In this clip Gregg reads the riot act to nerdish White House Budget Director Peter Orszag regarding TARP.
It’s hard to believe that Republican Senator Judd Gregg came this close to accepting a position in the Obama administration, because he’s turned into one of its most vocal critics.
In this clip Gregg reads the riot act to nerdish White House Budget Director Peter Orszag.
Gregg: This is the law. Let me tell you what the law says. Let me read it to you again, because you don’t appear to understand the law. The law is very clear. “The moneys recouped from the TARP shall be paid into the general fund of the Treasury for the reduction of the public debt. It’s not for a piggy bank because you’re concerned about lending to small business and you want to get a political event when you go out and make a speech in Nashua, New Hampshire.”
Wow. Who lit a fire under Gregg? Whoever it was, we wish he’d do it with a few more guys on the right side of the aisle.
Remember how the media happily bought the Obama administration’s TARP storyline back in August?
Tim Geithner should remember the words of noted American philosopher and baseball pitcher Satchel Paige, "Don't look back. Something might be gainin' on you."
Remember how the media happily bought the Obama administration’s TARP storyline back in August?
For example, this report from the New York Times:
As Banks Repay Bailout Money, U.S. Sees a Profit
Nearly a year after the federal rescue of the nation’s biggest banks, taxpayers have begun seeing profits from the hundreds of billions of dollars in aid that many critics thought might never be seen again.
The profits, collected from eight of the biggest banks that have fully repaid their obligations to the government, come to about $4 billion, or the equivalent of about 15 percent annually, according to calculations compiled for The New York Times.
That’s great news! TARP was pure genius. Give Obama a Nobel Prize in Economics to go on the mantel next to the Peace Prize. Except for one thing.
As the Naked Capitalist said, “Credit 101 is that your best borrowers repay first (unless you gave them overly generous terms, of course, then they might hang on to the proceeds). A quick but not conclusive search suggests that only a small portion of the TARP has been retired, so it is wildly premature to declare victory.”
Wildly premature, indeed, considering the latest news from Bloomberg:
Barney Frank at a recent hearing. Oh, wait. Our mistake. That's actually Joseph Stalin overseeing the Soviet Union. Barney Frank, the ignorant, rumpled, socialist gnome who screwed this country’s financial system into the ground, now wants to be your boss. Of course, he’s never demonstrated any personal ability to micromanage an economy, but he thought he’d give it a whack after reading about Joseph Stalin’s incredible success in the Soviet Union.
Here’s how Byron York explains it in the Washington Examiner:
“…the House Financial Services Committee, led by chairman Barney Frank, has approved a measure that would, in some key ways, go beyond the most draconian features of the original AIG bill. The new legislation, the “Pay for Performance Act of 2009,” would impose government controls on the pay of all employees — not just top executives — of companies that have received a capital investment from the U.S. government. It would, like the tax measure, be retroactive, changing the terms of compensation agreements already in place. And it would give Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner extraordinary power to determine the pay of thousands of employees of American companies.
The purpose of the legislation is to “prohibit unreasonable and excessive compensation and compensation not based on performance standards,” according to the bill’s language. That includes regular pay, bonuses — everything — paid to employees of companies in whom the government has a capital stake, including those that have received funds through the Troubled Assets Relief Program, or TARP, as well as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
The measure is not limited just to those firms that received the largest sums of money, or just to the top 25 or 50 executives of those companies. It applies to all employees of all companies involved, for as long as the government is invested. And it would not only apply going forward, but also retroactively to existing contracts and pay arrangements of institutions that have already received funds.
In addition, the bill gives Geithner the authority to decide what pay is “unreasonable” or “excessive.” And it directs the Treasury Department to come up with a method to evaluate “the performance of the individual executive or employee to whom the payment relates.”
Tim Geither, an ineffective, unelected appointee, gets to decide what’s unreasonable or excessive? Take a long, hard look in the mirror, Tim. Then hand it over to Barney and let him take a look, too.
Those images you see — that’s what unreasonable and excessive looks like.
We’re happy to report that General Motors isn’t spending $3,000,000 for a Super Bowl commercial this year. But what about other advertisers?
Is it wise to spend that much money on one commercial in this economic downturn? Surprisingly, many advertisers say, “Yes, it’s a bargain.”
Their rationale? The Super Bowl draws an immense audience and is, perhaps, the only programming on television that causes consumers to “lean forward” and watch the commercials.
No one will be leaning forward and watching the attached PETA commercial because it was rejected by the television network. Talk about your wardrobe malfunction.
