After years of legal struggle, which went all the way to the Supreme Court, Bloomberg Markets magazine got what could be the scoop of the decade. While Americans were squabbling over the 2008 $700 billion Troubled Assets Relief Program, the Federal Reserve was secretly handing out more than 11 times that amount at a ridiculously low interest rate to the nation’s biggest banks. In fact, TARP distributed far less than its authorized amount: $392 billion.

    The $7.77 trillion in loans only recently brought to light were supposed to keep the financial system running, and, by most accountings, they were successful. Not only did banks survive, according to Bloomberg, they made money on the deal. The big problem was — and it is a startling indictment of the ties between Washington and high finance — apparently no one in Congress knew of the loans while new rules intended to prevent subsequent collapses were being debated.

    In the Bloomberg piece, the cost of this was made clear: “. . . taxpayers,” the authors said, “paid a price beyond dollars as the secret funding helped preserve a broken status quo and enabled the biggest banks to grow even bigger.” The banks, which argued against disclosing the loans, said that admitting to taking the money might have undermined confidence in them as institutions. This might have been a good thing.

    Let’s pause for a moment to consider together just how much money the Fed doled out at .01 percent interest: The $7.77 trillion loaned from its so-called discount window was more than half the value of everything produced in the United States in 2009. Unbelievably, the total is in the ballpark of the value of all the gold ever mined in all of human history at the metal’s 2011 sky-high prices. Consider, too, that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars — combined — have cost $1.1 trillion over the course of the last 10 years.

    Perhaps not surprisingly, Ben Bernanke, the Fed’s chairman, having tried to fight disclosure of the loans and commitments, has accused Bloomberg of getting it wrong. In a quibbling letter to House and Senate leaders, he said the reporting was filled with “numerous errors and misrepresentations,” and said that, at peak, the daily loans only reached $1.5 trillion anyway. Congress had access to monthly reports about the total borrowing, he said. Bloomberg has said it stands by its reporting and issued a point-by-point rebuttal of the Fed chairman’s criticisms.

    Mr. Bernanke sidestepped the entire issue of whether lawmakers were improperly kept in the dark about this huge handout as they considered the scale of the crisis and possible financial reforms — which did not come. Nor do the chairman’s objections explain why he and the banks sought so long and hard to avoid releasing the details — long after the chance of any hypothetical damage to the banks’ reputations was past.

    In retrospect, it would be laughable that the nation was convulsed over the much-smaller TARP if the implications for the credibility of our government were not so serious. Members of George W. Bush’s administration, which inaugurated TARP, were not let in on the Fed’s big secret. The net effect of the clandestine loans is that a real reckoning has never come for the giant banks, which ran up the housing bubble through collateralized debt obligations and other schemes. Inadequate regulations to prevent future financial catastrophes have remained in place because the people who would write new rules — Congress — knew nothing about what was going on.

    Not only are the giant banks now too big to fail, they are too big to regulate, according to some of the Fed’s managers. One hopes that, armed with the new information and knowing to what lengths the Fed and the banks went to avoid disclosure, Congress will look again at effective control of the financial industry. Regardless of what is done, however, it is apt to be too late for those Americans who have lost their jobs and their homes.

    New York State has adopted a relatively aggressive position on climate change and offered a number of resources to local governments. Unfortunately, few Long Island villages or towns have taken advantage of them. Though Albany is often seen as an adversary in these parts, the impacts of a warming atmosphere are predicted to be severe and complex, and local officials will need every bit of help they can get in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and crafting policies.

    A tepid response to one state initiative, called Climate Smart Communities, illustrates lack of foresight on Long Island. In Suffolk County, only the towns of Babylon, Brookhaven, Islip, and Smithtown and Port Jefferson Village have signed on. This is despite the program’s making municipalities eligible for faster-track state and federal money for low-carbon technology, efficiency grants, and energy conservation. Joining requires local governments to name an energy coordinator or committee and to develop a climate plan that includes identifying sources of greenhouse gases and setting goals for their reduction and reducing energy consumption by residents and public services. Solar panels have gone up on municipal buildings here and there, which is a sign of hope, but that is far from enough.

