We Made a Difference: Americans Can Be Proud of our Role in Afghanistan and Iraq by Gregory Hilton

For the past two days my Wall has been filled with comments from libertarians and liberals. They both advocate the same isolationist foreign policy, and a significant part of their anger is directed towards the U.S. missions in Afghanistan and Iraq.

House Votes 403 to 11 to Condemn Iran But Ron Paul Defends The Islamic Republic by Gregory Hilton

Last night the House of Representatives voted 403-11 to proceed with a conference which would further isolate Iran by cutting off its supplies of refined petroleum products such as gasoline. Under the proposed law, companies that export gasoline to Iran would be barred from the U.S. market. Despite Iran’s massive oil reserves, the country has limited refining capacity and has to import the gasoline it requires.
The lawmakers are acting to prevent Iran from producing nuclear weapons. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said last night, “We have waited long enough for diplomacy to work.” Many lawmakers told the House last night that Iran’s intentions are clear, and “now is the time to implement crippling sanctions on this reckless regime.”
Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), the 1988 Libertarian Party presidential candidate, was once again in the forefront of those rushing to defend the Islamic Republic and its nuclear weapons program. Paul led the opposition to the “Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act,” and told the House:

I rise in strong opposition. I object to this entire push for war on Iran, however it is disguised. . . We hear war advocates on the floor today arguing that we cannot afford to sit around and wait for Iran to detonate a nuclear weapon. Where have we heard this before? Anyone remember then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s oft-repeated quip about Iraq: that we cannot wait for the smoking gun to appear as a mushroom cloud. We need to see all this for what it is: Propaganda to speed us to war against Iran for the benefit of special interests. . . A vote for sanctions on Iran is a vote for war against Iran.

Ron Paul is the only Republican who has consistently defended Iran’s President when he makes statements such as “Israel should be wiped off the map.” Congressman Paul has also repeatedly justified the actions of terrorists who have attacked the United States. He also accuses the CIA of being in the drug business and says they need to be “taken out.” Paul is considered a champion of the “9/11 Truth” movement.
They believe the NYC Twin Towers were packed with explosives. Many liberal activists are understandably enthusiastic about Rep. Paul. One Moveon.org group assisted in the funding and production of one of his TV ads, and the organizations website continues to promote meetings of Paul supporters.
Reps. Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) are the only two lawmakers who voted against a resolution condemning Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for his statements calling for the destruction of Israel and genocide of the Jews. The resolution outlined the reasons why the Iranian leader was in violation of the UN Genocide Convention.
In October 2009, Ron Paul and Kucinich were the only two Members of Congress to vote against H.Res.175 condemning the government of Iran for “state-sponsored persecution of its Bahá’í minority and its continued violation of the International Covenants on Human Rights.”
On January 9, 2009, Paul and Kucinich were once again in the minority on a 390-5 vote recognizing Israel’s “right to defend itself against Hamas rocket attacks” and reaffirming the U.S.’s support for Israel.
Ron Paul is also the only 2008 GOP presidential candidate who refused to support John McCain in the general election.
I sure wish a national Republican leader would step forward to condemn the many radical and dangerous statements of Ron Paul and his supporters.

The New Climate Change Legislation: All Eyes on the Chamber of Commerce by Gregory Hilton

Senate Democrats led by John Kerry (MA) are expected to unveil their new national energy legislation on Monday, April 26th. It will be known as the American Power Act but the details are still secret. The legislation is expected to appeal to conservatives by expanding nuclear power and allowing more off shore drilling.
Its fate could well be determined by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce which is now involved in negotiations with the Obama administration. The Chamber was in forefront of the opposition to the climate change legislation in the House, but they could now shift sides if the bill is altered significantly.
President Obama said on Friday his administration would shift its focus to climate change after finishing financial regulatory reform. The President said “This is one of these foundational priorities from my perspective that has to be done soon.”
The cap and trade national energy tax passed the House last year on a 219 to 212 vote. The bill would require emissions of greenhouse gases to be reduced by 17 percent by 2020. Speaker Pelosi secured the victory despite the opposition of 44 Democrats.
If enacted cap and trade would be the largest tax increase in American history, and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated the cost at close to a trillion dollars. CBO said the average American household could pay an additional $1,600 a year because of cap and trade, while other studies had a higher cost. The House passed the measure despite the fact that only 33 percent of voters believe global warming is mainly caused by human activity.
This was one of the major promises in last year’s presidential campaign. In January of 2008, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) described his proposal:

Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Coal-powered plants…natural gas…whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was…would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers…So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being omitted.

