TARP, Barney Frank, & Corruption; Update: Geithner- The Fox Guarding the Henhouse?
posted at 9:02 am on April 26, 2009 by Keemo
Donald Luskin, contributing editor for NRO, wonders “is TARP a criminal enterprise.”
TARP Looking More Criminal by the Minute takes an in depth look into the web of corruption that could reach to very high places.
What originally prompted my friend Larry Kudlow to ask if TARP is a criminal enterprise was Wednesday’s report to Congress by TARP’s special inspector general, Neil M. Barofsky, in which it was disclosed that “nearly 20 preliminary and full criminal investigations” are underway, including “large corporate and securities fraud matters affecting TARP investments, tax matters, insider trading, public corruption, and mortgage-modification fraud.”
For example, Barofsky says he’s doing an “audit” to respond to reports that “external parties may have sought to influence decision making by Treasury or bank regulators in considering and deciding on applications for funding” from TARP. Perhaps this refers to the controversy that surfaced last January when it was said that Barney Frank (D., Mass.), the powerful head of the House Financial Services Committee, intervened to get TARP funding for a favored constituent, Boston’s OneUnited Bank. According to the Wall Street Journal, “Mr. Frank, by his own account, wrote into the TARP bill a provision specifically aimed at helping this particular home-state bank. And later, he acknowledges, he spoke to regulators urging that OneUnited be considered for a cash injection.”
Or is it the matter of the Treasury’s role in Bank of America’s acquisition of Merrill Lynch? Barofsky says he’s “auditing” that “decision making process” too. For months now that acquisition has been shrouded in controversy. It was completed at year-end, even though BofA discovered that Merrill had suffered horrible losses in the fourth quarter, far worse than anything expected when the acquisition was first announced in September. Andrew Cuomo, the attorney general of the state of New York, has been investigating why large bonuses were paid to Merrill employees before the deal closed, and why the large Merrill losses weren’t revealed to the public until January.
Read the entire aritcle folks, and be sure to read the links provided within the piece. We, the people, must spread the truth on our own, as the MSM will only provide cover for such actions. The days of the so called MSM acting as watch dogs for the people ended years ago. We are on our own, which is exactly why those in power of our government are busy trying to plot a method that will eventually take away our ability to spread such information.
Exit question: Could it be that what we are witnessing coming from the sacred halls of Congress, is in fact the largest act of organized crime ever established?
What conclusions can we draw? 1) The government’s $3 trillion and counting TARP program represents the greatest opportunity for sharp operators to profit at taxpayer expense in history. 2) The Obama administration is either in favor of giving Wall Street sharks this opportunity or, at a minimum, doesn’t much mind doing so. (If this seems odd, remember where Obama got the biggest chunk of campaign contributions in 2008.) 3) It may be that the TARP complex of programs is the beginning of a national-socialist type takeover of the financial services industry by the federal government. Thus, 4) we can only hope that this turns out not to be the case, and TARP is only the biggest–and perhaps, by the end of the day, the crookedest–waste of taxpayer money in history. Finally, 5) so far the only person or organization who appears to be looking out for the taxpayers is the Special Inspector General. We will be reading his future reports with great interest.
Recently in the Green Room:
- Sunday reflection: Matthew 4:1-11
- Rand Paul wins CPAC straw poll
- Real question: Does Obama’s budget fund overseas abortions to protect endangered animals?
- Photo of the day: Crimea now belongs to Russia, at least on Russian propaganda TV
- Vatican: Pope Francis wasn’t talking about same-sex relationships; Update: “Civil unions” explained