CONNECT    

Dan Rather

Dan Rather

GET UPDATES FROM Dan Rather
 

Taking on TARP

Posted: 06/ 8/11 12:01 PM ET

With all the bad news about jobs coming out, most of the focus has rightly been on the plight of working people across the country. The big banks which helped usher in this economic crisis have been largely forgotten. The general assumption is that they're doing just fine. And they are, thanks in large part to you and me, the American taxpayer. But as we try to struggle back to prosperity, have we learned the lessons that led to this crisis?  One man in the middle of it all says absolutely not.



In 2008, Neil Barofsky was working as a prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of New York, taking down drug lords and white-collar criminals, when his boss urged him to take on a new case: overseeing the $700 billion Wall Street bailout, known as TARP. The Bush White House wanted to know if Barofsky, a lifelong Democrat who had recently contributed to the Obama campaign, was interested in moving to Washington, DC to become TARP's Special Inspector General, a watchdog over how the money would be spent.



By December, 2008 Barofsky was nominated, confirmed, and had hit the ground running. Nearly two and a half years later, Barofsky has resigned and is back in New York.  He recently sat down with me and shared some alarming news.



"You can't look at what happened in the run-up to 2008 and see how it's not going to repeat itself, given what we've done," Barofksy told me in a lengthy interview that aired Tuesday on HDNet's "Dan Rather Reports."  



What we've done, Barofksy says, is use taxpayer money to create an explicit promise to the big banks that they will be bailed out again.  The landmark financial reform bill known as Dodd-Frank was supposed to end this problem, and President Obama and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner have repeatedly stated there will be no more taxpayer-funded bailouts.  "You shouldn't believe them," Barofsky says.  "Not right now."  That's because, at the government's urging, the banks are even bigger than they were in 2008, and much of what Dodd-Frank proposes has not been implemented.



While TARP may have achieved its goal of averting a financial Armageddon, Barofsky says the program had other goals too.  The Bush Administration sold the legislation to a skeptical Congress as a way to help homeowners stay in their homes.  "The program was supposed to restore home owning.  It was supposed to keep up to 4 million people in their homes and not lose them to foreclosure."  Instead, he says the TARP program has helped 600,000 homeowners, while one million people a year are having their homes repossessed.



Another promise of TARP was to jump-start lending to small businesses.  But Barofsky says, the government failed to require the banks to actually lend out the money they were given.


Barofsky says it's enough to make your blood boil.



"There were no strings attached," Barofsky says.  "So what happened was, the banks got this money and they decided it was in their best interest and the best interest of their shareholders not to lend it out, but to use it to accumulate capital."   



"You should be outraged," Barofsky told me.  "Because that wasn't the deal.  Perhaps you should be a little bit mad at Wall Street.  But you really should be mad at your government for not fulfilling the promise that they made to you... when we gave all the money to the banks." 



Barofsky says that only days after he took the job, he suggested that the Treasury Department require banks to publicly report how they were using the bailout money.  "Dan, you would have thought I had declared a Communist revolution from their reaction.  I was told that this idea was terrible."  It took more than a year before the Treasury Department reversed itself and implemented his suggestion. "But by then, the largest banks were well on their way to pay back the funds."  And, he says, the ability to force Wall Street, either by carrot or by stick, to lend to Main Street was lost.



Barofsky resigned in March.  He's now teaching law at New York University and telling anyone who will listen that there will be a "next time" and it will be much worse. He, for one, remains skeptical that Wall Street and Washington can get it together to fix this mess. 



We will be posting more outtakes from our interview on the Dan Rather Reports Facebook page in the coming days.

Dan Rather Reports airs Tuesdays on HDNet at 8 p.m. and 11 p.m. ET. This show is also available on iTunes.

 
 
  • Comments
  • 61
  • Pending Comments
  • 4
  • View FAQ
Login or connect with: 
More Login Options
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »   (3 total)
photo
FoxIslander
I live on Fox Island...no relation to Fox News
53 minutes ago (6:43 PM)
I shouldnt have read this. I'll be pi$$ed off all day. Not a person has been prosecuted and so called "finance reform" is a sham. Our own government­, both sides, have thrown the nation down the toilet.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Gudrun
My micro-bio is empty
56 minutes ago (6:41 PM)
I don't care what the law says at this point, we won't have another bailout. People will be out in the streets with knives, pitchforks­, whatever they can lay their hands on.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Oakland
1 hour ago (6:28 PM)
Oh please. Where was the lame media when they were pumping it through? Where was the media when Bush was invading Iraq. I really don't care what you media types think - after the fact by 20 years. When you start doing your jobs, maybe someone will pay attention to anything any of you say.
1 hour ago (6:25 PM)
No bailouts. None. Never Again
1 hour ago (6:20 PM)
Why is it that whenever TARP comes up the journalist or blogger prefaces it with some variant of, "well of course TARP saved us from financial Armageddon­." It actually like to see that claim backed up, it never has been, not once. That term gets tossed around so often it must be lie.

Too often that term is used to gloss over some painful but pointed reality. Reality like, we'd all have to change our behavior. Banks would run out of money, in the short term. We'd have to have a huge national bankruptcy­. Debts would be defaulted. Are these armageddon­?

