I’m an economist, so I should probably be most agitated about the economic consequences of TARP, such as moral hazard and capital malinvestment. But when I read stories about how political insiders (both in government and on Wall Street) manipulate the system for personal advantage, I want to go postal.
Yes, TARP was economically misguided. But the bailout also was fundamentally corrupt (as are so many things when government gets too big). And it was a form of corruption that lined the pockets of the ruling class. I don’t like it when lower-income people use the political system to take money from upper-income people, but I get completely nauseated/angry/disgusted when upper-income people use the coercive power of government to steal money from lower-income people.
Now, to add insult to injury, we’re being fed an unsavory gruel of lies and deception as the political class tries to cover up its sleazy behavior. Here’s a story from Bloomberg about the Treasury Department’s refusal to obey the law and comply with a FOIA request. A Bloomberg reporter wanted to know about an insider deal to put taxpayers on the line to guarantee a bunch of Citigroup-held securities, but the government thinks that people don’t have a right to know how their money is being funneled to politically-powerful and well-connected insiders.
The late Bloomberg News reporter Mark Pittman asked the U.S. Treasury in January 2009 to identify $301 billion of securities owned by Citigroup Inc. that the government had agreed to guarantee. He made the request on the grounds that taxpayers ought to know how their money was being used. More than 20 months later, after saying at least five times that a response was imminent, Treasury officials responded with 560 pages of printed-out e-mails — none of which Pittman requested. They were so heavily redacted that most of what’s left are everyday messages such as “Did you just try to call me?” and “Monday will be a busy day!” None of the documents answers Pittman’s request for “records sufficient to show the names of the relevant securities” or the dates and terms of the guarantees.
Here’s another reprehensible example of sleazy behavior. The Treasury Department, for all intents and purposes, lied when it recently claimed that the AIG bailout would cost “only” $5 billion. This has triggered some pushback from Capitol Hill GOPers, as reported by the New York Times, but it is highly unlikely that anyone will suffer any consequences for this deception. To paraphrase Glenn Reynolds, “laws, honesty, and integrity, like taxes, are for the little people.”
The United States Treasury concealed $40 billion in likely taxpayer losses on the bailout of the American International Group earlier this month, when it abandoned its usual method for valuing investments, according to a report by the special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program. …“The American people have a right for full and complete disclosure about their investment in A.I.G.,” Mr. Barofsky said, “and the U.S. government has an obligation, when they’re describing potential losses, to give complete information.” …“If a private company filed information with the government that was just as misleading and disingenuous as what Treasury has done here, you’d better believe there would be calls for an investigation from the S.E.C. and others,” said Representative Darrell Issa, the senior Republican on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. He called the Treasury’s October report on A.I.G. “blatant manipulation.” Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the senior Republican on the Finance Committee, said he thought “administration officials are trying so hard to put a positive spin on program losses that they played fast and loose with the numbers.” He said it reminded him of “misleading” claims that General Motors had paid back its rescue loans with interest ahead of schedule.
P.S. Allow me to preempt some emails from people who will argue that TARP was a necessary evil. Even for those who think the financial system had to be recapitalized, there was no need to bail out specific companies. The government could have taken the approach used during the S&L bailout about 20 years ago, which was to shut down the insolvent institutions. Depositors were bailed out, often by using taxpayer money to bribe a solvent institution to take over the failed savings & loan, but management and shareholders were wiped out, thus preventing at least one form of moral hazard.
[…] This is true for bailout policy. […]
[…] At varying times, both Republicans and Democrats have provided special favors to Wall Street, General Motors, airlines, health insurance companies, Boeing, Big Pharma, and banks. […]
[…] is true for bailout […]
[…] right lesson is that bailouts are bad economic policy and immoral as […]
[…] way of looking at the numbers is to remove the fiscal impact of bailouts, such as TARP (and also the savings & loan bailouts of the late […]
[…] The financial crisis led to many decisions in Washington, most notably “moral hazard” and the corrupt TARP bailout. […]
[…] the odious, immoral, and corrupt TARP […]
[…] the odious, immoral, and corrupt TARP […]
[…] the odious, immoral, and corrupt TARP […]
[…] the odious, immoral, and corrupt TARP […]
[…] don’t forget bailouts. And favors in the tax code. As well as licensing. And the green energy […]
[…] don’t forget bailouts. And favors in the tax code. As well as licensing. And the green energy […]
[…] we get to the point when businesses are focused on harvesting favors from Washington (such as bailouts, export subsidies, special tax preferences, etc), that is a very depressing indication of a […]
[…] we get to the point when businesses are focused on harvesting favors from Washington (such as bailouts,export subsidies, special tax preferences, etc), that is a very depressing indication of a cronyist […]
[…] we get to the point when businesses are focused on harvesting favors from Washington (such as bailouts, export subsidies, special tax preferences, etc), that is a very depressing indication of a […]
[…] the charm, at least for bailouts? First, we had the TARP bailout in the United States, and that turned out to be a corrupt mess. Second, we had the Greek bailout, which has squandered hundreds of billions of euros to prop up a […]
[…] First, we had the TARP bailout in the United States, and that turned out to be a corrupt mess. […]
[…] Government got bigger and more expensive during Bush’s reign, starting in his first year with the No Bureaucrat Left Behind legislation and then ending in his final year with the odious TARP bailout. […]