The good news is that the prospects for stopping cap and trade are excellent, and as of today the Democrats only have 26 solid votes in favor of the House plan. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has signaled the upcoming Democratic strategy change by saying, “I think the term ‘cap-and-trade’ is not in the lexicon anymore.” Even Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), the Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, has acknowledged that Congress may take years before it passes a global warming cap and trade bill.
The new energy legislation will be somewhat similar to health care. The House passed a health care public option but it was immediately rejected by the Senate. Now the Senate is expected to abandon cap and trade. The editorial in yesterday’s Christian Science Monitor noted:

A successful US cap-and-trade program in the 1990s reduced emissions known to cause acid rain from coal-burning plants. But the program was limited in its scope, and simple. Relatively few plants slowly switched to low-sulfur coal or added scrubbers.
Scaling up this idea for greenhouse-gas emissions – and allowing the trading of permits for green projects around the world – is asking for trouble. Public confidence in curbing global warming could nose-dive if a cap-and-trade plan results in a slew of dubious schemes.
One climate bill reportedly to be introduced in the Senate may dilute a cap-and-trade system by also offering a gasoline tax – a proven way to cut the burning of fossil fuels but one that may be anathema to voters. Before Congress leaps into cap-and-trade, it should take a lesson from voluntary offsets: Buyer beware.

As usual, radio commentator Rush Limbaugh is speaking for many conservatives in questioning the need for any climate change legislation. He recently said, “Computer models can not predict within hours where the wind will take the ash cloud from Iceland. Nevertheless, we are supposed to significantly alter our lives because of what similar computer models say global climate temperatures are going to be in 50 years. All of liberalism is a giant hoax. It’s just a giant lie with a bunch of subset of lies to support the big one.”

BOOK REVIEW: “Nothing for the Nation: Who Got What Out of Iraq” (2008) by former Congressman John Hostettler (R-IN)

Many Republican candidates are attacking President Obama this year, but John Hostettler is the only one to criticize Obama for abandoning the anti-war lobby. According to the Evansville newspaper, he "accused Obama of abandoning his anti-Iraq War views. 'The one person, the one person who can get us out, who has unilateral authority to get us out, doesn't want to,' he said."

Book Review by Gregory Hilton
Former Congressman John Hostettler (IN) is now running for the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate. He is in a primary with former Senator Dan Coats and State Senator Marlin Stutzman. The incumbent Democrat Evan Bayh surprised everyone by announcing his retirement on the day before the filing deadline. The GOP now has an excellent chance to capture this open seat.

Republicans are the Party of Yes: The Best of Newt Gingrich by Gregory Hilton

There has been a significant shift in public opinion over the past year, and polling data indicates the GOP is now leading in every policy area. The approval rating of President Obama and the Democratic Congress has declined dramatically, but many voters have no idea what the GOP is advocating.

Baghdad Falls and Saddam Hussein is Defeated: The 7th Anniversary by Gregory Hilton

It was 7 years ago today that United States and coalition forces entered the capital city of Baghdad, and the first steps were taken toward a new and democratic Iraq. At the height of his power, Saddam Hussein controlled a one million man Army, sent rockets into space, financed and trained dozens of terrorist groups, and came close to developing an atomic bomb. Thanks to the United States and its coalition partners, there are no longer any political prisoners, no executions, no torture at Abu Ghraib Prison and no limit on the freedom of expression.

A Look Back at “Bush Lied, People Died” and “No Blood for Oil” by Gregory Hilton

The approval ratings of President George W. Bush never recovered from the Iraq War. For six years over half the U.S. population believed Bush was lying about the existence of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) in Iraq, and many believed oil was the sole motivation behind the American intervention.
The failure to discover large WMD stockpiles permanently damaged Bush’s credibility. For over a decade prior to the American liberation, the United States and its allies believed Saddam Hussein had significant WMD stockpiles. Before the war Bush asked CIA Director George Tenet if he was sure about the stockpiles and was told their existence was a “slam dunk.” Prior to the U.S. invasion no one could determine if these stockpiles had been destroyed because the Iraqi regime had kicked out the UN weapons inspectors four years earlier.
Significant stockpiles were not found, but they had clearly existed. The UN Report by weapons inspector Charles Duelfer concluded that Iraq had the ability and infrastructure for instantly creating new WMD stockpiles in about a week. They intended to begin churning them out the minute the UN sanctions ended.
The news media largely ignored the comments of Gen. James Clapper, the Director of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency. He said satellite imagery showed that just before the war began, Iraq had transferred its WMD stockpile to Syria. They also ignored the remarks of Gen. Georges Sada, the deputy chief of Iraq’s Air Force during the Saddam Hussein era. He also said Saddam’s WMD had been transferred to Syria. Similar statements from Gen. Moshe Ya’alon, Israel’s chief-of-staff, were reported but they were not given much credibility.
The media also downplayed the 500 tons of yellow cake which was found, the equipment dispersed and hidden throughout the nation, and the Defense Department report which focused on the WMD issue after reviewing over 600,000 documents captured after the capitulation of Saddam’s regime.
The real weapon of mass destruction in Iraq was Saddam Hussein, and he was removed. Blame also belongs on the Bush administration for not aggressively opposing the critics who chanted “Bush Lied, People Died.” In his recent book “Courage and Consequence,” Karl Rove has a chapter entitled “Bush Was Right on Iraq.” The former President’s top political aide reviews many of the above arguments and places the blame on himself:

