ABC's Stark uncritically aired Paulson's claim to "welcome" oversight, but his bill would make his decisions "non-reviewable"
SUMMARY: During her ABC World News report on the Bush administration's $700 billion Wall Street proposal, Betsy Stark uncritically aired Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's claim that he "welcome[s]" oversight of the administration's plan, but did not note that a section of the bill states: "Decisions by the Secretary [of the Treasury] pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency."
During the September 23 edition of ABC's World News, ABC News business correspondent Betsy Stark uncritically aired Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's claim that he "welcome[s]" oversight of the Bush administration's proposal for the Treasury to purchase up to $700 billion worth of assets of troubled financial institutions. However, Stark did not note that while the bill requires that the Treasury secretary make semiannual reports to congressional committees on how the authority is being used, a separate section of the administration's proposal states: "Decisions by the Secretary [of the Treasury] pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency."
During her report, after airing footage of Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL) saying, "You're not asking for a blank check. We're not going to give you a blank check. There will be oversight, and you accept and understand that that is part of what we have to do," Stark aired Paulson's response, "I accept and understand it. I welcome it." She then asked, "But will Congress ultimately agree to it?" But Stark never noted the section of the bill that would make Paulson's actions "non-reviewable."
By contrast, during the September 23 edition of MSNBC's Race for the White House, host David Gregory aired footage of Paulson saying, "I believe we need oversight. We need oversight," and noted that "the text from the original draft of the president's three-page bill sent to Congress reads this way, quote: 'Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion and may not be reviewed by any court [of] law or administrative agency.' "
From the bill:
Sec. 3. Considerations.
In exercising the authorities granted in this Act, the Secretary shall take into consideration means for --
(1) providing stability or preventing disruption to the financial markets or banking system; and
(2) protecting the taxpayer.
Sec. 4. Reports to Congress.
Within three months of the first exercise of the authority granted in section 2(a), and semiannually thereafter, the Secretary shall report to the Committees on the Budget, Financial Services, and Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the Committees on the Budget, Finance, and Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate with respect to the authorities exercised under this Act and the considerations required by section 3.
[...]
Sec. 8. Review.
Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.
From the September 23 edition of ABC's World News with Charles Gibson:
STARK: Lawmakers also made it clear that no matter how dire things are, they will not rubber stamp sweeping powers for the Treasury secretary or a $700 billion fix-it fund without congressional oversight.
[Begin video clip]
MARTINEZ: You're not asking for a blank check. We're not going to give you a blank check. There will be oversight, and you accept and understand that that is part of what we have to do.
PAULSON: I accept and understand it. I welcome it.
[End video clip]
STARK: But will Congress ultimately agree to it? Many senators seem reluctant to be in what one called, "the bailout business."
From the September 23 edition of MSNBC's Race for the White House:
GREGORY: My headline tonight: "Putting the Brakes on the Bailout."
Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson says he wants the passage of this $700 billion rescue plan for Wall Street to be, quote, "clean and quick." Chairman [Ben] Bernanke of the Fed said it risks a recession if Congress doesn't do it. But Congress is putting the brakes on the bailout.
Paulson and Ben Bernanke, chairman of the Fed, were met with skepticism today from both Republican and Democrats alike, members on the Senate Banking Committee, who are wary of hastily writing the government a blank check funded by the taxpayers.
Inside the Capitol, lawmakers questioned the details of the plan and called for greater oversight. Today, Paulson said he never meant to imply that the plan didn't need oversight.
PAULSON [video clip]: So, if any of you felt that I didn't believe that we needed oversight, I believe we need oversight. We need oversight. We need protection. We need transparency. I want it. We all want it.
GREGORY: But the text from the original draft of the president's three-page bill sent to Congress reads this way, quote: "Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion and may not be reviewed by any court or [sic] law or administrative agency."
Hee hee hee! This is what red state america understands...
Dear American:
I need to ask you to support an urgent secret business relationship with a transfer of funds of great magnitude.
