News Flash: Giving Banks Billions Won't Create Jobs

Last year, President Obama signed into law the $30 billion Small Business Lending Fund as a way to stimulate job creation.

"It's going to speed relief to small businesses across the country right away," Obama said at the time.

It was supposed to help create 500,000 jobs.

Well, not so much.

Not only has the program been a dismal failure, with few banks applying to participate, but it turned into another giant taxpayer handout to bankers.

Only $4 billion was handed over to banks under the lending scheme. The bankers didn’t use it to boost small businesses, and it turned out they weren’t even required to. Instead the bankers used more than $2 billion to pay off their bailout debt to the Troubled Asset  Relief Program, according to a story in the October 12 Wall Street Journal (no link).

“It was basically a bailout for a 100-plus banks,” Giovanni Coratolo, vice-president of small-business policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, told the Journal.

None of this should come as a surprise. Bankers said at the time that the problem was not that they didn’t have enough money to lend, but that demand for loans was weak because of the continuing bad economy.

“Until you start to see the economy improve and job growth you won’t see lots of loan demand,” Thomas Dorr, chief financial officer of Bank of Birmingham in Michigan, which received $4.6 million from the program, told Bloomberg. “You can’t force banks to lend.”

The lending program was either just another veiled handout to the banks or another lame attempt at trickle-down stimulus. Either way it contributes to the strong impression that our political leaders aren’t actually working on solutions, they’re getting in our way.

Congress / D.C. Disconnect / Martin Column / President Barack Obama / TARP - 10/13/2011

Happy Talk

Treasury officials and many politicians are busy patting themselves on the back because the Troubled Asset Relief Program will end up costing taxpayers less then expected.

The way these folks describe it the TARP and other aspects of the federal bailout were just supposed to function as a loan program for the banks while they were having some trouble.

TARP is also winning praise for having “restored trust” in our financial system.

Beyond the scary rhetoric that gave birth to the bailout and self-congratulatory sermons it’s being buried with, the bailout consisted of a set of rules and a way of picking winners and losers in the economic crisis that did anything but build trust.

Remember when the Fed chair, Ben Bernanke, insisted that he was a Main Street guy, that he was interested in the financial system only inasmuch as it helped out Main Street?

But the bailout institutionalized a system where the government could only afford to bail out the biggest bankers and corporate officials while abandoning smaller banks and business owners along with millions of troubled homeowners and vulnerable employees.

As Fortune’s Alan Sloane wrote, “the more bailout rocks you turn over, the more well-connected players you find who aren't being forced to pay the full price of their mistakes.”

Oh well, the apologists say, nothing’s perfect. It could have been so much worse.

One official who hasn’t joined in the festivities is Neil Barofsky, the former special inspector for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, who bid the bailout a scathing farewell in the New York Times, which you can read here.

The Obama administration and bailout apologists would like to have us believe that it was just a necessary first stage of the recovery to ensure that the bankers stayed rich and the wealthiest Americans’ increasing share of the nation’s wealth kept on growing.

But in Barofsky’s view, there was nothing inevitable about the no-strings attached bailout that filled the bankers’ pockets while offering little to Main Street. It had nothing to do with the operation of the free market either. It was very carefully crafted by public officials working hand in hand with Wall Street to maintain its power while gnawing away at the increasingly fragile livelihoods of ordinary Americans.

As Barofsky notes, “Treasury officials refuse to address these shortfalls. Instead they continue to 
stubbornly maintain that the program is a success and needs no 
material change, effectively assuring that Treasury's most specific 
Main Street promise will not be honored.”

And while recent employment gains are welcome news, Dean Baker points out the losers – African-Americans among whom unemployment remains distressing high and wage earners in general, whose pay is not keeping up with inflation.

The bailout celebration is just part of the happy talk designed to buoy the notion that the recovery is well underway. But this bailout-fueled recovery continues to pick highly predictable winners – with the powerful, wealthy and politically connected doing swimmingly while everybody else just limps along.

 

 

Around the Web / Martin Column / SIGTARP / TARP - 04/04/2011

Fear Factor, Financial Crisis Edition

The administration has been touting what a good deal the Troubled Asset Relief program turned out to be for taxpayers – most of the $700 billion has been repaid; the banks after all, did not collapse, and it only ended up costing us around $50 billion after repayments.

“TARP undoubtedly helped to stem the financial panic in the fall of 2008 and contributed to the stabilization of the financial system,” Tim Geithner, the treasury secretary, said in a statement today.

