Larry Kudlow
Is the whole TARP plan a criminal enterprise? Sounds farfetched, I suppose. But after reading about Special Inspector General Neil Barofsky's report, it may well be that TARP is just one big criminal problem.
Listen to this: Barofsky's investigators reported Monday that they have opened 20 criminal probes into possible securities fraud, tax-law violations, insider-trading, and mortgage-modification fraud related to TARP. Yup, those are criminal probes. Barofsky is the special IG overseeing the bailout program. And for some reason the mainstream media refuses to report this on the front pages where it belongs.
Barofsky's report spans 247 pages. And it says that the very character of the bailout program makes it "inherently vulnerable to fraud, waste and abuse, including significant issues related to conflicts of interest facing fund managers, collusion between participants and vulnerabilities to money laundering."
By the way, one of Barofsky's recommendations is for Treasury to abandon its whole plan of buying toxic assets from banks and investors. The IG's report also notes that what started last October as a single-purpose $750 billion effort to buy toxic securities has morphed into twelve separate programs that cover up to $3 trillion in direct spending, loans, and loan guarantees. In other words, TARP is nearly equal in size to the entire federal budget.
Now, Geithner & Co. has said very little about this. Even in yesterday's TARP oversight hearing, very little was said about the Barofsky critique. That's too bad, because this is a crucial area of investigation. TARP is badly in need of reform -- or maybe better yet, badly in need of termination.
Think about this: TARP, which is now linked to substantial criminal activity, has ballooned to the size of a second federal budget and represents the biggest government-directed intrusion into the economy in history -- vastly bigger than the New Deal. And not only is there TARP for banks, insurance companies, and non-bank financial institutions, but also for GM, Chrysler, and various auto suppliers, and perhaps soon enough for credit cards, newspapers, and other sectors of the economy.
This is why I believe the era of democratic free-market capitalism is coming to an end. It is being replaced by state-directed corporatism on a grand scale. This is central planning that goes way beyond the American tradition.
Now we will wait and see if the investigative process for TARP turns into a judicial process, and whether this criminal enterprise puts the long arm of the law onto specific, individual criminals.
Posted by: Fred ||
04/26/2009 10:19 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#3
Many things besides the currency have been and are being manipulated. It's far more than a political issue. Economy will tend to stagnate until people are convinced they are not being taken for ride.
#4
I also think it looks like the well connected (to the state) bondholders are being bailed-out at the expense of (largely shareholder level) taxpayers.
#5
That's the problem with the *F* word. It's degenerated in its usage to a simple pejorative like the *N* word losing its contextual meaning other than -insert mindless hate here- usage. Thus as the old Aesop tale goes, when actual Fascism does show up, no one pays attention to the real alarm. Human behavior hasn't changed much in 2,500 years.
#7
And not only is there TARP for banks, insurance companies, and non-bank financial institutions, but also for GM, Chrysler, and various auto suppliers, and perhaps soon enough for credit cards, newspapers, and other sectors of the economy.
Don't forget pensions as many have been invested in securities. Some plans are so liberal, like the Omaha Police Union's, they offer something like 120% of full pay after 20 years, when the city is hurting. Ugly ads flying around and a tight mayoral race, yet the media keeps the people in the dark and they haven't realized the scope of the problem yet.
#8
The purpose of TARP, as I understand it, was to get money moving through the economy via the financial institutions. From the perspective of those executing the plan, binding the mouths of the kine that tread the corn is counterproductive, as that money will move, too -- if only enriching the product that all cattle produce at the far end.
So powerful was Representative John P. Murtha at one time that he used to put up billboards in his Western Pennsylvania district declaring that "the P is for Power." Few in Congress dared disagree: he doled out or withheld billions in federal money each year for lawmakers' pet projects, better known as earmarks.
Now, however, a string of federal criminal investigations of contractors or lobbyists close to Mr. Murtha, the top Democrat on the defense appropriations subcommittee, are threatening to undermine his backroom clout.
In the weeks since the news that prosecutors had raided the offices of the PMA Group -- a lobbying firm founded by a former Murtha associate that became a gateway to his office and his biggest source of campaign money -- about two dozen rank-and-file Democrats have risked his wrath by calling for a House ethics investigation of the matter. One Democrat has even foresworn seeking earmarks for the military contractors in his district because of ethical concerns about the process.