I am Ministry of the Treasury of the Republic of America. My country has had crisis that has caused the need for large transfer of funds of 800 billion dollars US. If you would assist me in this transfer, it would be most profitable to you.
I am working with Mr. Phil Gram, lobbyist for UBS, who will be my replacement as Ministry of the Treasury in January. As a Senator, you may know him as the leader of the American banking deregulation movement in the 1990s. This transactin is 100% safe.
This is a matter of great urgency. We need a blank check. We need the funds as quickly as possible. We cannot directly transfer these funds in the names of our close friends because we are constantly under surveillance. My family lawyer advised me that I should look for a reliable and trustworthy person who will act as a next of kin so the funds can be transferred.
Please reply with all of your bank account, IRA and college fund account numbers and those of your children and grandchildren to wallstreetbailout@treasury.gov so that we may transfer your commission for this transaction. After I receive that information, I will respond with detailed information about safeguards that will be used to protect the funds.
Yours Faithfully Minister of Treasury Paulson
FROM: Dr Altaka Yurmani
Central Bank of Nigeria
Lagos, Nigeria
01-658-21-2658
TO: all US citizens with bank accounts
Dear Sir or Madam:
I have been requested by the Nigerian National Petroleum Company to contact you for assistance in resolving a matter. The Nigerian National Petroleum Company has recently concluded a large number of contracts for oil exploration in the sub-Sahara region. The contracts have immediately produced moneys equaling US$40,000,000. The Nigerian National Petroleum Company is desirous of oil exploration in other parts of the world, however, because of certain regulations of the Nigerian Government, it is unable to move these funds to another region.
You assistance is requested as a non-Nigerian citizen to assist the Nigerian National Petroleum Company, and also the Central Bank of Nigeria, in moving these funds out of Nigeria. If the funds can be transferred to your name, in your United States account, then you can forward the funds as directed by the Nigerian National Petroleum Company. In exchange for your accommodating services, the Nigerian National Petroleum Company would agree to allow you to retain 10%, or US$4 million of this amount.
However, to be a legitimate transferee of these moneys according to Nigerian law, you must presently be a depositor of at least US$100,000 in a Nigerian bank which is regulated by the Central Bank of Nigeria.
If it will be possible for you to assist us, we would be most grateful. We suggest that you meet with us in person in Lagos, and that during your visit I introduce you to the representatives of the Nigerian National Petroleum Company, as well as with certain officials of the Central Bank of Nigeria.
Please call me at your earliest convenience at 18-467-4975. Time is of the essence in this matter; very quickly the Nigerian Government will realize that the Central Bank is maintaining this amount on deposit, and attempt to levy certain depository taxes on it.
Yours truly,
Prince Alyusi Islassis
At this point I'd trust the Nigerian more than I would the Bush Adminstration.
That is just absolutely stunning that the Bush Administration officials think the american public is stupid and can't understand/interpret the english language. It is another stunning example of power grab a la 1984.
This is far worst than the PATRIOT Act. And they want Congress to approve this sight unseen, just like they did when they pushed the PATRIOT Act through.
"That is just absolutely stunning that the Bush Administration officials think the american public is stupid and can't understand/interpret the english language"
Guess the answer to this question will be given to us by 12:30am on Nov 5..... if not perhaps sooner?
**The message that we all need to speak and get out there to everyone about all this is**
This group of economic geniuses for the last 30 years have gone all out on destroying the government regulation because they considered government either bad/evil/communist/un-needed/socialist...... so they are given everything they wanted and more.... they got greedy (no oversight existed to stop it)... they all got in WAY, WAY over their heads..... it is now crumbling around them.... and us... and now... this same group of 'government is bad and in the way of free trade' are now begging/demanding government step in and save them......
I dare anyone that disagrees with my breakdown of this and offer up either a defense to this.... or tell to me what would happen if any of us little people tried this scenerio and see if it would work!!
Sleezy rat-bastards.....all of them!
