Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSenate Republicans' corporate rescue looks more like a "slush fund," say Democrats
BAILOUT OR HANDOUT?
Senate Republicans corporate rescue looks more like a slush fund, say Democrats
4 hours ago
By Tim Fernholz
Senior reporter
This weekend the goal of the US Congress has been to get a bipartisan economic rescue moving forward before the stock markets open Monday.
Achieving that goal now looks less likely as lawmakers and the White House spar over restrictions on a $500 billion fund that will be used to rescue businesses in danger of failure due to coronavirus-related losses. That cash is intended for companies that are vital to national security, airlines, and others, and its also meant to be distributed to states to help their hard-hit small businesses.
But the draft legislation gives enormous discretion to treasury secretary Steve Mnuchin in deciding how the money is spent, and offers little in the way of transparency about where the money ultimately goes. Mnuchin can waive provisions that prevent companies from using funds to buy their own stock, and Democratic senators say there arent real requirements that businesses keep workers employed, provide them paid leave, or limit pay and bonuses to management.
The bill is in stark contrast to the rescue fund created after the 2008 financial crisis, which included redundant oversight measures, like its own special inspector general, and required the government to identify recipients of aid publicly. Recipients of loans in the current bailout legislation wouldnt need to be disclosed for six months.
The lack of transparency also raises questions about whether any money will flow to Donald Trumps businesses, particularly his hotels, given his record of diverting public spending to his private companies. The administration has repeatedly shifted money away from congressionally approved work toward its pet projects, leading to constitutional challenges.
Were not here to create a slush fund for Donald Trump and his family, or a slush fund for the Treasury Department to be able to hand out to their friends, senator Elizabeth Warren, who monitored the 2008 bailouts as chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel, told reporters today. Were here to help workers, were here to help hospitals. And right now what the Republicans proposed does neither of those.
more...
https://qz.com/1823225/senate-republicans-corporate-rescue-more-like-slush-fund-dems-say/
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
2 replies, 742 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (11)
ReplyReply to this post
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Senate Republicans' corporate rescue looks more like a "slush fund," say Democrats (Original Post)
babylonsister
Mar 2020
OP
GeorgeGist
(25,322 posts)1. Payoffs to the Don ...
so maybe he'll save US.
doc03
(35,353 posts)2. Didn't W make a trillion dollar giveaway and give one person
Last edited Sun Mar 22, 2020, 11:44 PM - Edit history (1)
power to hand it out to whoever he chose to? I forget who it was.
Here it is:
Treasury Secretary Paulson was given $700 billion for the TARP bailout of which $418 was handed out to
Wall Street banks that tanked the economy. Now here we go again.