In a private meeting with the chairman of the House appropriations committee, Mr. Murtha, the unofficial leader of the "old bulls" who oversee the subcommittees, was forced to accept a series of new restrictions on his authority to grant earmarks, Democratic aides briefed on the meeting said. In previous weeks he had already acquiesced to another steep cut in the volume of earmarks he dispenses, down by half this year from a few years ago. He had also submitted to new disclosure requirements, including public hearings, that cramp his ability to cut last-minute deals.
Now Mr. Murtha also agreed to accept a new rule requiring competitive bidding on earmarked contracts. Furthermore, one of his usual lieutenants -- Representative Peter J. Visclosky, Democrat of Indiana and member of the defense subcommittee who is chairman of the energy and water panel -- unexpectedly switched sides to back the new restrictions, perhaps because he too is under new scrutiny for his ties to the PMA Group.
"Whatever the hell it is, we will work our way through it," Mr. Murtha groused after the meeting to the Capitol Hill publication Roll Call.
While past presidents often courted Mr. Murtha with phone calls and private meetings, President Obama has extended to him no such courtesies. On a visit to the White House, the lawmaker told senior defense officials that it would be "foolish" and "ridiculous" to cancel all of a $13 billion contract to buy new presidential helicopters, as he later recounted to a defense industry newsletter. But Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has insisted on scrapping the deal as a symbol of waste.
And in a recent meeting with the secretary, Mr. Murtha pushed a plan to divide a $35 billion contract to build a new airborne refueling tanker between two rival contractors -- a compromise that pleases both but would cost the government much more. Mr. Gates listened with little response, several people briefed on their conversation said, but he later dismissed it.
"I've had conversations with Congressman Murtha," Mr. Gates said in a briefing at the Pentagon this month. "I still believe that it is not the best deal for the taxpayer, to go with a split buy."
Even among donors, mainly defense interests, Mr. Murtha's standing appears to be slumping. His first-quarter campaign contributions were down by half from the same period after his previous re-election -- to about $225,000, he reported this month.
Posted by: Fred ||
04/26/2009 10:07 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
hope the ex-marine is canned and dies a lonely lying sack of sh*t death
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/26/2009 13:27 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Why doesn't Congress just pass a law that anything a Congress critter does is legal? That way, they can do anything they want and can't be prosecuted.
And they will still be able to dump billions of dollars on their home districts, and buy election after election so they will stay in Congress until they die.
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia ||
04/26/2009 21:09 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I think the Federal Court pretty much just did that when they proclaimed that Murtha [F-ker] was performing in his 'offical duties' as a US Congressman when he accused honorable marines of cold blooded murder and a national Television Program.
So you see a congressman really is above the law.
See also the 'Patches' Kennedy who was driving drunk as part of his 'offical duties'.
In exchange for votes to pass a controversial global warming package, Democratic leaders are offering some lawmakers generous emission "allowances" to protect their districts from the economic pain of pollution restrictions.
Rep. Gene Green, D-Texas, represents a district with several oil refineries, a huge source of greenhouse gas emissions. He also serves on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which must approve the global warming plan backed by President Barack Obama.
Green says Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., who heads the panel, is trying to entice him into voting for the bill by giving some refineries favorable treatment in the administration's "cap and trade" system, which is expected to generate hundreds of billions of dollars over the coming years. Under the plan, companies would pay for the right to emit carbon dioxide, but Green and other lawmakers are angling to get a free pass for refineries in their districts.
"We've been talking," Green said, referring to a meeting he had with Waxman on Tuesday night. "To put together a bill that passes, they have to get our votes, and I'm not going to vote for a bill without refinery allowances."
Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, the top Republican on the energy panel, said Waxman and others are also dangling allowances for steel and coal-fired power plants to give political cover to Democrats whose districts rely on these companies.
Democrats so far have been unable to get enough support from their own members to pass the bill out of a small global warming subcommittee because most Republicans and many Democrats say the plan will raise energy rates, destroy jobs and increase prices on manufactured goods.
Republicans said Waxman and subcommittee chairman Ed Markey, D-Mass., are calling Democrats into their offices and offering allowances, also called credits, in exchange for votes.
Waxman told The Examiner he was not trading votes for allowances.
"That is what the Republicans are saying, but that is not accurate," he said. The bill left out specifics on allowances "in order to be able to have discussions on how best to ease the transition for various geographical regions and ratepayers."