There has been some talk that he dosn't have enough time to distribute the whole 700 Bil the way he'd like to. An argument to reduce the amount he wants at least.
Where have you rear/heard this? That is interesting if true, but honestly I think they could spend 700 trillion if given the chance (I know, I know).
If George Washington was alive today, I am sure he would place Paulson in jail for treason. ( power grab ). How can this administration even consider giving this guy powers over the Supreme Court ???
I'm with you. I think Paulson is a crook and Bush is an economic dunderhead. Most everyone’s dirty on this. Our guys, your guys, all of them.
The bailout is a bad idea, although sticking to our convictions and letting these greedy corporations fail will painful for all.
I’m torn, but I’m starting to think Paulson et al should be indicted and their assets placed into a trust with the American people as the beneficiary.
Socialist bastard. You are basically saying that you really have no faith whatsoever in a free market. In a truly free market, your, not our, convictions would let these jerks fail and open up competition. But you're just another spineless conservative punk willing to spout endlessly about the miracle of unfettered capitalism so long as the insanely wealthy exploit your financial and intellectual lessers through eminently risky behavior.
You want to force the "most productive" among us to pay for your lack of responsibility. You want Paulson to buy your lunch. You're such a welfare queen with your talk of government dependency. <snark/>
Anyway, I'm betting your idea of a benefit to the American people is invasion and occupation of a country that did nothing to us. Your idea of a benefit to the American public is probably tax cuts for Wall St. while we continue to spend billions a month for your sense of security as we fight an ideology with bullets instead of brains.
All of them are guilty, may foot, Max. Only one ideology is to blame: Market Fundamentalism, aka trickle down, aka Reaganomics. Conservatives have once again proven they are utterly unfit to act as stewards of our commonwealth. First, you allow these Wall St. predators to write their own legislation and gut regulations, while enjoying massively lucrative tax deals. Then you expect actual taxpayers to lay down remuneration for being raped by these guys in the name of carrying this financial debacle to term. No wonder Sarah Palin with her, no abortion, no exception, rapist bill of rights, holds such sway over the hearts and minds of conservatives. You cons think wealth begins at deception, every bit as fervently as you believe life begins at conception.
Round, I think what people like Max believe in can be called a "Faith Based Economy".
You’re apparently confused and have no idea what I said.
Socialist bastard.
A pretty stupid thing to say considering I’m a conservative and suggested Fanny and Freddie should be allowed to fail whereby allowing the free market system to work. This is the opposite of a socialist.
You are basically saying that you really have no faith whatsoever in a free market.
I’m saying the exact opposite. Your inability to comprehend a very simple statement is stunning. I said to indicted the crooks responsible (whereby allowing the institutions involved to fail.)
I'm betting your idea of a benefit to the American people is invasion and occupation of a country that did nothing to us.
What does this have to do with the topic at hand? Nice redirect though. My guess is you just hate anything I post and decided to hop in here with some retarded rant. The problem is your rant was nonsensical in the context of my post and looks quite ridiculous.
Whatever. I'm on topic and on target. You wish I were just angry or full hate for your posts. That way you could tell yourself you're not an idiot and that mean old roundhouse has no point. Hate to tell, ya. But you are a bumbling idiot unable to defend yourself against sharp, principled criticism.
And you're so gutless. You did not suggest that they should fail, you suggested that their failing would be painful for all. That in no way implies they should fail, in fact, it suggests the very opposite. Stand by your words, Max, you sniveling crybaby. You know you're all for redistributing our wealth upward so you can keep the ship afloat a little longer and avoid suffering the consequences of the failed conservative economic ideology of market fundamentalism.
And what? You think because you're a conservative that you're above being called a socialist? Pishaw. Either way you slice it, you are talking like a socialist. You either want Paulson and pals indicted and their assets placed into a trust with the American people as the beneficiary, or as you implied (and tried to weasel out of) you want the taxpayer to pay for Wall Street's unrestrained skulduggery with this bailout. That's the kind of redistribution of wealth you pricks on the right hound the left for advocating. So STFU about being called a socialist. The shoe fits.