So who was responsible for the failure to respond [to the Democrats’ assault]? I was. I should have stepped forward, rung the warning bell, and pressed for full-scale response. I didn’t. Preoccupied with the coming campaign and the pressures of the daily schedule in the West Wing, I did not see how damaging this assault was. There were others who could have sounded the alarm, but regardless, I should have.

Many of the allies we wanted to help us bring down Saddam Hussein were already in a corrupt coalition to keep him in power. The UN found documents which showed the “guiding theme” of Saddam’s regime was to be able to start making WMD again “with as short a lead time as possible.” Saddam was convinced that the UN sanctions – which stopped him from acquiring weapons – were on the brink of collapse and he bankrolled several foreign activists who were campaigning for their abolition. He personally approved payments to every one of these individuals or groups.
In his recent review of Bush’s memoir Decision Points, Alastair Campbell (former Prime Minister Tony Blair’s director of communications and strategy) writes in the UK’s Guardian:

I do not buy the idea that he was hellbent on war in Iraq – also confirmed by the book, and in particular by the letters to his father and daughters. They are the letters, and this is the account, of someone who tried to avoid war, but could no longer ignore Saddam’s defiance, or the view of every intelligence agency in the world that Iraq had WMD, a threat that could be parked pre-September 11, but not after it. And surely he has a point when he says: “If I wanted to mislead the country into war why would I pick an allegation that was certain to be disproven publicly shortly after we invaded the country?”
Doubtless the Bush-haters will assume he wrote the letters to his family as a form of prewar spin planning that could be trotted out postwar when it all went wrong. All I say is: read them. You would be hard pressed, on a fair reading, to say the chapters on Iraq show a “rush to war”.

No Blood for Oil
Another popular chant was “No Blood for Oil.” If America’s interest had been oil, the United States could have obtained concessions after 1991’s Operation Desert Storm. Nevertheless, many Americans continue to believe the purpose of the Iraq War was to obtain access to oil. Now the results are known. Iraq’s oil wealth will benefit its own people. An auction in June of 2009 granted concessions to Chinese, Russian, British and French firms, while no American firm was granted a concession. According to Time magazine of December 19, 2009:

Not a single U.S. company secured a deal in the auction of contracts that will shape the Iraqi oil industry for the next couple of decades. Two of the most lucrative of the multi-billion-dollar oil contracts went to two countries which bitterly opposed the U.S. invasion — Russia and China — while even Total Oil of France, which led the charge to deny international approval for the war at the U.N. Security Council in 2003, won a bigger stake than the Americans in the most recent auction. ‘The distribution of oil contracts certainly answers the theory that the war was for the benefit of big U.S. oil interests,’ says Alex Munton, Middle East oil analyst for the energy consultancy Wood Mackenzie, whose clients include major U.S. companies. ‘That has not been demonstrated by what has happened this week.’

The slogans “Bush Lied, People Died” and “No Blood for Oil” gained prominence because of the massive anti-war lobby that disappeared after Barack Obama’s election. As Victor Davis Hanson of Tribune Media Services noted:

Finally, there was the assertion that anti-war protests were all genuinely based on opposition to the American presence in Iraq rather than fueled, in large part, by partisan politics. But since January 2009, when Obama was sworn into office, there have been almost no anti-war demonstrations against the still-sizable American presence there.
Popular demonstrations in the U.S. now oppose excessive government, not the war. And Hollywood has ceased making its usual, unpopular anti-war movies like ‘In the Valley of Elah,’ ‘Redacted,’ ‘The Kingdom,’ ‘Rendition,’ ‘Lions for Lambs’ and ‘Home of the Brave.’ Many on the left no longer oppose the Bush-Petraeus plan of slow, graduated withdrawal from Iraq, as this strategy is now sanctioned by President Obama. In the words of Vice President Biden, Iraq may well become one of the Obama administration’s ‘greatest achievements.’