The largest two buildings in New York were brought down by airlplanes and no panic ensued. The public did not turn on each other. In the short term it brought out some of our finest humanity. I've a feeling that letting the chips fall where they may in 2008 would have done the same. However I can't back that up any more than the armageddon crowd. The only difference is, I don't work for a bank/hedge­/investmen­t fund.
2 hours ago (6:05 PM)
Barofsky says that only days after he took the job, he suggested that the Treasury Department require banks to publicly report how they were using the bailout money. "Dan, you would have thought I had declared a Communist revolution from their reaction. I was told that this idea was terrible."
http://www­.cuscoviaj­e.com
2 hours ago (6:02 PM)
Tarp was and is nothing but an extension of the New Deal and spending money you don't have to bail out all the failures that was caused by Dodd/ Frank in the first place is the nearest thing to political stupidity since the Roosevelt New Deal that only served to prolong the great depression and is now repeating the same stupid mistake and creating and worsening this one..
2 hours ago (5:31 PM)
I think some pieces are missing here. I believe all but about $25B or TARP will be coming back to the taxpayer (http://en.­wikipedia.­org/wiki/T­ARP). Also, it makes no sense for the banks to lend money out to high risk recipients­. The domestic debt to GDP ratio is at about 100%. Would you loan money to someone who owns as much as he earns in a year?

The trickle-do­wn model was supposed to get $$ to smaller entities through the banks. It's failing. Trickle-do­wn was supposed to generate so much new business that it would pay for its initial deficits. It failed. In fact it's been failing since the late 80's and was RR's greatest regret. Trickle-do­wn was supposed to improve the standard of living for the small guy. The standard of living has improves since the 80's, but only because the little guy borrowed the $$ to do it. So it failed again. As more and more investors pump their $$ into emerging markets, this does nothing for US business except butress their overseas competitor­s. Failed again. The lust for cheap investment insurance by trickle-do­wn investors led to the creation of credit default swaps, the financial instrument that created "Too Big to Fail". Failed Again. On and on...

And the GOP's solution to our woes is what? Tax breaks for the rich to fuel trickle-do­wn.

What's the definition of insanity? Repeating the same thing and expecting a different result?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Roybe
You can't fix stupid.
2 hours ago (5:29 PM)
Am I reading this correctly? The Bush administra­tion screwed something up? Say it ain't so!
2 hours ago (5:28 PM)
Great report- I'd also love to hear a discussion by respected economists who disafreed with, and continue to disagree with TARP, as a solution. For my own edificatio­n, Id love to hear some people with fresh ideas re it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tom Langley
Successful Beer Guy
2 hours ago (5:26 PM)
PART DEUCE
Who in their right mind can beleive this is sutainable without recurring catastroph­e. It's just like musical chairs. When the growth stop, if your holding the "owe", and you can't pay, you lose the asset to the bank. Money for nothing is what it's called. We justify it by saying the bank holds the risk, but we just recently proved that not only don't they hold the risk, our government will facilitate transfer of that risk to the person whose assets were just seized, and his childrens, childrens, children by bailing out the banks. Check it out, learn the lesson, burn the anger, then do something radical, votre Green Party. http://www­.monetary.­org/
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tom Langley
Successful Beer Guy
2 hours ago (5:26 PM)
I, unlike Jenn, think the issue is the monetary system. The fact that in 7/8ths of the world, money is really just interest bearing debt to a privatized central bank which is a member of the BIS/IMF/Wo­rld Bank system. Sovereign nations do not create their money, they borrow it from private banks that they do not own. The money to cover the interest being charged is not created however which ensures that in times of no/slow growth, assets must be seized by leinholder­s to stisfy the interest because the money to pay the interest was never created. It's actually NOT a soveriegn monetary system run by governemnt­s, it a usury system run by the World Bankers. It was illegal for centuries upon centuries, until the world goverenmen­ts slowly, by coercion, or by the creation of wars, were misled into debt money system. If you did to me what a bank does, it would be illegal. If you took had a dollar, and loaned it to nine people at the same time by creating a "bank credit" in their checking acount, expecting all of them to pay you back, plus a dime interest, then you just created $9.90 dollars worth of wealth for yourself, from thin air. This is how fractional reserve lending works.
photo
Norm
Read think read analyze read comment
2 hours ago (5:23 PM)
Swell.
3 hours ago (4:46 PM)
The bailout should never have happened. There were some many different ways that the system could have been stabilized without rewarding bad behavior and escalating moral hazard, which will leave a lasting precedence in encouragin­g more risky behavior and corporate socialism (privatize the profits, socialize the losses).

Essentiall­y thanks to the federal goverment, the banks have a new businss model. The same one that caused the financial meltdown. Put it all on Black. If it comes up Red, Uncle Sam (the American Public) will pay my gambling debt so my legs aren't broken and I can continue gambling.

Both parties are complicit. The Democrats are just worse, because they actually are shameful enough to brag about how sucessful the program was.
2 hours ago (5:35 PM)
Read "On the Brink" by Hank Paulson. You'll come away with a different opinion.

It was the bailout or a depression­. Hoover proved that. Too Big to Fail exists because of deregulati­on (in various ways/forms­). We opened the door to that course starting in the 80's when we accepted RR's "Governmen­t isn't the solution, its the problem". So we got rid of govt involvemen­t in Wall Street. It took almost 30 years, but they were effectivel­y out. And we got the roaring 20-s all over again. And the crash that followed. History repeated itself. It was our fault, because we voted in these lassize-fa­ire policies.
39 minutes ago (6:58 PM)
We did not need TARP.
It can always be said what 'might have happened' if we didn't do something.
Yes, it would have been bad but there is no guarantee it won't be worse coming up.

Iceland said NO to its banksters. It has been tough for them but they are coming out of worst of it. We should have done the same.
ScaredAcademic
Left libertarian, RIP Molly Ivins....
2 hours ago (5:36 PM)
I could've sworn that both tranches of TARP were released to Secretary Paulson before the Executive Branch changed hands..... It would be pretty disingenuo­us of Democrats to tout the "success" of Paulson and Bush's program...­.
41 minutes ago (6:56 PM)
Democrats voted in the majority (in a majority Dem congress) for TARP ... and it was deeply unpopular with the electorate ... so they have no choice but to talk it up as a 'success'.