TARP cop: 20 criminal probes

[IDemo]

Source: CNN

Watchdog overseeing $700 billion bailout reveals his progress reviewing how money has been spent and calls for changes to prevent fraud.

By Jennifer Liberto, CNNMoney.com senior writer
Last Updated: April 21, 2009: 5:10 AM ET

WASHINGTON (CNNMoney.com) -- The top cop tracking the government's $700 billion bailout program said Tuesday that he has opened 20 criminal investigations and six audits into whether tax dollars are being pilfered or wasted.

Neil Barofsky, the special inspector general overseeing the Troubled Asset Relief Program, released a 250-page report detailing a long list of concerns about government efforts to prop up hundreds of banks, Wall Street firms and auto companies.

Barofsky, whose investigations could lead to criminal charges, told CNNMoney.com in an interview that he wants taxpayers to understand where their money is going. At the same time, he wants to alert officials to weaknesses in TARP that could invite corruption or fraud.

"Our recommendations are forward looking and there are no vulnerabilities that can't be addressed," Barofsky said. "The balance of what we're trying to do is to inform, bring transparency and make appropriate recommendations."

Read more: http://money.cnn.com/2009/04/21/news/economy/tarp_cop_barofsky/?postversion=2009042103

[Skwmom]

1. Didn't you get the memo?

Our guy is in charge. We are not supposed to care about things like this until a Republican sits in the Whitehouse. Have you no party loyalty? :sarcasm:

So what if our children will be indebted for generations and our ability to address the critical issues of our day will be significantly compromised. We won the Whitehouse!!!!!!!!!!

So please......... stop trying to put unhappy thoughts into my head. It's been my lifelong goal to become just like a right wing Bush supporter, ignorantly blissful.

Oh the irony. After years of criticizing them, we now want to become just like them.

[valerief]

2. You do know this TARP giveaway was done by the last Congress and Bush admin. nt

[Skwmom]

3. You do realize that Obama was a member of that last Congress,

that he advocated the passing of Tarp, that all of the tarp funds were not disbursed under Bush, and that the CURRENT Treasury has been hammered for their lack of transparency?

Have you read anything about the Congressional Oversight Panel and their recommendations? Did you see today how Geithner cut his testimony short, blowing off Chairwoman Elizabeth Warren? Wow, now who does this remind me of? Oh yeah, the crooked Bush administration.

[Igel]

4. You do know that the people in charge of the last Congress

are in charge of the current Congress? The "last Congress" business is a way of condemning the current Congress, but in a less than straight-forward manner. Please, let's be straightforward. I think TARP was, in many ways, a stupid program (but liked how it was originally intended to be run much better than how it was redesigned after it was approved). Pelosi and Reid should have insisted on its original implementation, both under * and with Obama.

Moreover, you do know that the second disbursement, the second half, of the TARP funding was requested by * and released by Congress only after Obama requested that they do so, and it was released a couple of days before Obama took office? In other words, * had no chance to use that second half, and had said he wasn't going to request it for his own administration nor would he use it. So of the $700 billion, $350 billion is Obama's, pure and simple. (There were also leftovers from the first half hanging around, as well.)

It's also not a simple giveaway. The money was intended, after the first revision, as loans, all of it, and what was loaned out has an interest rate attached to it (and the companies are paying the interest when it's due). Granted, some of the loans--like those to AIG--will almost certainly not be repaid, not because it's not supposed to be repaid, but because AIG's unlikely to be able to repay it. But Obama repurposed some TARP money to be grants, and that money is not intended to be repaid--it's the money that was a "giveaway" when it was first handed out.

[valerief]

5. No, there are more Dems now in Congress than the 2006 members. nt