But now we’ve got a whole new threat to the financial system, according to the bankers. They contend that if the public ever finds out the facts surrounding the rest of the bailout, it will cause them “irreparable harm.”

This is the part of the bailout the administration doesn’t talk about, with costs that dwarf the piddling billions spent on the TARP program. These are the trillions in secret loans the Federal Reserve provided financial institutions.

If it wasn’t for a dogged reporter at Bloomberg News, it would all still remain a big secret.

But the reporter, Mark Pittman, convinced his employer that the public had a right to know who the Fed was loaning the taxpayer’s money to, and under what terms. Bloomberg filed suit in November 2008.

The Fed and the banks fought the lawsuit for nearly two years. But in August a federal appeals court rejected the Fed and the banker’s arguments. Fed president Ben Bernanke announced in late September that the agency would finally make the information public by December 1.

Anybody care to bet on the chances that the big banks will fold when the information comes out? Any bets on revelations that will graphically show just how cozy both Bush and Obama administrations were with the big banks?

The banks’ response to the lawsuit reminds me of the atmosphere of fear and crisis the previous administration and the banks created, with the major media’s assistance, at the time of the original bailout. No time for questions, no time for debate. Hand over the blank check now or the whole economic system will blow up, they screamed.

Pittman died last year at 52. He remains one of the few heroes that emerged from the financial collapse, who raised tough questions in the months and years leading to the meltdown and was not intimidated by the banks’ fear mongering, continuing to demand answers.

Meanwhile, at some point, the bureaucrats will get around to the audit of the Federal Reserve’s activity since 2007. Congress passed that audit with broad bipartisan support in the face of fierce opposition from the administration, as part of financial reform. No doubt we will hear another round of predictions of disastrous consequences as the results of that audit are readied for release. It’s supposed to be conducted by the General Accounting Office.

From the beginning of the crisis to today, fear has been the most potent weapon used by the bankers and the bureaucrats to get their way, along with the complexity of the system the banks are always ready to clobber the public with. The spirit of reporter Mark Pittman remains one of the strongest antidotes we’ve got.

Around the Web / Federal Reserve / Martin Column - 10/06/2010

Around the Web: How a Big Bank Shows Its Gratitude

While the mainstream press has focused on the dubious notion that the Citibank bailout will turn out to be a good deal for taxpayers, the Center for Media and Democracy tallies up the real cost of the entire bailout so far: $4.6 trillion, with $2 trillion outstanding.

Most of that money comes from the Federal Reserve, not the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which amounts to a measly $700 million. The Fed bank dole is handled in complete secrecy, which is why Bloomberg News is suing to get the Fed to open its books, which got the WheresOurMoney treatment here.

As for Citibank and the supposed bonanza for taxpayers, Dean Baker takes it apart in this Beat the Press column. In any case, Citibank is eternally gratefully to taxpayers. Here’s how they’re showing it.

Get out the popcorn. Phil Angelides’ Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission is gearing up for another round of hearings April 7 through 9, this one on subprime loans and scheduled to feature former Fed chair Alan Greenspan, who before the bubble burst, used to take pride in being able to obfuscate any economic issue. If Angelides thought Goldman’s CEO was like a salesman peddling faulty cars, I wonder what he makes of Greenspan, who worshipped the financial deregulation that made the wreck not only possible, but probable.

Angelides meanwhile, appears to be playing down expectations for the FCIC, kvetching to the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board about the small size of the panel’s budget ($8 million) and short time frame (final report due in December).

While everybody was bowing down to Greenspan, they should have been listening to Harry Markopolos, the man who was tried to blow the whistle on Bernie Madoff but was repeatedly ignored by the SEC. Now he’s written a book. He doesn’t think the SEC has improved much.  Russell Mokhiber has a good interview with Markopolos in his Corporate Crime Reporter.

Around the Web / Federal Reserve / Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission / Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) - 04/01/2010

Obama to Bailout Cop: Beat It!

The Obama administration, which has increasingly been adopting a can’t do attitude when it comes to putting real teeth into financial regulation, now wants to take out the teeth already in place.

Treasury officials are signaling they’d rather not have the same aggressive special inspector general overseeing the $700 billion federal bailout anywhere near their new $30 billion bank subsidy to encourage lending to small business.

I wrote about that inspector general, Neil Barofsky, a couple of weeks ago, suggesting he was one of the few public officials actually trying to protect our money rather than just acting as a rubber stamp for Wall Street’s raid on the U.S. Treasury.

Barofsky has issued a series of scathing reports raising questions about federal officials’ handling of the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

Treasury officials contend that although the $30 billion would come from unspent TARP funds, it’s technically not TARP. So Barofsky should butt out. Their real reason for not wanting Barofsky around is simple: the banks don’t like him looking over their shoulders.

