The US Treasury can do anything it bloody well wants to mate. If it wants to roll over its $700 million slush fund, it will damn well do it.

Do you have a problem with that?

Interesting post, David. One question that makes me wonder about your interpretation: is Section 106(d) about a program that Treasury didn't administer under this statute? When I read "the sale of troubled assets purchased under this Act," I think of Paulson's original plan (resurrected, in slightly modified form, as PPIP) to purchase troubled assets, which strangely did not happen under the Trouble Assets Relief Program. If that's true, then it would imply a depleting fund for Treasury.

You suggest that Section 106(d) was "meant to cover the profits of the TARP," but I don't see how TARP -- either the initial version or the modified version -- would generate "profits." Under the initial version, I think everyone expected the government to take a loss on transactions in troubled assets. Under the modified version, TARP might generate "returns on investment," but Section 106(d) seems a long way from that.

I agree with you about Section 115(a) -- the statement that Treasury can have no more than "$700,000,000,000 outstanding at any one time." That would seem to imply rolling. I also agree that what Geithner says is what this statute is going to mean, regardless of what the drafters may have thought they were doing.

Very true, Gordon. The TARP is barely recognizable now. But Treasury should make money on the interest the banks got. And they still give out the money, albeit in surprisingly new ways, so in that sense I think the case for administration is strong.

"I also agree that what Geithner says is what this statute is going to mean, regardless of what the drafters may have thought they were doing."

Well, our elected Representatives, should they discover a spine at some point around 2012, can always clarify that point for Mr. Tax Cheat and separate him from our money.

The Troubled Asset Relief Program was passed by Congress to authorize the Treasury to purchase illiquid securities from financial institutions; in order to establish a market for those securities (since none existed) and thusly to establish the value of those same securities so that a proper accounting of solvency could be made.

Anyone who claims otherwise is a liar. And anyone who uses that money for reasons other than why it was appropriated, however noble the claimed reasons, are committing a crime.

Those officials had better hope that the political landscape doesn't change underneath them; lest they find themselves on Riker's Island.

Haven't we already learned that any branch of the US government can pretty much do whatever it pleases until people start losing too much money?

"Haven't we already learned that any branch of the US government can pretty much do whatever it pleases until people start losing too much money?"

Great question.

Unfortunately the current regime depends on voters who are too dumb to know the difference, and policies aimed at maintaining that situation.

Bah.

"Unfortunately the current regime depends on voters who are too dumb to know the difference, and policies aimed at maintaining that situation."

Sadly, all that is really required is a Republican Party so spineless as to be unable to figure out how to file a lawsuit.

What the Obama Administration is doing is illegal. Republicans COULD sue them to stop them, and thus involve the third branch of government to determine the legality of the administrations actions.

But Republicans, notably, haven't sued.

Now why would that be?