Senator Leahy (D-VT) is proposing to add the following language to the Paulson Bailout Bill:
Section 8. Limits on Review
In General – Any determination of the Secretary with regard to any particular troubled asset pursuant to this Act shall be final, and shall not be set aside unless such a determination is found to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or not in accordance with the law.
Administrative or court review of any Paulson action will be completely ineffectual as long as the review is conducted after the decision has been taken. I've asked Senator Leahy's office to describe how the review would work but have not received an answer yet (yes, I know it's early in the morning).
In particular, I want to know:
- Why can't review happen prior to any Paulson decision?
- Who is going to review the decisions?
- Who has party status? In other words, who can file to have a decision reviewed?
- How long will the review take?
- If the action is found to be "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or not in accordance with the law", how will the Paulson action be unwound?
- What are the definitions of "arbitrary", "capricious", and "abuse of discretion?"
Senator Leahy may be well-intentioned in proposing this court review, but as you can see with my questions, this quickly becomes a convoluted procedure. Frankly, I don't see how Senator Leahy's proposal, as written, has any teeth in it. Given the Bush Administration's blithe dismissal of Congressional oversight, can you imagine any scenario where they would rapidly respond to a review inquiry? There would be delay, obfuscation, submittals of non-responsive (or even redacted) documents, refusal to respond to subpoenas, and any other method for avoiding accountability.
The Paulson Proposal should be rejected in all its forms.