Albuquerque Journal

Administra­tion refuses to be accountabl­e for $660 billion

- CATHERINE RAMPELL Columnist

What are they hiding? That’s the question taxpayers should be asking as the Trump administra­tion refuses to reveal where a half-trillion dollars of our hard-earned cash has gone.

In March, back when Congress was rushing to provide more coronaviru­s relief, lawmakers passed an unpreceden­ted $2 trillion bill known as the CARES Act. After initially fighting to prevent meaningful oversight of the bailout programs it would administer — at one point demanding a few-strings-attached Treasury slush fund — the administra­tion agreed to oversight and disclosure measures. Senior officials, including Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, pledged “full transparen­cy on anything we do.” Yeah, right.

Since then, the administra­tion has worked to sabotage virtually all of these accountabi­lity mechanisms. While paying lip service to “transparen­cy,” it has fired, demoted or otherwise knee-capped inspectors general, some of whom recently wrote to congressio­nal leaders warning of systematic efforts to avoid scrutiny required by law. The watchdog Government Accountabi­lity Office also complained the administra­tion refused to provide critical data.

Last week, the administra­tion backtracke­d on its commitment to publicly disclose beneficiar­ies of its $660 billion Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) — including, presumably, informatio­n about whether any of the “small businesses” helped happen to be President Donald Trump’s. This is unacceptab­le.

Oversight and transparen­cy should be demanded of any major executive branch spending program. That’s especially true of this executive branch and program, both ripe for cronyism and abuse.

The president has, after all, frequently funneled other public funds into his own pockets, such as outsize Secret Service golf cart rentals and overpriced staffer stays at Trump hotel properties. Scandal after scandal relating to aides’ misuse of taxpayer dollars has eroded any right the administra­tion might claim to deserving the benefit of the doubt.

Trump has also publicly refused to commit to not receiving any coronaviru­s-related bailout aid.

“Let’s just see what happens,” he said in a White House briefing in March. He also told reporters: “I have hotels. Everybody knew I had hotels when I got elected. They knew I was a successful person when I got elected, so it’s one of those things.”

Trump has since said he hasn’t requested government assistance. But he in fact has: He asked the federal government, his landlord, for a break on rent at the Trump Internatio­nal Hotel in Washington.

Have his businesses applied for help through PPP? Right now taxpayers have no way of knowing. The CARES Act specifical­ly prevented Treasury and Federal Reserve funds for “big business” from benefiting Trump, senior Cabinet members, lawmakers or their families; but it placed no such restrictio­ns on the “small business” relief program.

PPP was necessary to preserve American businesses and jobs. Any program of its unpreceden­ted size and speed, however, requires abundant disclosure and vigilant oversight, even if Trump isn’t using it as a personal piggy bank.

The speed with which funds were distribute­d should generally be considered a good thing, but only if dollars reached their intended recipients. And press reports or public company filings have already revealed that some didn’t. Eligible small businesses have been turned away, well-connected firms got preferenti­al treatment, and some big public corporatio­ns were strong-armed into giving loans back. Other arguments in favor of disclosure include both agency precedent and law.

The Small Business Administra­tion has published detailed data on recipients of its 7(a) loan program since 1991. PPP was explicitly built upon that program. And the fact that the PPP loans, unlike the traditiona­l 7(a) ones, are broadly forgivable argues for subjecting them to even higher levels of scrutiny.

Despite his alleged commitment to transparen­cy, Mnuchin told lawmakers last week that informatio­n on loan recipients and amounts would not be released because it is “proprietar­y” and “confidenti­al.” Never mind that the PPP loan applicatio­n form explicitly says borrower informatio­n may be “subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Informatio­n Act.” It adds “informatio­n about approved loans that will be automatica­lly released” includes borrower names, collateral pledged and the loan amount. In other words, exactly the kinds of details that media organizati­ons and congressio­nally appointed government watchdogs are requesting and that the administra­tion refuses to release.

On Monday, Mnuchin tweeted that he would have “discussion­s” with lawmakers about releasing more informatio­n. Maybe he means it this time, but this feels a bit like Lucy and the football.

Which is why further rounds of stimulus must explicitly mandate disclosure of who benefits from bailouts and how much. Americans deserve to know who’s getting our money, Trump or otherwise.

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States