[…] the post-2009 progress was possible in part because reckless policies such as the faux stimulus and TARP pushed spending to unprecedented levels in the first […]
[…] the post-2009 progress was possible in part because reckless policies such as the faux stimulus and TARP pushed spending to unprecedented levels in the first […]
[…] TARP good legislation? Maybe for politically well-connected financial institutions, but not for […]
[…] make it through the Senate. So some folks on the left would be justified if they asked why the high rollers on Wall Street supposedly deserved a bailout a few years ago but they don’t get one […]
[…] hate to dredge up bad memories so early in a new year, but we need to remind ourselves of the awful TARP bailout of […]
[…] I hate to dredge up bad memories so early in a new year, but we need to remind ourselves of the awful TARP bailout of 2008. Our financial system had gone out of whack because of bad monetary policy from the […]
[…] hate to dredge up bad memories so early in a new year, but we need to remind ourselves of the awful TARP bailout of […]
[…] And when most Republicans and Democrats said we needed a TARP bailout that same year, it was libertarians who futilely argued that the “FDIC-resolution” […]
[…] Yes, both are bad, but is it worse to bail out a bankrupt entitlement program, such as Social Security, or it is worse to bail out an industry, such as the financial sector? […]
[…] is there any reason to think that these examples of corruption are worse than TARP? Or some of the other ways that Republicans get in bed with big government and special […]
[…] make it through the Senate. So some folks on the left would be justified if they asked why the high rollers on Wall Street supposedly deserved a bailout a few years ago but they don’t get one […]
[…] make it through the Senate. So some folks on the left would be justified if they asked why the high rollers on Wall Street supposedly deserved a bailout a few years ago but they don’t get one […]
[…] was bad, but probably less bad than other options. The final result surely was better than the corrupt TARP regime in the United […]
[…] was bad, but probably less bad than other options. The final result surely was better than the corrupt TARP regime in the United […]
[…] far as I can determine, Cyprus wants to pick the third option, sort of akin to the corrupt TARP regime in the United States. But that approach can only work if the government has the ability to come up […]
[…] Yes, both are bad, but is it worse to bail out a bankrupt entitlement program, such as Social Security, or it is worse to bail out an industry, such as the financial sector? […]
[…] Yes, both are bad, but is it worse to bail out a bankrupt entitlement program, such as Social Security, or it is worse to bail out an industry, such as the financial sector? […]
[…] Yes, both are bad, but is it worse to bail out a bankrupt entitlement program, such as Social Security, or it is worse to bail out an industry, such as the financial sector? […]
[…] count them as auxiliary counties of Washington, DC. That’s probably an unfair conclusion, but TARP was unfair to honest and hard-working people, so I don’t feel too […]
[…] today and would not employ thousands of senior executives if it had not been the recipient of a generous, if corrupt and economically damaging, bailout. Indeed, BAC has cashed in on over $100 billion taxpayer bailout […]
[…] A corrupt bailout of politically connected Wall Street insiders. […]
[…] A corrupt bailout of politically connected Wall Street insiders. […]
[…] A corrupt bailout of politically connected Wall Street insiders. […]
[…] and capital, we get policies like Solyndra. We getFannie Mae and Freddie Mac. We get TARP, the minimum wage law, and a 72,000-page tax […]
[…] labor and capital, we get policies like Solyndra. We get Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. We get TARP, the minimum wage law, and a 72,000-page tax […]
[…] approach would have recapitalized the banking system without the corruption, favoritism, and moral hazard that characterized the TARP […]
[…] approach would have recapitalized the banking system without the corruption, favoritism, and moral hazard that characterized the TARP bailout. "Which one of us is […]
[…] count them as auxiliary counties of Washington, DC. That’s probably an unfair conclusion, but TARP was unfair to honest and hard-working people, so I don’t feel too […]
[…] count them as auxiliary counties of Washington, DC. That’s probably an unfair conclusion, but TARP was unfair to honest and hard-working people, so I don’t feel too […]
[…] First, I’m strongly opposed to bailouts. […]
[…] commented on the Obama Administration’s TARP dishonesty yesterday, which made me feel better, but it was even more cathartic to vent on national TV about the […]
[…] commented on the Obama Administration’s TARP dishonesty yesterday, which made me feel better, but it was even more cathartic to vent on national TV about the […]
So long as some money which we don’t have to work for comes our way, we put up with the corruption. In order to get some money flowing our way though, we need eloquent populist leaders and intellectuals capable of forming the strong majorities with power to take money from those addicted enough to money and success to keep producing well above average even under increasingly muted incentives to eventually distribute a small percentage to us.
So yes, the big government political elite take $8 from those addicted enough to money and success, give $4 to the state bureaucrats and then use the remaining $4 to give us inefficient government services that are really worth only $2. So what if they take an additional $0.50 as corruption commission? We put up with it since we still get our $1.50, don’t we? Productive people, savers, people who hoard money in their 401Ks, anyone who was promised something in exchange for past work, they’re all fair game to pay their fair share. We want it, we vote, we take it! (well at least, a small percentage of it as described above) . The closer it gets to the Titanic sinking the more “laws, honesty, and integrity “ become luxuries we have no time for. So stop – smell the flowers of hope and change – join the moochers!
[…] dette blogindlæg. Egentlig skulle det havde handlet om den problemstilling, som Dan Mitchell også har blogget om, og som er dybt betænkelig. For selvom den handler om amerikanske forhold er der tale om en […]