History's biggest bailout needs disclosure -

Last week the government dispatched more of your money into the abyss. Through its "Term Auction Facility," the Federal Reserve lent banks $63 billion - nearly half the cost of the entire savings and loan bailout from the 1980s, or what it takes to fight in Iraq for six months.

Who got the money? At what rates? What collateral did they put up? How will the proceeds be spent?

The Fed isn't saying, and it's fighting attempts to shed light. ... Full Story »

Posted by Michael Bugeja
Tags Help
Subjects: U.S., Business
Topics: U.S. Economy
Editorial Help
Posted by: Posted by Michael Bugeja - Dec 27, 2008 - 3:30 AM PST
Edit Lock: This story can be edited
Edited by: Michael Bugeja - Dec 27, 2008 - 3:30 AM PST
Michael Bugeja
4.4
by Michael Bugeja - Jan. 2, 2009

This is one of the best op-eds on the Traitorous American Robbery Program (aka "Troubled Assets Relief Program"), assigning the lack of transparency on the Bush administration--in particular, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke. Congress gave both men hundreds of billions of dollars to invest as they saw fit with no accountability; worse, they have fought disclosure about who got what and how that was spent, denying Bloomberg News' freedom of information requests.

What makes this op-ed special is its theme: The government is doing with our money precisely what banks did with investor money, allowing CEOs to spend where, when and in what they like, disclosure be damned in the name of profit. This qualifies in my mind as an outrage on par with Watergate. And I'm a conservative Republican. If America doesn't wake up to this, it is in a coma.

The Associated Press asked 21 banking companies, each receiving at least $1 billion, what became of the money. Not one would say. Treasury’s program is ... More »

See Full Review » (21 answers)
Jack Dinkmeyer
4.2
by Jack Dinkmeyer - Dec. 30, 2008

An op-ed piece that is brutally blunt about what amounts to nothing more than criminal behavior by the Bush administration--true to its character right up to the end. If this doesn't raise the righteous ire of Americans, no one is paying attention.

Have Bushies, with their obsessive secrecy and continued cover-ups, so accustomed us to never knowing what's going one that it’s become a way of life? When an organization has to file a lawsuit against government demanding the public's right to know, the recession-headed-to-depression Bushies caused isn't the only thing wrong in this country.

See Full Review » (12 answers)
Kenneth Sibbett
4.2
by Kenneth Sibbett - Dec. 29, 2008

Openness in the Bush Administration Is like The Great Houdini showing you how he did his magic tricks.

There's 23 more day's until the most corrupt Admin. in American history gets the boot.Or should I say SHOE.

See Full Review » (6 answers)
sally duros
3.1
by sally duros - Dec. 30, 2008

It is well written and high quality. This piece, however, provides an interesting tidbit of information that if blown out informationally would dwarf the rest of the article. The passage follows. I would have liked to see list of all the bailout money and its sources as context for this article. Treasury's program is floodlit transparency compared with the Federal Reserve's. Not needing Congress' approval, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke gave himself what Paulson originally wanted: nearly unlimited authority to launch public funds into the economy. At least in the TARP you know who's getting the money. The Fed doesn't even publish a list of recipients. The $2 trillion in allocations so far from the various Fed bailout programs ... More »

TARP is just the tip of the financial-fix iceberg. I believe government officials are fumbling in the dark as to how to best address the multi-faceted financial eruptions at the various nodes in our national and global systems. I am watching these events unfold with a mix of curiosity, dismay and sadness. Much more to come....

See Full Review » (8 answers)

Comments on this story Help (BETA)

NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

4.1

Good
from 7 reviews (50% confidence)
Quality
4.1
Facts
4.0
Fairness
4.0
Information
4.5
Insight
4.3
Style
4.2
Accuracy
5.0
Balance
4.0
Context
4.0
Depth
4.0
Enterprise
4.2
Expertise
3.8
Originality
4.0
Relevance
4.8
Transparency
5.0
Responsibility
5.0
Popularity
4.0
Recommendation
4.4
Credibility
3.5
# Reviews
3.5
# Views
5.0
# Likes
1.0
# Emails
1.0
More
How our ratings work »
(See these related stories.)

Links Help