Quick Takes (v51): So Bright I've Gotta Wear Shades

"Let... the sun shine in, let... the sun shine in, the sun shine in!"

You know, transparency and stuff like that. Like, the government  after messing with the IGs appointed to give us transparency on the trillions of our dollars being spent on coronavirus stimulus packages.

The move follows several steps Trump has taken to combat oversight of the bailout fund. After signing the relief package into law last month, the president issued a signing statement saying he would not allow the special inspector general for the relief program to report to Congress without his supervision.

So, with that as background, let's look at an exchange from the White House coronavirus update (you may know them by their other name, Trump campaign rallies) the other day, on the subject of transparency. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin was asked

Mr. Secretary, given the size of the taxpayer dollars that are going out the door, have you fellas come to a different way of thinking about the need for oversight — independent oversight on behalf of the taxpayer?

Mnuchin's response? Here's the first part.

We have independent oversight. We supported it in the last legislation. Let me be very clear: We have a new inspector general. The President has already picked someone for that position. We look forward to the person being confirmed. We have an oversight committee of Congress that many of them have already been appointed.

 Yes, we look forward to the confirmation of someone who worked on the president's impeachment defense - much of which was based on not being transparent and not letting others be transparent, either - to be the IG of something about which the White House doesn't want transparency.

Now, the White House pointed out that Brian Miller, the White House lawyer tapped for the role, has previously been confirmed for an IG role in the General Services Administration. Dems, however, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, are not impressed.

This oversight position, which will be responsible for overseeing hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars, requires complete independence from the president and any other interested party to assure the American people that all decisions are made without fear or favor, To nominate a member of the president’s own staff is exactly the wrong type of person to choose for this position.

It's good that Mnuchin understand the importance of being open with us, though, and he even provided an example of his understanding for us to, you know, understand.

And let me just say, we put up last week, for full transparency — we had no obligation to do this.  We put up — you can go to Treasury.gov — full transparency on the money that had been sent out on the PPP across states, showing all the big lenders, how it was distributed.  No one lender did more than 4 percent.  Showed the businesses.

Well, if you tell me I can go to Treasury.gov and get a dose of full transparency, you can be sure I'm going to do that. Here's a link to the slide deck that Mnuchin referred to as an example of unobligated full transparency. Note that I had previously shared the slide on the distribution of loans by dollar amount in my Sidebar on Small Business Funding.

First, the slide that "showed the businesses." This slide showed the breakdown in number of loans, dollars, and percentage of total PPP dollars by NAIC subcategory. The top five?

1. Construction: 177,905 loans, over $44.9B, 13.12%
2. Prof/Scientific/Technical Svcs: 208,360 loans, over $43.2B, 12.65%
3. Manufacturing: 108,863 loans, over $40.9B, 11.96%
4. Health Care and Social Assistance: 183,542 loans, over $39.8B, 11.65%
5. Accommodation/Food Services: 183,542 loans, over $39.8B, 8.91%

I get that it would have been extremely difficult, in a slide deck, to provide more of a breakdown on the businesses, so the categories was reasonable as a first step - but there should be a sortable database made available providing much more data than that.

But the slide "showing all the big lenders" was anything but reasonable and anything but transparent. 

I'd guess that JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo are up there on the list, probably in the first two or three, but who are the rest of them? And who did they primarily lend to, by NAIC subcategory, or by size of the company, and who lended to the publicly traded companies? And what's the reason for withholding the names in the first place? Is that to prevent us from seeing which banks are collecting all the fees, and in effect, getting their own little bailout?

I know, I'm asking too much, aren't I? I mean, shouldn't I be satisfied by Mnuchin's final comments on this?

So, again, the President and I very much believe in full transparency.  We’re spending a lot of money, and we want to make sure that it’s done effectively and fairly.

No. I shouldn't be, and you shouldn't be either.