by Deb Cupples | The Washington Post printed a startling piece today, which begins as follows:
"Administration officials have concluded that this approach is vital for persuading firms to participate in programs funded by the $700 billion financial rescue package.
"The administration believes it can sidestep the rules because, in many cases, it has decided not to provide federal aid directly to financial companies, the sources said. Instead, the government has set up special entities that act as middlemen, channeling the bailout funds to the firms and, via this two-step process, stripping away the requirement that the restrictions be imposed, according to officials."
Apparently, Administration officials want to be able to let financial firms ignore restrictions attached to the bailout funds, such as executive pay caps. If the Washington Post's story is accurate, then this is appalling.
I'm not questioning the integrity of WaPo's journalists or editors. I'm questioning the quality of the information that WaPo's staff received because -- once again -- WaPo is relying on sources that spoke anonymously.
If Administration officials are divulging information to WaPo that they aren't supposed to divulge, then those officials' ethics (and thus credibility) are in question.
If higher-ups gave certain Administration officials permission to leak info to the press but told them to do it anonymously (i.e., to manipulate the public's perception), then the higher-ups' veracity and straightforwardness are in question.
Neither option is good.
It wasn't very long ago (e.g. early February) that President Obama, himself, told God and everyone that he would fight to impose restrictions, including executive-pay caps, on firms that receive bailout funds.
In late March, less than two weeks before the G-20 summit, the New York Times ran a piece describing a "sweeping plan" of the Obama Administration to exercise greater oversight on firms that receive bailout funds (including executive-pay caps).
In short, the big message for public consumption over the last few months has been that the Obama Administration will fight on the behalf of us taxpayers (and ordinary shareholders) to stop executives at bailed out firms from looting or wasting our money.
Now, all of a sudden, the big message for public consumption is that the Obama Administration will help those execs get out from under restrictions on TARP funds by sliding through loopholes that the Obama Administration, itself, has helped create.
Something ain't right here, and I ain't sure what. I can imagine only three possibilities:
1. the anonymous sources fed WaPo bad information.
2. the Administration had sincerely wanted restrictions on TARP-fund spending but changed its collective mind, or
3. the Administration had not sincerely wanted r estrictions on TARP-fund spending but wanted public-relations credit for wanting said restriction.
There may be other possibilities, but my imagination is still waking up. Dissenting Justice comments:
"Perhaps Obama believes that "if" doling out trillions to the banks gets the economy (artificially) working again that people will forget that he is doing something that goes against his promises concerning transparency, accountability, and, ahem, change."
xxx
Memeorandum has commentary.
Other Buck Naked Politics Posts:
* New FASB Rules: is Our Government Encouraging Accounting Fraud?
* 663,000 Jobs Lost in March, Unemployment up to 8.5%
* Real Executive Bonuses Based on Fake Profits
* More Right Wing False Analogies: this Time re: Executive Pay Caps
* PBGC Recklessly Invested in Pension Insurance Funds in Stocks
* Bank Execs Might Give Back TARP $ if They Can't Keep Bonuses
* Wall Street Execs Got Billions While Driving Economy Toward Cliff
* Executives Skate out of Economic Disaster with Millions
.
Comments