
The House Comittee on Oversight and Government Reform has announced its first hearing of the 112th Congress, helpfully entitled “Bailouts and the Foreclosure Crisis: Report of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (“SIGTARP”).” It’s slated for Wednesday, January 26 and the star witness is SIGTARP himself, Neil Barofsky. Barofsky pulled no punches in his lasat report on the Obama administration’s handling of TARP, and especially the president’s HAMP mortgage bailout program. He’ll release a new report on the day of the hearing.
“The Oversight Committee’s first hearing will offer Members the opportunity to question the Treasury Department on concerns that have been raised again and again by SIGTARP Barofsky,” chairman Darrell Issa (R., Calif) said in a statement. “TARP was conceived by a Republican Administration, approved by a Democratic Congress, and has operated for two years under the current Administration. It’s a fitting subject for bipartisan oversight in the new Congress.”
But those Treasury Department official(s) won’t include Secretary Tim Geithner. Geithner was invited to testify but said “No, thanks. Instead, Geithner will be sending a subordinate:
“The secretary welcomes the committee’s interest in our management of TARP, a successful program that was initiated under the prior administration and which CBO now estimates will cost roughly $25 billion, a fraction of what the critics once feared,” Treasury spokesman Steve Adamske said in a statement. “As is customary, we are happy to make Acting Assistant Secretary Tim Massad, the official with direct responsibility for the TARP Program, available for the quarterly updates that the committee is planning. At the earliest possible date that is mutually convenient, Secretary Geithner would also be pleased to brief the committee on the considerable progress we have made in lowering the cost of TARP.”
Should be interesting.
We'll know we're getting somewhere when Dodd's pension is yanked and he has to use that money saved by switching to Geico, er, Countrywide to fund a legal team.
Nigh forced retirement is not punishment enough, sir.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThank you again for my favorite pun of 2010 and now 2011.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFor those of us less familiar with the legal complexities of these hearings, is this the way it normally works - are Cabinet members politely invited and not subpoenaed?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGeithner shows more and more a paucity of character.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePerhaps, tax cheat Timmy is working on his taxes from 2 years ago and doesn't have time to do anything else!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePerhaps, tax cheat Timmy is working on his taxes from 2 years ago and doesn't have time to do anything else!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseShould be interesting.
Pass.
Having the errand boy repeat 100 times "I'm afraid I don't have that information" and/or "I wasn't part of that decision-making process, and therefore it would be inappropriate for me to comment" serves no purpose other than allow Geithner to hide under his desk.
If those asking the question had a real purpose (information, as opposed to "I tried - look how badly they behaved") they would begin the session with "If you are not fully prepared to answer all questions posed to you, here and now, perhaps you can remove yourself to private industry, and ask the Secretary to provide a more suitable speaker".
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThen, when the place-holder, having heard this, says "I don't have that", the Sergeant-at-arms can grasp him by wrist and shoulder and propel him rapidly from the room without further ado.
The most pertinent request by the committee should be "show us the money"---that is, how the lucky recipients really used it. The oversight appears to have been laughably inadequate.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseScott Wilson,
Subpoena's are a demand, not a request. It's generally preferred to request someone's appearance and issue a subpoena only if it is required to obtain the witness's testimony. Civility, and all...
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse