Paulson: I Didn’t Suggest Oversight In The Bailout Plan Because That Would Be ‘Presumptuous’

[babylonsister]

:wtf:

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/23/paulson-oversight/

Paulson: I Didn’t Suggest Oversight In The Bailout Plan Because That Would Be ‘Presumptuous’

This morning, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson testified before the Senate Banking Committee on the current financial crisis. Nearly every senator on the panel criticized the $700 billion bailout plan Paulson proposed this weekend, with many calling for stronger oversight.

In his opening statement, Paulson struck a defensive tone, blaming Congress for misunderstanding him in thinking he didn’t want robust oversight. He just didn’t want to be “presumptuous,” he explained:

We gave you a simple, three-page legislative outline and I thought it would have been presumptuous for us on that outline to come up with an oversight mechanism. That’s the role of Congress, that’s something we’re going to work on together. So if any of you felt that I didn’t believe that we needed oversight: I believe we need oversight. We need oversight.

Watch it at link~

Paulson is rewriting history. Far from avoiding “presumption,” Paulson’s plan released last weekend explicitly denied any review at all of his actions:

Section 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.

It can hardly be the fault of Congress for taking Paulson’s written plan at its word. In fact, one might say it would have been “presumptuous” to assume Paulson actually meant the opposite of what he had written.


Update: Later in the hearing, Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE) asked the panelists whether they would support the creation of a new Inspector General post to oversee the program. All of them -- the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the chairman of the federal reserve, the chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and Paulson -- supported the move, though Paulson said he didn't think they could "design it here today."

[niyad]

1. orwell would be so proud of these jerks. how insulting of paulson to believe we are all so stupid

as to believe him. NO OVERSIGHT is what precipitated this disaster.

[babylonsister]

5. Unreal. And he didn't think this little nugget isn't presumptuous?

Section 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.

[EV_Ares]

10. You would think that would piss the Congress off even more showing that he

has little regard for their intelligence. Can't believe he tried to let that one fly.

[AzDar]

2. Oh dear Gawd...they've gotten away with so much , they're beginning to believe their own bullshit.

:crazy:

[cali]

3. fucking lying piece of shit.

[BlooInBloo]

13. Bah. You beat me to it. Twice, even!

:rofl:

[cali]

4. fucking lying piece of shit.

[depakid]

6. Paulson blinked

which opens up the opportunity for Democrats to hammer out a responsible set of systemic solutions.

The Bush era is over. He knows it- as do many other people.

[sinkingfeeling]

7. Probably would be 'presumptuous' if they put caps on CEOs salaries & bonuses too.

[sam sarrha]

8. here is why...they will make a hideous profits for the no bid contractors in this,, link>>

and there is massive "CONFLICT OF INTEREST HERE..with previous employers

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=4059821

http://spitfirelist.com/?p=2339

[renate]

9. taking a page from the McCain playbook

If you're going to lie, at least make an effort to come up with something that isn't totally stupid, Paulson! Sheesh!

[BlooInBloo]

11. Fucking piece of shit liars.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. Telling the American people that they have to cough up $700bn to bail out bankers is presumptuous.

But, hardly surprising, considering the "defense" budget.

[BraneMatter]

14. It all boils down to this:

Pricing mechansim is key to increasing liquidity.

But, Paulson said the "price discovery mechanism" is largely unknown because the securities are too "complex." This is a "novel" situation, he said.

So, basically, they want a trillion dollars to experiment with, and they cannot guarantee cost or risk to the taxpayer, or if the trillion will even be enough because no one knows how "deep" this all goes!!!

NO ONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WOULD GO FOR SUCH A PROPOSAL.

If I went to a bank with a business plan like that, they would have security escort me out the door into a waiting squad car that would take me straight to the hospital for a mental evaluation!!!