• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Treasury to TARP Inspector General: Drop Dead

    The special inspector general for the TARP program, Neil Barofsky, has made a reputation for himself by issuing tough assessments of the troubled federal program for troubled assets. It’s been a problem for Tim Geithner’s Treasury Department. No one, after all, wants a watchdog at their heels. Treasury’s solution: muzzle the dog.

    Specifically, Treasury is considering excluding the special Inspector General — known as “SIGTARP” in bailout circles — from the new $30 billion small-business lending program announced by President Obama in his state of the union address.

    The new program — under which community banks would be given access to low interest funds to lend to small businesses — technically is not part of the original TARP, and needs to be approved by Congress. The funding for the program, however, comes from the leftovers of the original $700 billion TARP authorization. And, many of the recipients will be the same — in fact, some $11 billion in TARP funds now held by banks would be eligible for conversion to the new program. And to a large extent, the issues and concerns raised by the programs are identical.

    Word of his possible emmuzzlement triggered a sharp response from Mr. Barofsky. In a letter to the Treasury Department, he referred to the proposed exclusion as a “curious change,” one that would be “terribly wasteful and lead to duplicative efforts and, at worst, could lead to significant exposure to waste, fraud and abuse….”

    The Obama Administration insists that no decision has yet been made on SIGTARP’s role. It is reportedly concerned, however, about getting banks to participate in the new program, many of which are healthy and wouldn’t relish TARP’s restrictions and scrutiny.

    That itself should raise red flags: since when is convincing healthy corporations to take taxpayer money a serious public policy problem? But even if it were, dropping protections against waste of such money is hardly the way to address it. The sorry history of TARP shows us we need more snarling watchdogs, not fewer.

    Posted in Economics [slideshow_deploy]

    Comments are closed.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×