Currency swap questions: Pressing the Fed
Once again, Judicial Watch is suing to shed light on President Barack Obama's self-proclaimed most transparent administration in history — this time, over Federal Reserve use of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to bail out European banks.
In a “currency swap” program that began in December 2007, expired in February 2010, resumed in May 2010 and was extended last November through Feb. 1, 2013, European central banks auction Fed-lent dollars to commercial banks.
A Bloomberg report sums up the program's opacity:
“(T)he Fed doesn't track where the dollars ultimately end up, and European officials don't share borrowers' identities outside the continent.”
Yet last December, when such loans skyrocketed from $400 million to $95 billion after the extension, Fed “Chairman Ben Bernanke reportedly told Republican senators that he did not have the intention or authority to use taxpayer dollars to bail out troubled European banks,” Judicial Watch says.
Its Freedom of Information Act request regarding the “currency swap” program having gone ignored, the group's lawsuit seeks relevant communications among several arms of the Fed and the European Central Bank, Fed justification for the extension and transaction details including the banks involved.
Kudos to Judicial Watch for pressing this president's Fed to be as transparent as he dubiously claims his administration is.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.