Warren vs. Treasury, Cont'd.

I'm not quite sure what to make of the fact that Elizabeth Warren is shamelessly leaking her latest TARP oversight report all over the media -- to the NYT, to the WSJ, even, on-camera, to Good Morning America. Doesn't she work for the public, and have a perfectly good official website on which to release her findings?

On balance, though, I think this is a good thing. The public doesn't get its news from cop.senate.gov, it gets it from news organizations, which (sadly) are much more likely to report something if they're leaked a draft than if they simply download it from an official website. And the fact that Warren is getting out there, plugging her report as hard as she can, stands in admirable and stark contrast to the way in which Treasury released its official reply to her first report late on New Year's Eve, when no one was around to notice.

Even better, however, would be if Treasury started being receptive enough to Warren's criticisms that she didn't feel the need to shout like this. The important thing, ultimately, is to spend the TARP money as effectively as possible -- and if David Cho is to be believed, the incoming administration is not far from Warren on the questions of how to do that. Oversight does not mean opposition -- and if Treasury can start working constructively with Warren, we might all be spared this kind of public invective in future.

Comments

[herbert hoover:]

It's the public's money, why shouldn't the public know what it's buying? Maybe a little publicity will stop the sweet deals that Hank Paulson threw to GS where we invested twice as much as Warren Buffet but bet a quarter of the returns - Not that Hank would be having any conflict of interest in a deal like that, right?

Jan 09 12:37 PM

[hoover:]

I think its a good thing that Warren is screaming from the hill tops about this, so it will be picked up by the deaf press. After all, hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars have been given away to banks. And the banks don't know where the money went? And the Treasury doesn't even know what they were supposed to use it for? This is INCREDIBLE!! Even Joe sixpack (and Joe the Plummer) should be interested in how their tax money is squandered. So, it should have already been all over the press -- but strangely wasn't.

Jan 09 05:08 PM

[John Lounsbury:]

Bank executives are refusing to talk to the press. The AP has done a series of articles about their (the AP) attempts to get statements and information about how TARP funds have been applied and, when they have gotten any communication, it has been "No comment." and "We don't reveal that information". In many cases they have received no reply ar all.

The smoke and mirrors continues.

Jan 09 07:32 PM

[Charles A...:]

I hear the rational for confidentiality has concerns for competition. Don't know if that is actually justifiable. Furthermore, providing to the commission
is not a breach of confidentiality. E. Warren is speaking critically of complete secrecy and rightly so. If the recipients cooperated, that is what would be reported, sans strategic details. The recipients have no legs to stand on. This autonomy demanded by the culture of the financial class is way over the top. Choose. Can't have it both ways. I think we are overdue to do a lot of rethinking about "Free Enterprise" in an electronic world.

Jan 10 12:58 PM

[BerkeleyBob:]

The present situation of the beneficiaries of a government subsidy and failing to disclose what the TARP funds are being used for is unprecedented. In every other situation I am aware of, a government handout comes with an express requirement to report, account and complete a lot of damn forms. I guess banks are "special".

Jan 10 05:00 PM