"I will politely disagree," said energy committee member John Shimkus, R-Ill., who insisted Waxman "is calling members into his office to try to get their vote, and that will be based on the credits they are offering."
While Shimkus acknowledged that closed-door negotiating was "just a way of doing business" in Congress, he said offering emission allowances for votes may take the process beyond ethical boundaries.
"We are talking real dollars here, real shareholder wealth," Shimkus said, "and we are not being given the time to analyze these credits."
Environmentalists and free-market advocates say the credits will favor struggling, out-of-date operations.
"We are going to have electricity that is dirtier because the allowances are going to be misallocated," said Robert Michaels, an economics professor at California State University and senior fellow for the Institute for Energy Research.
Posted by: Fred ||
04/26/2009 10:04 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
well, at least it's based on science and ethics, not politics
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/26/2009 13:28 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Green as in I'll grease your palms? Is this what they mean by "Green Power?"
As Michelle Obama nears her first 100 days as First Lady, a new book celebrates her fabulous fashion choices. "It's her journey to the White House through the filter of her style," says former fashion mag editor-in-chief Mandi Norwood, author of "Michelle Style: Celebrating the First Lady of Fashion" (William Morrow, $19.99) out May 5, which chronicles Mrs. O's signature looks -- from the belted purple sheath dress she wore on the night her husband got the nomination, to the $148 White House/Black Market black-and-white print dress she bought off the rack.
"Each outfit has a story around it," says Norwood, who recalls the yellow J.Crew ensemble the First Lady wore on Jay Leno -- which she purchased online for under $340.
"Suddenly we had this vision of the next First Lady sitting in bed, next to Barack, shopping online."
Yes, she's just like us, and that's part of the appeal. "In the past, First Ladies have always been slightly aloof," says Norwood. "You've never really been able to emulate their style, even if you wanted to."
But Mrs. O's love of pencil skirts, button down cardigans, simple sheath dresses and her liberal use of a thick black belt make her style approachable. And when she wears off-rack-pieces from J.Crew or H &M, we can get the exact looks ourselves. "I think she will reignite what America is known for in fashion and that is classic American sportswear," says Norwood. "Bright separates, really comfortable clothes, clothes you don't have to be a millionaire to look good in."
Though New Yorker Norwood finds few flaws in Michelle's public style, she'd still like one mystery solved. "I'd just love to see her carrying a purse," she says. "Where does she keep her lip balm?"
Posted by: Fred ||
04/26/2009 09:50 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
#5
I imagine she knew how to look professional, but she is still trying to find the executive wife look. Nonetheless, she aspires to Jackie Kennedy impact on the fashion world in a when most of the women in this country dress for work and for play, but not for afternoon coffee or evening cocktails. That outfit is suitable for taking the girls to school, but not for making a speech, where she should wear a suit -- either with pants, skirt or dress, in a flattering colour and not quite businesswoman style. God willing, she will soon hire a stylist to guide her choices when she sits in bed with the laptop next to her snoringly presidential husband.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
04/26/2009 19:56 Comments ||
Top||
#16
Michelle's black widow spider outfit gives me the heebee jeebies......whew.....
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
04/26/2009 21:55 Comments ||
Top||
#17
Oh, no, there's clearly a good deal of money spent on some of her outfits and accessories... no doubt the earliest things paid from the profits of then-Senator Obama's autobiographies, more recent ones paid out of her allowance as First Lady. Or does the government not give the presidents' wives such an allowance? I can't imagine that Mrs. Nixon, Eisenhower or Truman had the kind of family income that allowed for the wardrobes their role required.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
So powerful was Representative John P. Murtha at one time that he used to put up billboards in his Western Pennsylvania district declaring that "the P is for Power." Few in Congress dared disagree: he doled out or withheld billions in federal money each year for lawmakers' pet projects, better known as earmarks. 
As Michelle Obama nears her first 100 days as First Lady, a new book celebrates her fabulous fashion choices. "It's her journey to the White House through the filter of her style," says former fashion mag editor-in-chief Mandi Norwood, author of "Michelle Style: Celebrating the First Lady of Fashion" (William Morrow, $19.99) out May 5, which chronicles Mrs. O's signature looks -- from the belted purple sheath dress she wore on the night her husband got the nomination, to the $148 White House/Black Market black-and-white print dress she bought off the rack. 