And get this straight, boy. When I say, I'm betting your idea of a benefit to the American people is invasion and occupation of a country that did nothing to us. Your idea of a benefit to the American public is probably tax cuts for Wall St. while we continue to spend billions a month for your sense of security as we fight an ideology with bullets instead of brains. I am referring to your vague language of making the American people the beneficiary of seized assets. We know what you conservatives mean when you talk about benefits for people. You mean pre-emptive war, torture, domestic spying, secretive government, subsidies for oil and agricultural giants.
Conservatism is absolutely disgusting.
We know what you conservatives mean when you talk about benefits for people. You mean pre-emptive war, torture, domestic spying, secretive government, subsidies for oil and agricultural giants.
Haha, right.
You still have no idea what I said do you?
I said I was torn, but in the end said that the guilty should pay.
You on the other hand turned this into some insane rant claiming all sorts of nonsense.
Not sure there's any point in trying to talk sense to you now since my first post was only 3 sentences which in turn elicited paragraphs of bile and contempt from you. If you do wish to comment on what I actually said instead of defending your meaningless rant, then please do so, I would be happy to respond. But if your intent is to try to stuff the argument with rubbish like pre-emptive war, torture, domestic spying,, then please just keep it to yourself. Nobody with a brain respects that type of argumentative style, and nobody thinks that makes your argument worthwhile.
So you concede that you sound like a socialist. Good. Settled.
You can't talk sense to me? Please, son. You wouldn't know common sense if Tom Paine beat you upside the skull with it.
But by all means, don't respond to me anymore. Slink away like the coward you are and act all indignant about being challenged on the record of conservative failures both domestic and foreign. Cry like a baby that I reject the premise of your point. I don't really care. I'm having fun watching you crumble.
Gutless punk. Yeah, I heard you channeling Hannity, I heard you say that the guilty should pay, I heard you loud and clear bailing out on your market fundamentalist ideology. You have no faith in the market's ability to correct itself, because if you did, you could not say the government should socialize these scumbags assets.
You're spineless and pathetic, Max.
My impression is that the "non-reviewable" clause is essentially a throw-away bargaining chip. The administration gives up the clause in exchange for the $700 billion and then acts as though they were magnanimous. But in the end they'll get their bail out and any judicial challenges will be tied up in the courts for years...after most of the money has been spent.
Yes, that is "on the money" so to speak.
It is a bargaining chip, no one in their right mind would agree to a "non-reviewable" clause with that amount of money at risk.
They know it, we know it. Now, if only people are not as stupid as they have been in the past.
Of course, when a union asks for something (as, you say, a bargaining chip to throw away), the media seizes on it as the excesses that unions are DEMANDING ...
I’ll be interested to see what Obama and McCain decide in that emergency meeting with Bush today (starting about now!) Unfortunately I think they will all come together to say we need the bailout.
I just wish one of them would stand up and say “NO, no bailout”, but I don’t think it’s going to happen.
I’m guessing both Obama and McCain will vote bailout in today’s meeting because neither of them want to be responsible for the economic hard times that will follow should the bailout be rejected.
Ah, no deal struck at today's emergency meeting.
The meeting, according to the White House, included the following key players: Bush flanked at the table by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Obama and McCain on opposite ends of the table, House Minority Leader John Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell also between the two presidential candidates and Vice President Dick Cheney across from Bush.
I found this part particularly amusing. It's Bush and the democrats vs the GOP .. lol
The Story
Maybe. But it's a pretty flipping outrageous clause and should be frontpage news nationwide.
Shaggles,
I've seen/heard/read about this "non reviewable" clause in the bill. It is hardly a secret.
Like all bills, this one is subject to revision before being voted upon. It will be interesting to hear the debate and the pros/cons. In the end, lets see what comes out of committee before tar and feathering anyone.
