Obama Watch
$23.7 trillion banking guarantee--Arianna Huffington
Home
$23.7 trillion banking guarantee--Arianna Huffington
Tax Reform, more trickle down shit
Future speculation causes oil price rise, not Democrats
Obama's support for banking--Arianna Huffington
Obama no FDR--Arianna Huffington
Obama's team like Bush's team
Drug prices BS--Palast
US Health Care Reform--Palast
Talk shit, do as was done: Obama endorses Gitmo
TARP on Steroids: bigger than Bush
Bankers still the power--Huffington
Ending Drug War BS--Huffington
Obama appointment reveal his finance and war policies
The Bailout , financial sector--Palast
Obama's Economic Council confirms he is a neoliberal
Democrats will not change US Middle East policy--Chomsky
Obama like Clinton--Chomsky

 

State Forced to Cut Services to the Bone:  The Opportunity Cost of the Bank Bailout

Arianna Huffington, July 23, 2009, at Huffington Post

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/states-forced-to-cut-serv_b_244039.html

Okay, the bailout of Wall Street isn't going to end up costing us $23.7 trillion dollars, {See abc News article at bottom of page} the number that special inspector general Neil Barofsky fired off to call attention to the fact that banks are misusing the trillions we've given them, and are still hiding untold amounts of toxic assets off the books -- aided and abetted by the who-needs-transparency Treasury.

But we have pumped at least $4.7 trillion into the financial sector -- and the pumping isn't over. On Wednesday, Fed chair Ben Bernanke told the Senate Banking Committee that it "may be appropriate" for the government to guarantee the "mountains" of commercial real estate mortgage defaults the banks will likely be facing in the coming months.

At a certain point, these numbers are so huge it becomes hard to keep them in perspective, to be clear what $4,700,000,000,000 means in the real world. But reading about the effects of the massive budget cuts almost every state in the country is being forced to make puts the figure in perspective very fast.

And it reminds us, once again, how lopsided the "recovery" has been: with banks that received billions in taxpayer handouts now reporting massive profits and setting aside record amounts for executive bonuses, and the American people continuing to face 9.5 percent unemployment, 10,000 foreclosures a day, and vital services being cut.

So while Goldman Sachs crows about its $3.44 billion second-quarter profit, and Citigroup and Bank of America strut over the $3 billion and $2.4 billion they respectively earned, we are left to think about the opportunity cost of the trillions we have given to Wall Street -- to ponder what else we could have done with that money.

Consider: at least 39 states have imposed budget cuts that hurt families and reduce vital services to their most vulnerable residents. The litany of those affected includes children, the elderly, the disabled, the sick, the homeless, the mentally ill, as well as college students and faculty, and state government workers.

America's states are facing a projected cumulative budget gap of $166 billion for fiscal 2010. Even more budget gaps are expected for fiscal 2011. Total shortfalls through 2011 are estimated at $350 billion to $370 billion -- and could be even higher if unemployment continues to rise.

These are massive numbers. But when you remember that we spent $180 billion to bail out AIG ($12.9 billion of which went straight to Goldman), you realize that that alone would be more than enough to close the 2010 budget gap in every state in the union. Toss in the $45 billion we gave to now-making-a-profit Bank of America and the $45 billion we gave to now-making-a-profit Citigroup and we are well on the way to ensuring that no state's vital service are cut through 2011.

But instead that money has gone to the banks without any fundamental reform of the system, and without any strings attached about how much they had to turn around and lend to help the real economy recover. Or, indeed, without any strings attached about having to tell us what they did with our money. So all across the country the fiscal ax is falling.

According to a report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, at least 21 states have made cuts to public health programs, 22 states have cut programs for the elderly and disabled, 24 states have cut aid to K-12 education, and 32 states have cut assistance to public colleges and universities.

 

 

Sticker Shock: $23.7 Trillion Bailout?

TARP Special Inspector Says Treasury Is Keeping Taxpayers in the Dark

By MATTHEW JAFFE and DEVIN DWYER
July 21, 2009



"The total potential federal government support could reach up to $23.7 trillion," says Neil Barofsky, the special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, in a report released today on the government's efforts to fix the financial system.

Yes, $23.7 trillion.

"The potential financial commitment the American taxpayers could be responsible for is of a size and scope that isn't even imaginable," said Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., ranking member on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

"If you spent a million dollars a day going back to the birth of Christ, that wouldn't even come close to just $1 trillion -- $23.7 trillion is a staggering figure."

To be sure, we aren't there yet.

The government has about 50 different programs to fight the current recession, including programs to bail out ailing banks and automakers, boost lending and beat back the housing crisis. So far they've cost taxpayers around $4 trillion.

But Barofsky says if each federal agency spent the maximum potential amount involved in these initiatives, taxpayers could be on the hook for trillions more.

The staggering $23.7 trillion estimate elicited concern from members of Congress and a sharp rebuke from the Treasury Department after the report was leaked late Monday.

Treasury spokesman Andrew Williams called the estimate "inflated," saying it "does not provide a useful framework for evaluating the potential cost of these programs."

He said utilization of the department's financial rescue programs has begun to decline, and some banks have already repaid $70 billion in TARP funds.

Other financial experts also questioned the significance of Barofsky's potential TARP price tag.

"I'm not sure how you could come up with a number like [$23.7 trillion] without lots of assumptions involved," said Kevin Petrasic, a private financial services lawyer with broad government experience.