    Trying to stave off climate change and its effects is only part of the challenge. Based on what already is known, there will be unavoidable flooding, drought, extreme temperatures, and rising sea level. Local governments will need to factor these risks and others into their decision-making. For example, in much of East Hampton Town and in low-lying parts of Southampton, whatever coastal construction is allowed now will largely determine future calls for infrastructure improvements and erosion control — which could entail massive costs to be borne by taxpayers in the future.

    Climate change and its impacts are going to be the biggest challenges that will face public officials over the coming decades. The sooner Long Island’s towns and villages start working on sober, comprehensive policies the better. Joining with other governments across New York to share resources and knowledge is one place to start.

    Voter turnout in the Town of East Hampton on Nov. 8 was about average for a nonpresidential year — about 43 percent of the 15,929 people registered. Given the standard by which such things are measured nationally, turnout as a percentage of the voting-age population, East Hampton did a bit worse than might have been expected — about 39 percent — but was still a point or two above the national average.

    The local registration figure may have been boosted by those part-time residents who register here but were not counted in the 2010 census. Anecdotally, it seems that an ever-increasing number of people live here part time, year round, commuting into the city for work a couple of days a week but considering East Hampton home. This assumption is bolstered by the hundreds of absentee ballots in the most recent election.

    Turnout is to be encouraged, whatever the outcome, which is one reason why in the immediate post-election period we noted with displeasure something the East Hampton Republican Committee chairwoman said. Trace Duryea, who worked in East Hampton Town Supervisor Bill Wilkinson’s re-election campaign, told a reporter that she was disappointed in the town for not coming out more forcefully for her candidate, while she dismissed those who voted against him as thoughtless partisans. Such comments do little to dignify the often arduous political process and belittle those who went to the polls.

    Voters should be thanked for their participation, no matter how they voted. 

    A White House effort to expand help for homeowners who have been unable to refinance mortgages because the value of their properties has fallen could have a stimulating effect on the year-round East Hampton economy.

    With its outsize economic reliance on real estate transactions, East Hampton is a bit of a company town. And, like many other communities in the United States that have suffered in the long recession, it has seen a significant slowdown in many of the related trades.

    The East End of Long Island has not had the level of walk-away foreclosures as some parts of the country, but a lot of people, particularly those whose properties are in the mid- or relatively low-priced range, are hurting. Mortgage arrangements that might have made sense before 2008, when the sky seemed the limit for housing prices, now are a burden for an unknown number of residents and part-timers. Those who have struggled to keep their houses or protect their nest eggs have tied up cash that could be used for other things — spent locally perhaps instead of being shipped to some distant lending institution.

    The idea of mortgage relief for hard-strapped borrowers has been around for a while in one form or another. The new version of the Home Affordable Refinance Program makes it easier for borrowers who have not fallen behind on payments to refinance and eases certain restrictions on banks. By opening up the refinance market, more homeowners could take advantage of record-low interest rates or lengthen their mortgage terms. Monthly payments could be reduced by hundreds of dollars and household cash freed for purchases or long-delayed home improvements. 

    Some critics of HARP, now HARP 2, have said it is not ambitious enough. Although some 22 million American households would meet eligibility requirements; only about 900,000 of them are expected to take advantage of the new rules. It also remains to be seen if enough lenders will be confident enough to go along with the federal program for borrowers whose loan amounts come close to the appraised value of their properties.

    House prices have not fallen in East Hampton to the degree they have in parts of the country most affected by the downturn. But borrowers here may soon find the path to refinancing eased by the HARP expansion, and that can only help brighten the local economy.

    With scallop season fully under way now in both state and East Hampton Town waters, reports indicate a good crop, if not quite as good a crop as last year’s for individual harvesters. The dip in the per-boat catch so far is anecdotal; it could be the result of more crews taking to the water or a decline in the scallop population — no one really knows for sure. This raises the question of whether the shellfishery as managed now is sustainable.

    The natural population has been augmented significantly with hatchery-raised “bugs,” or juvenile scallops, from the East Hampton Town Shellfish Hatchery and Cornell Cooperative Extension. These ongoing efforts are responsible for placing millions of bugs in East End waters and the effort undoubtedly has helped return the population from the decimation of the brown tide, or algae bloom, years.