AA, I would respectfully suggest that the non-reviewable clause was intended to be kept under the radar by bush and them, so as to be hopefully overlooked during the hysteria driven mad dash to get it enacted right now, before it's too late and we all crash and burn. We also know how bush deals with legislation that has been revised beyond his preference: he'll threaten to veto the whole bill, or he'll issue a signing statement and then completely ignore any revision he chooses. That's how he has consistently subverted the legislative branch for the last eight years. With his non-reviewable gambit, he's trying to nullify the judicial branch as well.
How about tar and feathering the person who came up with, and introduced it, into the bill? Why would they proactively be afraid of people seeing where the money went? Is there something to hide...?
You know, part of this extraordinary criminal scheme of the Bush administration, to siphon off from the U.S. Treasury in the last few months of their administration, nearly a trillion dollars of our money in the name of WALL STREET... part of this scheme is the timing of it all: they intentionally chose to bluff the Congress in this manner, and rush to them with horror stories and dire projections, they intentionally chose this week, when Congress is scheduled to take off for their election recess (a recess they can hardly cancel or even postpone)... that was done intentionally.
Congress was originally scheduled to make their last legislative day today!
Now how sneaky and clever and well-timed was that, to go up to Congress last Friday, and claim the whole economy is on fire and sinking and give us the unlimited and unreviewable power to siphon a trillion dollars out of the U.S. Treasury NOW! How clever was that timeing, to do that just three legislative days before Congress was scheduled to go on their election recess?
And so Congress is still up against the wall, and may still have to buckle to this scheme, having rescheduled their getaway to Friday instead of today...
And so who thinks this is mere coincidence? I don't!
Also, who thinks the whole economy is about to burn down and blow up and sink to the bottom of the abyss NOW? I don't!
Postpone the bailout... let's see what happens... let's call their bluff...
The world is not on fire, and it's not sinking, or blowing up... let's just wait a while, before we commit a trillion dollars in unreviewable spending to the Bush administration, in their final few months of what has been eight years of lies and schemes, with this present one perhaps being their greatest.
Dem,
As you should know, this relief bill is to stem a full blown panic in the financial markets. It is a mess, but a stock market crash would potentially be much more calamitous than this bailout. Are you aware that the government might even make money as these homes eventually increase in price?
If you want to gamble with a world wide stock-market crash and depression, where millions of people might be thrown out of work and most American's life savings erased, then go ahead.
"Are you aware that the government might even make money as these homes eventually increase in price?"
If the potential exists for the government to make money...then let the Wall Street brokers hang onto their "toxic" assets and maybe THEY'LL make the money instead. If not, well...bad decisions can have bad consequences. Just as any home buyer persuaded they could afford to buy a house that was WAY over their income level. They'll tell you how it works.
Are you aware that the government might even make money as these homes eventually increase in price?
No, but I did hear that the Iraq war was going to pay for itself. Sadly, the Bush administration has little credibility.
"Are you aware that the government might even make money as these homes eventually increase in price?"
That's the same thing Bill Clinton's been saying. Thank you for your support of Bill Clinton!
If you want to gamble with a world wide stock-market crash and depression, where millions of people might be thrown out of work and most American's life savings erased, then go ahead.
AA, you're well versed on the "Republican talking points", however you forgot to add that even with the 700 billion, we STILL might find ourselves in a world wide stock market crash. There is absolutely NO guarantee that the money will work to head off any financial disaster this country may face.
"this relief bill is to stem a full blown panic in the financial markets... millions of people might be thrown out of work and most American's life savings erased"
Describe exactly how anything like that is going to happen... begin with yourself, or any average person: describe how your savings and your job is in jeopardy right now, and how those things will be lost at some time in the future (like next week or next month or in the new year)...
BE SPECIFIC.
Certainly if your job and your savings are hanging in the balance as we speak, then you can describe exactly how so... unless you're simply in an irrational panic, and are in a state of confusion, imaging the sky is falling when it is not... surely you can describe how the failure of WALL STREET financial service companies and investment funds are threatening your job, and your savings...