"Throwing out a number you can't provide a tremendous amount of insight about: what's in that? You just get a headline. Why do we even need to know that this number, in a worst case scenario, is the number? What is gained from that?"

In his appearance before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee today, Barofsky insisted his report provides a valuable accounting of taxpayer dollars.

{That number includes guarantees to the shadow banking sector, whose debt is estimated at over $50 trillion—jk}

"We take offense to [Treasury's] comments," he said. "These numbers are from the government."

He said the $23.7 trillion figure in his quarterly report was derived from publicly available data on allocations to the government's various bailout programs.

"We've explained the number does include some programs that have terminated… and it isn't that the taxpayer is on the hook for $23.7 trillion – we don't say it, we don't suggest it," Barofsky said. "The actual potential for losses," he says, "is likely to be lower."

The watchdog also warned today that hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars could be lost if the government does not increase the transparency of the TARP program, which he says has grown to an unprecedented scope and scale.

"TARP has become a program in which taxpayers are not being told what most of the TARP recipients are doing with their money, have still not been told how much their substantial investments are worth, and will not be told the full details of how their money is being invested," Barofsky says in the report.

"Does Treasury ask what TARP recipients do with the money?" Committee Chairman Edolphus Towns, D-N.Y., asked the special inspector general.

"No," replied Barofsky. "They say that information is not meaningful or reliable… But if it's meaningless, why do they do it in respect to Citigroup, Bank of America and AIG?"

Requiring TARP recipients to report on how government funds are used is among the recommendations urged by Barofsky. He also wants the department to report on the values of its TARP portfolio so taxpayers know about the value of their investments; disclose the identity of any TALF borrowers; and disclose tradings, holdings and valuations of assets of the public-private investment funds that will be buying toxic assets from banks.

"[Convicted financier Bernard] Madoff said 'Trust us. We have high returns,'" said Ranking Member Rep. Darrell Issa. "Treasury is now saying the same thing."

This public-private investment program is a key source of concern for the watchdog. In the program, a handful of selected funds will purchase toxic assets -- like mortgage-backed securities -- from banks in an effort to cleanse their balance sheets and help them increase lending.

In his last quarterly report in April, Barofsky cautioned that many aspects of the toxic asset program left it vulnerable to fraud, waste and abuse, such as conflicts of interest for fund managers, collusion with fund managers, money laundering and misuse with the Fed's lending program, known as the TALF.

Since then, Treasury has incorporated many of the watchdog's recommendations, so now "the program has a significantly improved compliance and fraud-prevention regime than that initially proposed," Barofsky says. However, he warns that "there remain some significant areas in which Treasury's plan for PPIP falls short."

One such area is the lack of an informational barrier -- or a wall -- between fund managers making investment decisions on behalf of the program and employees of the fund management company who manage funds that are not part of the program. A fund manager, Barofsky warns, "could generate massive profits in its non-PPIF funds as a result of an unfair advantage."

Treasury has declined to put such a wall in place.

"Failure to impose a wall will leave Treasury vulnerable to an accusation that has already been leveled against it -- that Treasury is using TARP to pick winners and losers and that, by granting certain firms PPIF manager status, it is benefiting a chosen few at the expense of the dozens of firms that were rejected, of the market as a whole, and of the American taxpayer," Barofsky says.

"The reputational risk is not one that can be readily measured in dollars and cents, but is rather a risk that could put in jeopardy the fragile trust the American people have in TARP and, by extension, their government."

Barofsky also wants the department to increase the disclosure of trading activities and holdings of the program's investment funds."

"Such transparency not only dissuades misconduct and promotes sound management but also promotes a better understanding of PPIP and thus enhances the credibility of PPIP and TARP more broadly," he says.

"Even more importantly, the most significant investors in each PPIF, the American taxpayers, have a right to know the status of their investments. The lack of transparency as to what use TARP funds were put by recipients in other TARP programs, in SIGTARP's view, has damaged the credibility of TARP and therefore may have threatened its viability. Treasury should not repeat that apparent error with PPIP."

However, the department, Barofsky says, plans to disclose "no more than the bare minimum required by statute."

With nearly $24 trillion potentially flying out of federal coffers, the watchdog wants the government to do a lot more than just "the bare minimum."

In a separate report released Monday, Barofsky said he obtained responses from banks on what they did with TARP funds, something that the Treasury Department has refused to do. Many of the banks, he said, used some funds to make investments, buy other banks and pay off debts.

"This administration promised an 'unprecedented level' of accountability and oversight, but as this report reveals, they are falling far short of that promise," Issa said in a statement. "In fact, the Treasury Department is actively obstructing transparency. The American people deserve to know how their tax dollars are being spent -- especially considering they are the ones who are footing the bill."

The committee plans to invite Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to testify and explain why several SIGTARP recommendations have not been enacted. Chairman Edolphus Towns also says he may subpoena information about Treasury's TARP portfolio which has not been made public.

 

 

How do you obscure an article?  One common ways burry the basic subject matter in a blizzard of details.  The second, even more common way is the debate format.  So rather than teach, both sides are heard, even though one is without merit.  Only those who don’t need to read the article because of sufficient expertise would know which side has the compelling facts.  The article above buries the $23.7 trillion debt that the government will shoulder by failing to mention that the shadow banking sector will swallow most of those bucks—jk. 

Teddy Roosevelt's advice that, "We must drive the special interests out of politics. The citizens of the United States must effectively control the mighty commercial forces which they have themselves called into being. There can be no effective control of corporations while their political activity remains."