    New York sets a 20-bushel per day limit for a commercial boat, most of which catch the bivalves by dragging submerged dredges. The maximum take is half that in town waters. These limits represent best guesses at harvest levels that can be maintained over time; we hope the science supporting them is the very best. All concerned, the commercial fishers who depend on scallops to help pay the winter bills and those of us who simply love to eat them, have an interest in making sure this tasty bivalve is around for the long haul.

    We wish Stephen Lynch well in his new post as East Hampton Town’s next superintendent of highways, but there is a certain sweet irony in his election. Among the responsibilities he is soon to have is keeping the roadsides clear of anything that does not conform to the town code, notably signs larger than six square feet. This is paradoxical because Mr. Lynch’s campaign billboards and parked, truck and trailer-mounted messages were among the most expansive of this year’s political season and, as such, were obvious violations of the law.  

    We do not mean to single out Mr. Lynch. Plenty of other oversize signs and illegal off-premises come-ons kept his company. Nevertheless, East Hampton Town Supervisor Bill Wilkinson, Scott King, the outgoing highway superintendent, other elected officials, and Town Hall personnel drove to work each day past other examples without doing anything about it. (Yes, we know we bring this up frequently, but we are going to keep at it until someone in authority starts paying attention.)

    Normally, these rules are within the purview of the Ordinance Enforcement Department, but it was as if its staff had never read the town code. You have to wonder what other less-obvious violations of the town code go without remedy.

    As of the January organization meeting at which he is to be sworn in, Mr. Lynch will be in a unique position in town government: He answers only to voters and does not have to operate in the highly politicized environment of the town board. The code, which he will promise to uphold, gives him the right — shared with the town police — to remove signs, illegal obstructions, and other objects of concern within the town’s right-of-ways. Mr. Lynch should study the code, seeking independent, outside advice, if need be, so that he can direct his crews to remove whatever is necessary to put a stop to this ever-expanding visual affront to public property, good taste, and the law.

    In news of the violence that has broken out in Cairo in recent days, a report has circulated that may indicate that the Egyptian authorities are paying attention to how some police in the United States have responded to the Occupy Wall Street protests.

According to the accounts, an Egyptian state television anchor cited the “firm stance” taken by United States law enforcement to “secure the state” as a justification for the Egyptian crackdown. This report came from Twitter, posted by Sultan Al Qassemi, a journalist and important voice in the Arab Spring uprisings. Whether or not this can be independently confirmed, it points to a troubling double standard between the United States’s internal actions and foreign policy.

    Occupy Wall Street first gained widespread attention in September, when a supervising officer in the New York Police Department used pepper spray on an unarmed and nonthreatening group of four women who had been standing together. Before that, the protests had been a curiosity; after it came out that N.Y.P.D.’s “white shirts” from higher ranks were leading an aggressive response to keep “sidewalks clear and crowds moving along,” the protest rapidly grew into a movement. Protesters greeted the news that the officer who had used pepper spray was “punished” by having 10 vacation days docked with anger.

    On Friday, campus police at the University of California Davis used pepper spray on nine seated protesters who had defied orders to move. Photographs of this unprovoked attack have become a new rallying cry of the movement. In one particularly resonant image, some wit digitally placed the campus officer into John Trumbull’s famous painting of the signing of Declaration of Independence, blasting America’s founding document with an orange-colored haze.

    It must be conceded that a few angry cops and misguided public officials do not add up to an overturning of democracy. Nor should  the police’s removal of the library Occupy Wall Street put together at Zuccotti Park be  considered on a par with book-burning in Hitler’s Germany. However, violent responses to the peaceful encampments reinforce the movement’s messages about inequality and the use of official force to resist meaningful change.

    If the report out of Egypt is accurate, the world is indeed watching.

    Now that the election is over, the East Hampton Town Board is picking up a matter it dropped hastily last month concerning East Hampton Airport.

    Fearing what would happen if a public forum about Federal Aviation Administration money was held just before voters went to the polls, Town Hall went into panic mode in October, scratching a hearing on the deal. Having avoided what could have been a political bombshell, the board now plans to go ahead with a request for a relatively modest amount of money from Washington for  deer and security fences at the airport.

