The Fed can deny and has denied information to the Congress and to the public that US government departments like the Treasury cannot withold. The Fed has been stonewalling requests for information about the terms and conditions on which it makes its myriad facilities available to banks and other financial institutions. It even at first refused to reveal which counterparties of AIG had benefited from the rescue packages (now around$170 bn with more to come) granted this rogue investment bank masquerading as an insurance company. The toxic waste from Bear Stearns balance sheet has been hidden in some SPV in Delaware.
The opaqueness of the financial operations of the Fed in support of the financial sector (which are expanding in scale and scope at an unprecedented rate) and the lack of accountability for the use of tax payers’ resources that it entails, threaten democratic accountability. Even if it enhances financial stability, which I doubt, democratic legitimacy and accountability are damaged by it, and that is too high a price to pay.
Indeed. Let me check the operating manual here:
Article I.
Section. 7.Clause 1: All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
ection. 8.
Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Clause 2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
Clause 5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
Clause 6: To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
Section 9
Clause 7: No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time
I hate to sound like I'm joining the black helicopter crowd here, but whatever the Founders had in mind, it certainly wasn't the Executive branch throwing trillions of dollars into an enormous hole, with nobody the wiser as to where it ultimately ended up.
- lambert's blog
Printer-friendly version- Login or register to post comments
- 1+[encrypted]+#b94+


Front page



Comments
I realize this started under W, Lambert, but
where will it stop?
(Oh, and while we're at it: let's find out where the money Bush got "off the books" for the war in Iraq went, mmmkay?)
We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0
1 John 4:18
Is the FDIC required to be transparent (with all the warnings
"transparency" may not mean to the Obama transparency what it means to most of us).
Ah, 2PM NPR hourly news summary mentioned that the great majority of losses will be borne by the taxpayers. That may wake some people up...but Obama fan club? Probably not.
Doesn't "transparency" mean
That no one can see it? Sounds about right.
Bernhard at Moon of AL looks at the Treasury's example of how
the loans through FDIC will work.
How about leveraging 7.5% of your loan and that's you exposure?
Gotta run--have fun.
Partnerships Hiding Bad Assets, Where Have I Seen That Before?
Oh, right.
"Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. " - Eleanor Roosevelt
The Fed
For some reason, economists believe that national banks should be politically independent, but I've never seen this as anything but corrosive to democracy.
Angry Bear: WaPo points out loans to buy trash discussed in Fall
--during those weekend meetings about the TARP legislation, etc.??
The WaPo article on Sunday explaining the new Obama-Geithner-(Paulson) Plan notes in Paragraph 11 (toward bottom of Page One on web):
Waldmann highlights Buffet's name, Elana Schor at TPM highlights Gross's name*. I would say don't ignore Goldman Sachs's Lloyd Blankfein--and that they "approached" Treasury officials with the PPIP idea.
Robert Waldmann thinks he was naive not to have seen this earlier:
*Gross was all over the MCM last night, praising the loan-to-profit plan to the skies. Someone at Goldman Sachs was earlier quoted as saying they were just waiting for the right "incentive" to dive into the Big $hit Pile. Commenters at the TPM post get into the tall weeds of PIMCO's financial moves at the time....
Again, the question: Why are two such disparate administrations with different people coming up with the same solution? Oh, yeah--Who's their Daddy?
Krugman points his readers to Times article with quotes on Plan-
positions and counter-positions. Good aggregation in Room for Debate.
Krugman also responds to Summers responding to him.