corruption and government waste. Nor has the first monitoring report required by lawmakers been completed, though the initial deadline has passed.
"It's a mess," said Eric M. Thorson, the Treasury Department's inspector general, who has been working to oversee the bailout program until the newly created position of special inspector general is filled. "I don't think anyone understands right now how we're going to do proper oversight of this thing."
...
The legislation also created a body called the Financial Stability Oversight Board, whose five members include Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke. But it has no staff of its own, and few expect that policymakers can conduct oversight of themselves. "It's sort of a joke in terms of oversight," a congressional aide said.
Thieves and boobs got us into this.
I don't know why we'd "hope" that throwing more loot at the same thieves and boobs would "change" anything.
Can't we at least have entertaining farce?
But I decided that was too partisan and shrill.
Since then, with exhibit Q or thereabouts being the Citigroup handout, I am beginning to trust my first reaction.
Dems getting played ... is that even a page one story? Not any more, if ever.
A modest silver lining: At least Congress struck Paulson's get out of jail free card from the original proposal:So we can at least hope that he will feel compelled to follow applicable laws.
This is concedely different than the 4th branch model of civil service toilers with an agenda forcing rules and regulations on us almost without regard to their executive, never-mind legislative masters. Paulson was subject to confirmation and this is a high profile appointment and focus on results may give a sense of accountability, e.g., if things don't go well Geitner goes overboard, it's too late for Paulson.
And of course Treasury and the Fed are only confiscating our money via the spending power, i.e.,implictly using the taxing power or inflation of the money supply to pay for it. So if the law isn't a positive regulation of our own behavior or conduct, do we have standing to challenge it -- nevermind the self insulating ban on equitable relief except under constitutional theory contained in the law.
While people have offhandedly, and largely correctly, said the law gives the Treasury Secretary virtually unchecked discretion to spend,ironically I think that the secretary may have managed to execute a plan that falls outside even the vast boundaries of the congressional delegation.
The enrolled version of H 1424 Sec 3, Definitions, "Troubled Assets", subparagraph B reads:
I don't know if the Secretary transmitted his determination regarding these preferred issues he acquired at gunpoint from banks (albeit some were surely like Brer Rabbit in their objection to being thrown in that briar patch). But I tend to think that these preferred issues are a close call as far as the plain language of the statute.
While it does say "any other financial instrument", it is defining "troubled assets", as in past participle, past tense. These cannot be troubled assets under contemplation of the bill because they did not exist when the bill was written!
Silly me. But there is no available challenge unless some clever barrister about these parts knows how to bring a non-monetary non-equitable claim for relief. Could someone claim harm and demand money such that a judgment might compell different behavior from the government? Or what other way might at least an implicit challenge that compares the secretaries actions to the language of the law be brought?
Or forgetting the sophistry and getting down to the constitutional problem that dare not speak its name, I still think this whole thing the ripest non-delegation challenge to come along in a while. Because there is essentially no oversight, no notice and comment, the things that normally raise the courts concerns about agency actions are present.
Under normal circumstances, the court would ignore the delegation problem, and get at the rigor of the agencies fealty to the statute by changing the standard of review. I highly doubt the court would grant Chevron deference to the secretary in a stautory interpretation challenge. But as mentioned in previous paragraphs, the only challenge available is constituional. Might the courts finally recognize that the 'standard of review' is often an administrative law surrogate for non-delegation, and its time to get on the real horse again.
Even if they won't, the public might actually understand what non-delegation is about with all this king-making. Of all those I buttonholed in this regard at the fed-soc meeting only Bob Levy was animated. Everyone else saw standing problems or feared the precedent of failing.
I don't know how the courts failure to rein in adminstrative agencies could get any worse. Still some thought, well at least they will only go this crazy in an "emergency" so if we litigate the background questions of law and loose, that will encourage them to do the same thing when there is no emergency. I ask you, when is there no emergency in the mind of government?
We must fight now, or retreat to the cloisters like the Irish monks who preserved knowledge of western civilization and simply nuture a memory of what freedom was that might re-emerge in 3 or 4 generations.
Brian
They werent't "played", they were in on the scam. The "oversight" was always window dressing.
Who was the leading economic figure of the Clinton Administration? Where does he work now?
Who is O's new treasury secretary? What is his role now?
Both parties love Wall Street because they both get lots of money back.
He He. Good one. He won't be there after January 20.
He is the least visible member of the bailout trio (Bernanke, Paulson, Geithner). And of the three, he is the least connected to Wall Street.
Of course, it only took four comments to blame Nancy and Harry.
What's the over-under on the number of comments before someone blames the lack of oversight on Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter?
You mean the people in charge of the majority party in both the house and senate? Why on earth would anyone think they had anything to do with a bill that came out of their houses? That's crazy talk!
Pelosi, Frank, Reed and Dodd were in the photograph that I associate with their "victory."
Has our attention span really become that short?
You may well be right about that too.
Why settle for less than FDR, and the seeds of doom he planted?
You mean not one of the millionaires on Capital Hill knows a capable accountant?
Just wait, they're going to monetize the debt in the next few years ... currency FAIL.
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.