Treasury officials and many politicians are busy patting themselves on the back because the Troubled Asset Relief Program will end up costing taxpayers less then expected.
The way these folks describe it the TARP and other aspects of the federal bailout were just supposed to function as a loan program for the banks while they were having some trouble.
TARP is also winning praise for having “restored trust” in our financial system.
Beyond the scary rhetoric that gave birth to the bailout and self-congratulatory sermons it’s being buried with, the bailout consisted of a set of rules and a way of picking winners and losers in the economic crisis that did anything but build trust.
Remember when the Fed chair, Ben Bernanke, insisted that he was a Main Street guy, that he was interested in the financial system only inasmuch as it helped out Main Street?
But the bailout institutionalized a system where the government could only afford to bail out the biggest bankers and corporate officials while abandoning smaller banks and business owners along with millions of troubled homeowners and vulnerable employees.
As Fortune’s Alan Sloane wrote, “the more bailout rocks you turn over, the more well-connected players you find who aren’t being forced to pay the full price of their mistakes.”
Oh well, the apologists say, nothing’s perfect. It could have been so much worse.
One official who hasn’t joined in the festivities is Neil Barofsky, the former special inspector for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, who bid the bailout a scathing farewell in the New York Times, which you can read here.
The Obama administration and bailout apologists would like to have us believe that it was just a necessary first stage of the recovery to ensure that the bankers stayed rich and the wealthiest Americans’ increasing share of the nation’s wealth kept on growing.
But in Barofsky’s view, there was nothing inevitable about the no-strings attached bailout that filled the bankers’ pockets while offering little to Main Street. It had nothing to do with the operation of the free market either. It was very carefully crafted by public officials working hand in hand with Wall Street to maintain its power while gnawing away at the increasingly fragile livelihoods of ordinary Americans.
As Barofsky notes, “Treasury officials refuse to address these shortfalls. Instead they continue to stubbornly maintain that the program is a success and needs no material change, effectively assuring that Treasury’s most specific Main Street promise will not be honored.”
And while recent employment gains are welcome news, Dean Baker points out the losers – African-Americans among whom unemployment remains distressing high and wage earners in general, whose pay is not keeping up with inflation.
The bailout celebration is just part of the happy talk designed to buoy the notion that the recovery is well underway. But this bailout-fueled recovery continues to pick highly predictable winners – with the powerful, wealthy and politically connected doing swimmingly while everybody else just limps along.