    A large number of residents, upset about aircraft noise, have decried taking any more money from the F.A.A. because they say (accurately, from what we can tell) that doing so binds the town’s hands in terms of meaningful control of the airport. Further, they say that the airport has a dedicated fund with a substantial surplus in it that could pay for the work, avoiding further entanglement with the F.A.A.

    Exactly why the town board majority, headed by Supervisor Bill Wilkinson, wants the Washington handout is not clear, but there are a couple of possibilities. One is a fear that airport-noise opponents could someday gain the upper hand and curtail hours of operation or limit certain classes of aircraft. By accepting the F.A.A. money, the current board would make it more difficult for the town to gain the upper hand at the airport, something some of the current majority’s backers worry about.

    Another reason could be that the town needs money. The East Hampton budget relies in part on the use of surpluses to keep tax rates down. But when they are gone, taxes will have to rise or more services be cut. In the 2012 spending plan, for example, the airport’s cash reserve is tapped for $400,000, roughly 10 percent of its budget to cover costs associated with a seasonal control “tower,” actually a trailer.

    Mr. Wilkinson and his budget officer, Len Bernard, are in a difficult place, having cut taxes twice and reduced the town work force about as much as possible. This is why they remain interested in selling such town assets as Fort Pond House in Montauk and scratching together additional non-tax sources wherever they can. The revenue has to come from somewhere. This is insufficient justification, however, for a policy decision that many believe will harm East Hampton in the long run.

    With the consensus being that accepting F.A.A. money comes at the cost of local control, the East Hampton Town Board should find other ways to pay for the fencing.

    New York State may come up short of cash as 2011 comes to an end, and the outlook for the 2012 budget has dimmed, according to latest projections. The anticipated shortfalls are renewing attention on Albany’s version of a “millionaire’s tax,” which is set to expire next month.

    The state appears to be facing a deficit of $350 million this year between what flows in and what must be spent to keep government running. Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s Budget Division said this week that a drop in tax revenue linked to volatility in financial markets was largely to blame. An expected weak bonus season on Wall Street adds to the grim picture. The budget gap for the next fiscal year, which begins April 1, is estimated to be as much as $3.5 billion.

    The so-called millionaire’s tax is actually a surcharge on New Yorkers making $200,000 a year or more. Although the extra tax has brought in about $4 billion a year, many Albany lawmakers and Governor Cuomo oppose its extension. Mr. Cuomo has said the issue is one of fairness and that continuing to tax high-income residents would result in more of them leaving the state. He says there is more room for more spending cuts.

    State Assemblyman Fred W. Thiele Jr., who represents the South Fork, has a different idea. He has sponsored a bill that would extend the higher rate on millionaires and use the money to fund rebates to offset property taxes on households earning $250,000 or less. State income tax credits worth about $2.3 billion would be given to taxpayers based on a percentage of their income. The rest of the money raised by the surcharge would go for aid to schools. The idea is attractive in a Robin Hood kind of way, but, given the looming state budget crisis, it would seem to have little chance of passing. Mr. Thiele has said none of the millionaires who live in his district have complained to him about the current surcharge, though.

    With deficits likely this year and in 2012-13, Albany should look again at extending the extra tax on the state’s richest residents. Fair or not, it seems necessary. 

    Whatever happens next in Manhattan for Occupy Wall Street, after a 1 a.m. eviction by police Tuesday, it is remarkable that the encampment was allowed to remain in Zuccotti Park for so long. This would have been unimaginable in the past. Although the mayor’s responses have been erratic, few were confident at the movement’s outset that he would exercise any restraint.

    The city had successfully limited dissent with Orwellian “free speech zones” during economic summits and political conventions for years. The police were out in force and with video cameras during the National Republican convention a few years ago. Back in September, when all this started, few thought the city would allow the protesters to stay in the park one night, let alone until November.

    Detractors say they don’t understand what the Occupy Wall Street protesters want, but in one important aspect, the movement has been a success. If you ask just about anyone these days if they know what is meant by the 1 percent, they will have at least an inkling. The New York encampment and the others around the country have put the vast prosperity gap in the United States into the public consciousness.

    Whether it will lead to reforms that the poor and working class can take to the bank remains to be seen, but Americans are talking about it, and that’s a start.