DO IT... DESCRIBE THE MECHANICS OF HOW THE PRESENT FAILURES ON WALL STREET THREATEN YOUR (OR ANY AVERAGE AMMERICAN'S) JOB AND SAVINGS.
And don't waste my time (or your own) by simply repeating your own fantasies of doom and destruction, or by being vague by describing pink slips and zero balances in savings accounts, without describing the mechanics of how that can or will happen.
DO IT, OR SHUT YOUR FEAR-MONGERING PIE HOLE.
Be specific about consequences or describe the solution. I'm gonna say AA has been told to push the hero myth, the unitary executive frame. I'm gonna say AA is such a scared little con that he believes faithfully the answer is giving unparalleled authority to one unaccountable, all knowing, all powerful executor of our treasure.
It's always about father knows best for these authoritarian pigs. They have no faith in a collective wisdom.
This is from the just-ratified Republican Party Platform:
We do not support government bailouts of private institutions. Government interference in the markets exacerbates problems in the marketplace and causes the free market to take longer to correct itself.
No reason to let something like a party platform get in the way of a good power grab.
Crap, now I am suspicious!!!!
Anything pugs are for....I wonder about...why?
My guess is that Hank sounds more masculine than Henry. It's another Bush Administration build-up to disappointment.
AA: I can't believe that YOU of all people are recommending that the government confiscate the profits generated by a financial transaction!! What kind of a commie/socialist are you?!? </sarcasm>
The media will all fall in line and paint the Democrats as obstructionist while failing to educate the televidiots about this Section 8 clause. (How cycnical to put this in a section most often associated with housing subsidies for poor!)
The media lied en masse about the true nature of the stolen 2000 Florida election. They lied en masse about the California Energy Crisis and the vindication of Gray Davis by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's report. They recently lied in California about the nature of the stalled budget making it look as though the Democratic controlled legislature blocked the budget, while it was actually the Republican minority.
I have no faith they will suddenly get religion and be good this time either.
This press release was issued Monday. We won this battle on that particular language days ago.
http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200809/092208a.html
U.S. SENATOR PATRICK LEAHY
CONTACT: Office of Senator Leahy, 202-224-4242
VERMONT
Leahy-Authored Language Strikes Court Stripping Provisions
In Bush Bailout Proposal
WASHINGTON (Monday, September 22, 2008) – Language authored by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) to strike the Bush administration's plan to eliminate court review from its proposed bailout plan has been included in the Democratic counterproposal released by Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) today.
The Bush administration's proposal unveiled Saturday includes a provision to eliminate any and all court review of decisions made by the Secretary of the Treasury related to the purchase mortgage related assets from banks and financial institutions. The administration's proposal would provide the Treasury Department with up to $700 billion to purchase troubled mortgages and financial loans.
The Leahy-authored language included in the Democratic proposal released Monday morning restores traditional court review and allows courts to set aside the Treasury Secretary's actions if they are found to be "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or not in accordance with the law."
"I would like to see progress toward a balanced bill to address the disastrous effects of eight years of the Bush administration's hands-off economic policies," said Leahy. "But passing legislation that eliminates the role of the courts in reviewing the decisions and policies of the administration invites abuse."
Leahy continued, "I am pleased Senator Dodd has included my language to allow for court review in his proposal. As the Congress considers this important legislation, I hope we are careful to ensure that the American taxpayers' money is not misspent, misplaced, and mishandled, without even so much as the possibility of review and recourse for bad decisions."
The Treasury Department has asked the Congress to consider the legislation this week.
# # # # #
Leahy-authored language concerning court review:
Section 8. Limits on Review
In General – Any determination of the Secretary with regard to any particular troubled asset pursuant to this Act shall be final, and shall not be set aside unless such a determination is found to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or not in accordance with the law.
Bush administration proposed language on court review:
Section 8. Review.
Decisions made by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.
# # # # #
this whole thing seems to follow the example of a nigerian email I recently recieved....