Transparency M.I.A.?
....Speaking of new steps Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner plans to announce later Tuesday, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said flatly: "It'll be more transparent."....He appeared Tuesday morning on ABC's "Good Morning America," NBC's "Today" show and CBS's "The Early Show."
from "Obama spokesman Gibbs pledges more 'transparency' in government bailout plan for banks," AP, Feb. 10, 6:29 am CST
....it doesn't come clean to the American public about how the losses from the financial meltdown will be divvied up. In an effort to come up with a politically appealing plan, President Barack Obama and his team obscured the answer to the most important question: Who loses?....
from "What's Missing in Geithner's Bank Plan."
"The Obama Administration's Financial Stability Plan isn't a clean break with the past, because it doesn't spell out clearly who will lose"
By Peter Coy, Business Week, 5:58pm ET
It appears Gibbs meant they'll be transparent after they do things? What does "transparent" mean, anyways?
More importantly, who wins? Bigtime donors all. To a man.
February 11, 2009 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
"After" the stimulus package is enacted, yes. Transparency in the form of an online database which can be tracked per project, per state, so the public can see if the money allocated is being spent properly, has been promised.
To do this before Congress is finished haggling over the details would be counterproductive.
As for the financial bailout, we'll just have to wait and see. I can understand why Geithner wasn't specific as to dollar numbers going to which institutions. That would cause heavy investing in banks soon to be flush with bailout money and/or a run on those banks left out.
But I still have the nagging feeling in my gut that NO ONE yet fully understands exactly what happened, and therefore how to prevent it from happening again. Even Geithner, who was there. But at least he should know what NOT to do in the future.
February 11, 2009 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Transparency in the form of an online database which can be tracked per project
I am aware that that is what was meant, but I cannot let go of the irony involved in that Geithner is in a situation where he himself can not provide the immediate "transparency" that everyone craves and that many had hoped for from this administration, having to be careful with what he says and does, where clear "straight talk" is not possible. And, in the end, his announcement didn't really stress the transparency thing enough to warrant Gibbs' trumpeting up of expectations.
February 12, 2009 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that Gibbs, and even Obama, oversold the Geitner announcement. Either that or there were eleventh hour revelations which prompted toning it down. The devil is in the details, so it goes, and I think they're afraid of overreaching by giving the banks too much, or too little.
The biggest problem overall that I can see is whether to put the cart (loaded with money) before the horse (workers/consumers). Consumer confidence won't go anywhere until credit is freed up, so is this a situation where the cart gets to pull the horse? If so, what's pulling the cart? Nevermind. I already know the answer and that's why the Republicans just say no (although the inherited deficit is due to their own overreach).
February 13, 2009 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Struck me reading this today that it may be a very accurate reading of the situation:
from
Talking Business: A Stress Test for the Latest Bailout Plan
By JOE NOCERA, New York Times Business, Feb. 14
I see more evidence that the Obama administration may not be the high geniuses at "message" as presented by some more fervent fans on the net, but are on a steep newbie learning curve. Not that the situation isn't terribly hard to approach, it is, and would stress the most skillful, but I don't see a lot of extreme skill at approaching it so far. Geithner's speech should not have been advertised as the announcement of a plan, or an announcement of any kind of solution. The whole handling seems boneheaded.
February 14, 2009 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Officials Knew of AIG Bonuses Months Before Firestorm"
Washington Post, May 13, 2009
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/12/AR2009051203624.html?ref=fp7
May 13, 2009 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink