Romney: I Was For The Bailout Before I Was Against It
Secretary Paulson’s TARP prevented a systemic collapse of the national financial system. Secretary Geithner’s TARP became an opaque, heavy-handed, expensive slush fund. It should be shut down. ~Mitt Romney
Via Chris Dierkes
This is the same line that Thune uses now. This is a ridiculous position to take. One can either recognize that the original TARP was always potentially an opaque slush fund to be used for whatever purpose the executive branch wanted, and it was therefore an outrageous measure that ought to have been defeated, or one can accept the abuses of the TARP that inevitably followed from the absurd way it was designed. Even though the TARP was unnecessary and misguided, Thune and Romney want to get credit for supporting something they claim saved the day, but they don’t want to pay the political price for supporting something that has become play money for whatever strikes the administration’s fancy. Romney supported and Thune voted for a measure that made possible the slush fund they denounce.
Supporters of a policy or piece of legislation do not get to receive credit for the supposed benefits and avoid blame for the negative consequences. Thune and Romney supported a corrupt, unconstitutional giveaway of public funds to be used in an unaccountable way for arbitrary purposes. Lack of accountability and arbitrariness were built into the measure from the beginning. The problem of the original “troubled assets” for which the funds were intended has never been solved, and the TARP funds have never been used for the purpose for which they were appropriated. Naturally, Romney would like to have it both ways, but his distinction between Paulson’s TARP and Geithner’s TARP is specious and meaningless.