Transparency

[billroper]

Ok, I understand that there are some of you who aren't going to like the origins of this article, because it comes from the National Review Online. But perhaps the last paragraph, quoted below, will entice you to read it:

"While the aforementioned 2004 hearing revealed Democrats as the more vocal Fannie and Freddie defenders, the corruption runs deep and is likely bipartisan in nature. Ultimately, partisan concerns should be shunted aside and the chips should fall where they may. If Congress is eventually going to demand that taxpayers cough up nearly a trillion dollars to prop up irresponsible actors in the financial sector, it’s only fair we know who in Congress was getting paid to look the other way."

He suggests that all of the documents that the government is getting from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac be placed on line so that we can see who was responsible for their failure.

I'm for transparency. How about you?

Comments

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

The article you originally linked to suggests appointing a special prosecutor to get to the bottom of the FM mess (I only just now had time to read all the way to the end, sorry).

I think this is a fine idea.

We should also appoint an independent prosecutor to get to the bottom of the Department of Justice mess. One with full subpoena powers and the power to jail any witnesses who refused to show up for questioning for contempt of court.

Or we could just put all *those* documents on the web for anyone to Google. But seriously, if the current administration had access to the server, just how long would that last? Which is also the problem with the FM mess, actually. No, the independent prosecutor would be the way to go.

We all want transparency, and it's about time we got it. Some things are just too important to leave in the dark.

[carolf.livejournal.com]

We should also appoint an independent prosecutor to get to the bottom of the Department of Justice mess.

Done.

Didn't know you had such influence, did you?

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

As I understand it, she is just a *special* prosecutor, not an *independent* prosecutor.

In other words, if I'm understanding right, she still reports to Michael Mucazey (sorry if I've misspelled that), who was appointed by George Bush and who has done nothing to correct either the injustices perpetrated on Federal Prosecutors who refused to be used as political tools, or the presence of incompetent ideologues hired under his predecessor.

I see a problem there. I'm inclined to believe she's probably generally honest and good at her job, but when she's working under someone who has shown very little interest in really correcting the results of the abuses, I'm not sure she will be free to do her job properly.

I want an *independent* prosecutor. The kind the administration can't turn off when she discovers something inconvenient.