You can’t blame the banks for that. No doubt it’s a lot more fun to spend your federal handout without some nosy former federal prosecutor scrutinizing every move you make.

But for the Obama administration to go along with it is troubling and baffling. The president promised an unprecedented level of accountability, understanding that openness would go a long way toward restoring credibility in the financial system and the government’s ability to oversee it.

But Treasury officials appear to be more concerned with keeping the bankers happy than they are with keeping them honest.

The news about Barofsky surfaced as the administration appeared to be backing away from its recent embrace of former Fed chief Paul Volcker, who favors limits on bank size and risky financial trading. Predictably, the financial titans were balking at the proposals.

The administration’s move against Barofsky is both bad policy and bad politics. It seems designed to hand live ammunition to the mistrustful antigovernment troops of the Tea Party.

Meanwhile, Congressional Democrats have been quiet on the issue. The president and the Democrats have accomplished what at one time would have been seen as a nearly impossible task: handing the mantle of accountability and openness over to Republicans, who are howling with outrage over the idea of keeping Barofsky away from the small-business lending subsidy.

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Ca., said earlier this week: “Denying SIGTARP the ability to defend taxpayers sends a chilling message that IGs who conduct real oversight will be punished for holding this Administration accountable.”

At the very least, the administration needs to come to its senses and regain its commitment to transparency. Let Barofsky do his job. The administration should be paying better attention to his criticisms, not trying to get rid of him.

Action / Martin Column - 02/25/2010

Bailout Beat Might Be His Last

Most of official Washington operates in a state of slow-mo lethargy when it comes to working on financial reform.

Not Neil Barofsky, who is saddled with the cumbersome acronym SIGTARP.

That stands for Special Inspector General of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, also known as the federal bailout.

He’s a one-time federal prosecutor who in his former life prosecuted Colombian drug gangs and white-collar criminals.

As one Republican senator told him when Barofsky got the inspector general’s job, if he did his job properly, he’d never be able to get another.

Barofsky seems to have taken it to heart.

Last week, along with New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, he filed suit against former top Bank of America officials, charging them with fraud for concealing how bad Merrill-Lynch’s losses were from B of A’s own stockholders while B of A was in the process of acquiring Merrill during the melt-down.

Barofsky also recently launched an investigation into the shady federal bailout of AIG and its counterparties, including Goldman-Sachs.

Meanwhile his regular quarterly reports to Congress continue to pack a punch. He has consistently warned against the administration’s rosy predictions of how taxpayers will benefit from TARP.

He’s focused instead on the continuing dangers of doing nothing to rewrite the rigged rules of the financial game that favor bankers’ bonuses and betting with taxpayers’ money over the interests of consumers and homeowners.

“Even if TARP saved our financial system from driving off a cliff back in 2008,” Barofsky wrote in his most recent report, “absent meaningful reform, we are still driving on the same winding mountain road, but this time in a faster car.”

In fact, the whole focus on whether taxpayers are getting “paid back” is a smokescreen for TARP’s failures. While the administration has touted banks’ repayments of their TARP money, the repayments are backfiring on the administration, giving it less leverage over the banks. Released from their TARP obligations, the banks are free to return to lavishly rewarding their employees for risky trades that rack up short-term profits.

Barofsky, writing in plain language that consumers and concerned citizens can understand, states that while the TARP program stabilized the financial system, it hasn’t met most of its other goals. “Lending continues to decrease, month after month, and the TARP program designed specifically to address small-business lending — announced in March 2009 — has still not been implemented by Treasury,” Barofsky wrote in the January 30 report. “The TARP foreclosure prevention program has only permanently modified a small fraction of eligible mortgages, and unemployment is the highest it has been in a generation.”

Barofsky was appointed by Congress to monitor TARP. Yet Congress has done nothing to hold the current administration accountable for the bailout’s failures. Meanwhile the Senate continues to pursue what appears to be its quest to squelch reform, in direct contradiction of what a majority of Americans want. Specifically Sen. Christopher Dodd appears to be on the brink of negotiating away a stand-alone Consumer Financial Protection Agency, a linchpin of President Obama’s reform plan. The financial industry fiercely opposes such an agency.

Contact your representative and senator today and let them know you support Barofsky’s strong work on TARP. While you’re at it, let your senator know you’re paying attention to the battle over financial reform, and that they should start paying attention to the will of the majority instead of the bank lobbyists.

Martin Column / SIGTARP - 02/09/2010