ADVERTISEMENTS

Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard law professor, bankruptcy expert, and blogger, is someone I've previously criticized for being a bit "breathless" when it comes to criticizing big, bad banks and their nefarious, consumer-hating ways. On the other hand, as head of the Congressional Oversight Panel that's looking over the Treasury Department's shoulder and crying "foul" whenever it seems appropriate to do so, I get a kick out of her. I may not agree with her positions on some issues, but I admire her sense of humor and brainpower.

Recently, she gave an interview to The Boston Globe, in which she expressed her frustrations trying to command an oversight body with plenty of jaws, but no teeth. Gum-flapping only carries you so far when hundreds of billions of dollars are being spent and the program you're supposed to be overseeing is being run by people that you suspect haven't got a clue or, if they've got a clue, are keeping that clue well hidden.

Q: You've been quite critical of the Treasury. What troubles you most about what you're getting and what you're not getting?

A: There's no discussion of the overall policy. Instead, there are specific programs that are announced, and from that, it's necessary to reason backwards to figure out what the goal must have been. It's like a "Jeopardy!" game. If this is the answer, what was the question? It's frustrating because without a clearly articulated goal and identified metrics to determine whether the goal is being accomplished, it's almost impossible to tell if a program is successful.

Q: Do you have a clear sense of what the overall TARP plan at this point is supposed to do? Are you capable of summarizing what it's supposed to be doing?

A: No. And neither is Treasury. Treasury has given us multiple contradictory explanations for what it's trying to accomplish.

There's a major problem and a minor problem. The minor problem is documentation. I've spent four weeks now looking for someone who can give me the details of the stress test so that we can do an independent evaluation of whether the stress test is any good.

We get: "someone will call [you] right back." Only the call doesn't come.

Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard law professor, bankruptcy expert, and blogger, is someone I've previously criticized for being a bit "breathless" when it comes to criticizing big, bad banks and their nefarious, consumer-hating ways. On the other hand, as head of the Congressional Oversight Panel that's looking over the Treasury Department's shoulder and crying "foul" whenever it seems appropriate to do so, I get a kick out of her. I may not agree with her positions on some issues, but I admire her sense of humor and brainpower.

Recently, she gave an interview to The Boston Globe, in which she expressed her frustrations trying to command an oversight body with plenty of jaws, but no teeth. Gum-flapping only carries you so far when hundreds of billions of dollars are being spent and the program you're supposed to be overseeing is being run by people that you suspect haven't got a clue or, if they've got a clue, are keeping that clue well hidden.

Q: You've been quite critical of the Treasury. What troubles you most about what you're getting and what you're not getting?

A: There's no discussion of the overall policy. Instead, there are specific programs that are announced, and from that, it's necessary to reason backwards to figure out what the goal must have been. It's like a "Jeopardy!" game. If this is the answer, what was the question? It's frustrating because without a clearly articulated goal and identified metrics to determine whether the goal is being accomplished, it's almost impossible to tell if a program is successful.

Q: Do you have a clear sense of what the overall TARP plan at this point is supposed to do? Are you capable of summarizing what it's supposed to be doing?

A: No. And neither is Treasury. Treasury has given us multiple contradictory explanations for what it's trying to accomplish.

There's a major problem and a minor problem. The minor problem is documentation. I've spent four weeks now looking for someone who can give me the details of the stress test so that we can do an independent evaluation of whether the stress test is any good.

We get: "someone will call [you] right back." Only the call doesn't come.

There's more, and it's illuminating. I especially love her response to the question of what will she consider a success at the end of the bailout program: "We will have wasted comparatively less money, and spent more on comparatively more successful programs." When you're dealing with a government bailout that's being concocted on the fly, I suppose that result would be considered a win.

In the following segment from an  episode from last Wednesday's "The Daily Show," her deadpan comments play well off of John Stewart's feigned befuddlement. At first, I thought she was a typical absent-minded professor type, but decided she's actually quite funny, in a good sense. In D.C., a strong sense of irony has got to be a great survival skill. The rest of her dialogue with Stewart can be found here (it's the third segment). Her left-leaning, pro-government regulation views are sure to drive conservatives and free marketers to fits of derision, especially since Stewart agrees with her. Nevertheless, she's a

There's more, and it's illuminating. I especially love her response to the question of what will she consider a success at the end of the bailout program: "We will have wasted comparatively less money, and spent more on comparatively more successful programs." When you're dealing with a government bailout that's being concocted on the fly, I suppose that's considered a win.

In the following segment from a recent episode Comedy Central's The Daily Show, her deadpan comments play well off of John Stewart's feigned befuddlement. At first, I thought she was a typical absent-minded professor type, but decided she's actually quite funny, in a good sense. In D.C., a strong sense of irony has to be a great survival skill. The rest of her discussion with Stewart can be found here ( it's the third segment). I imagine that her left-leaning, pro-government regulation views will drive conservatives and free-marketers to distraction, and the fact that Stewart loves her will confirm their sense of derision. For my part, I think that she's wrong on many of the issues but still a kick in the keister.

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.