Just a reminder: TARP still at least $123 billion in red
posted at 2:55 pm on March 17, 2011 by Ed Morrissey
The Obama administration has gone on an odd public-relations blitz to prop up the public’s perception of TARP, as ProPublica’s Paul Kiel notices. TARP originated in the Bush administration and became so politically toxic that it would make an easy talking point for Barack Obama to use to disparage GOP fiscal stewardship. However, Obama’s use of TARP to engineer his own government interventions in private markets means that he needs to convince taxpayers that TARP not only saved the American economy but will be a good investment over the long run.
Unfortunately, as Kiel reports, that’s simply not true. After spending $700 billion nearly three years ago, more than a third of it is still red ink, and probably unrecoverable:
At ProPublica, we’ve provided a comprehensive bailout database since TARP’s launch. It shows not only how much money has gone to each recipient, but how much each has paid in interest and dividend payments. With all this data, we’re able to clearly show how deep in the hole the program remains. And the answer as of today is $123 billion.
Add that to the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — which our site also tracks and is separate from the TARP — and taxpayers are $257 billion in the hole.
Although the bailout has extended to nearly a thousand institutions, just a few are primarily responsible for the continued deficit: Fannie and Freddie, of course, AIG, and the auto companies (GM, Chrysler, GMAC).
Fannie and Freddie account for slightly more than half of the red ink, as noted above. Those were part of the original TARP rescue effort, although the Obama administration is the one that requested and received a repeal of the cap for capital infusions into both GSEs. The original TARP plan capped the potential subsidies to $200 million. To this day, the White House has yet to propose a plan to close down Fannie and Freddie and end their connection to the federal government.
But that’s only half of the red ink. Most of the other half comes from AIG’s bailout, which is expected to end up with a small profit for taxpayers as Treasury sells its 92% stake in the underwriter, and Obama’s own TARP projects:
But the government’s rescue of the auto industry (specifically, GM, Chrysler, and GMAC) almost certainly won’t ever make its way out of the red. As of today, the hole is $47 billion.
George Bush’s private-sector recipients were entirely related to the financial industry — banks and AIG, which insured financial transactions. The banks have all repaid their TARP grants, with interest, and the money will eventually come out of AIG. But the money sunk into the automakers will almost never get repaid, as is the case for the money from the two GSEs, especially the continuing cash they absorb in winding down their portfolios.
Not only that, but as TARP’s special inspector Neil Barofsky testified earlier this month, even the public uses of TARP under the Obama administration have been a bust:
In prepared testimony Wednesday before a House subcommittee on housing, Barofsky said the unpleasant truth about most HAMP loan modifications was not just that they failed but that, after trials stretching for many months, they left participants in worse financial shape than when they began.
It’s a problem Geithner has refused to face, although the Treasury secretary has acknowledged that the incentives paid to loan servicers under HAMP “have not been powerful enough,” Barofsky said in the testimony, which was posted online by the House Financial Services Committee.
Citing “near universal agreement” that HAMP has failed to meet its goals, Barofsky noted that current debate centers “on whether the program should be terminated, replaced or revamped.”
“Treasury, it seems, stands alone in defending the status quo,” he said.
The watchdog panel overseeing TARP said that its continuing operation sends strong signals that the US will bail out financial institutions rather than allow them to suffer the consequences of their bad decisions:
The watchdog panel for the $700 billion bank bailout faulted the U.S. government for the last time on Wednesday, saying the program helped underpin the perception that federal authorities will always prevent troubled financial firms from failing.
In its final report on the bank bailout, the panel attacked the government for not being transparent enough and not articulating clear goals for its foreclosure prevention program.
It also said federal intervention transformed the notion of ‘too big to fail’ into a stark reality.
That’s what the public-relations blitz wants to defend — a status quo painted in deeply red ink, with the backing of the federal government.
Related Posts:









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Sweet. How sweet it is.
Finally, Obama’s chikkinzzz are coming home to roost.
petefrt on May 19, 2013 at 8:22 PM
This.
When you have to plead incompetence to defend against charges of malfeasance, you know you might be in trouble.
petefrt on May 19, 2013 at 8:36 PM
ear relevant…
driguana on May 19, 2013 at 8:59 PM
Flush this lying tudd down the drain with the rest of the Obamacrap.
kemojr on May 19, 2013 at 9:34 PM
This was Dan Pfeiffer’s week in the barrel, like Susan Rice he was given the White House talking points and sent on a mission. He really needs to get copies of these tapes and watch them and see how foolish and unbelievable he looked and sounded. The White House is losing the little credibility it still had by sending these shills out every week trying to do damage control. Community organizers make poor leaders.
savage24 on May 19, 2013 at 9:42 PM
Pfeiffer’s statement that the law is irrelevant because the IRS conduct was “outrageous” and “inexcusable”, tells us all we need to know about this administration.
However, the follow-up should have been, “On what standard do you judge their conduct to be outrageous and inexcusable since the law is apparently not an appropriate standard?” (At least in Pfeiffer’s mind.)
What this comes down to is this: “if the Administrative deems something “outrageous” and “inexcusable,” then it is declared such. As we have seen in so many other areas, if the Administrative deems something to not be “outrageous” and “inexcusable,” then it is declared such.
In their mind, the law is – in fact – irrelevant. That’s what makes this situation so dangerous.
It’s not socialism. It’s worse.
EdmundBurke247 on May 19, 2013 at 10:36 PM
Irrelevant = “What Difference Does It Make?”
jaydee_007 on May 19, 2013 at 10:41 PM
A fitting capstone to Ed’s story about loss-prevention (aka employee theft) and management’s “permission structure” in this post.
(Not to mention the jaw-dropping statements of Eleanor Clift in this one.)
AesopFan on May 19, 2013 at 11:40 PM
I enjoy popcorn and hope it is a long week.
Drill and Fill on May 20, 2013 at 12:41 AM
Hey give Barky a break. He had to get his sorry ass out to Vegas.
tbear44 on May 20, 2013 at 4:49 AM
Of course they sent Pfeiffer out to do the Sunday shows. He was the most senior expendable staff member they had . . .
BigAlSouth on May 20, 2013 at 5:39 AM
Pfeiffer… The guy with the red shirt in the landing party…
Boudica on May 20, 2013 at 5:53 AM
Perfect!
lea on May 20, 2013 at 7:11 AM
Does anybody else remember the campaign in 2008 when Obama defended his lack of administrative experience by saying he was just so smart and tuned in that his instincts were better than experience. Someone needs to dredge up these sound bites and play then with the current line about the government being too large to control and that the White House only knows what it reads in the newspaper.
bartbeast on May 20, 2013 at 8:43 AM
If where the president was during the Benghazi crisis is “irrelevant”, then he wasn’t where one would expect the Commander-in-Chief to be. So, where was he? Was he watching a movie in the residence? Was he bowling? Or was he having a bi-curious outing with his good buddy Reggie Love? If Obama was AWOL, as I suspect he was, it is he who is irrelevant. This entire stinkin’ criminal Obama Regime must go and now!
SpiderMike on May 20, 2013 at 9:31 AM
If this continues all week, it will be ‘O’ himself doing the rounds on the Sunday talk shows – except for Fox, of course. (‘O’ can do everything better than everyone else as he has been known to say.)
He then gets the extra benefit that no one will challenge him like they have begun to do with his minions.
Carnac on May 20, 2013 at 11:00 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2