Far More Progress Is Needed In Iraq But Democracy Is Working by Gregg Hilton

The election in Iraq is a very important vindication of George W. Bush’s vision that the way to correct a lot of the instability in the Middle East is to bring democracy to countries that haven’t experienced it. American policy before that was set in effect by FDR in World War II—the view that we had a greater interest in stability in the Arab world than in change. Bush’s understanding was that this was NOT the best way to secure U.S. interests in the long run.
It’s amazing! There was an election in the Arab world in which no one knew what the outcome would be. This has never happened before. And next, they have to negotiate to form a coalition. Representative government is possible in the Arab world.
Also note that Iraq’s Shiites have taken to democracy in a vibrant way. People need to focus on what this means for a Shiite democracy across the border in Iran.
President Obama is a bit of a mix. He’s cut back on the democracy-building budget in the region. And I’ve been disappointed, to be honest, that the administration has not been as outspoken about promoting democracy in the region as Bush was. – Ambassador Paul Bremer, Chief Administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, 2003 and 2004.

Iraq has now completed its fifth election since 2005 and there will once again be a peaceful transfer of power to the opposition. Over 13 million people went to the polls and the turnout was 62%, which is better than the 52% average of Americans who participated in presidential elections over the past century.

• The lead editorial in today’s Washington Post notes “Iraq held a competitive election that puts most of its neighbors to shame. On Iraq’s borders are, among others, a despotic theocracy in Iran, a despotic monarchy in Saudia Arabia and a despotic hereditary fiefdom in Syria. In Iraq, more than 6,000 candidates vied for 325 legislative seats. They represented parties of wide ideological range. Turnout was higher, proportionately, than for U.S. presidential elections. The voting and counting, according to international observers, were generally free and fair.”
• From a U.S. viewpoint, the election was a huge success because Americans want a broadly based Iraqi government. The outcome is still not certain, but Iraqi’s are showing a willingness to compromise and the new government will be secular and it will not be based on sectarian or geographical considerations. It could well be a coalition which includes Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds.
• The top two vote-getters were coalitions which rejected ethnic and sectarian politics in favor of a national, multi-sectarian vision.
• A significant difference between the 2005 and 2010 election is that this time there was no Sunni boycott. In 2010, there was a very high turnout in the Sunni provinces (Anbar, Nineveh and Salahuddin). The Sunni’s ran Iraq under Saddam Hussein by now they have adapted to the new system.
• Iran was the big loser. As the Washington Post notes, the “results are a defeat for Iran’s efforts to unify Iraq’s Shiites into one bloc and then control Iraq through that bloc. The vote is at least potentially a victory for an Iraq in which members of all sects believe their voices can be heard.” The Iraqi National Alliance (which included Muqtada al-Sadr) and the Islamic Supreme Council in Iraq both did poorly in the election. They lost many seats and their dream of a monolithic Shiite bloc has fragmented.
• Newsweek said the election “most certainly is a watershed event that could come to represent a whole new era in the history of the massively undemocratic Middle East.”
• Thomas Friedman of the New York Times says “Former President George W. Bush’s gut instinct that this region craved and needed democracy was always right.”
• Many liberal politicians in both 2004 and 2006 claimed the United States was “imposing democracy on Iraq.” The results of this fifth election demonstrate that Iraqi’s are enthusiastic participants in the democratic process.
• Vice President Joe Biden is now saying Iraq “could be one of the great achievements of this administration.” However, the credit clearly belongs to the Iraqi people and the Bush Administration.
• Peter Wehner of Politics Daily noted: “We might be able to agree, too, that the new counterinsurgency strategy announced by President Bush in January 2007 — a strategy that was fiercely opposed by Messrs. Biden and Obama, by virtually the entire Democratic Party, the political class, and almost all of the foreign policy establishment — was a wise and politically courageous decision. . . But it’s clear, I think, that the commonly held view that Iraq was ‘probably the biggest foreign policy mistake in American history’ (Joe Klein) was wrong and foolish.”

Was the Bush TARP Program a Mistake? by Gregory Hilton

Many Republicans who supported the Bush Administration’s Troubled Assets Recovery Program (TARP) are now encountering GOP primary problems. Some of these GOP voters are lumping TARP into the same category as the Obama stimulus (which was opposed by every Republican), the $3.6 trillion budget, the costs associated with health care reform and the use of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to subsidize irresponsible lending. Some of these voters do not realize that there was a major difference in how TARP was administered by the Bush and Obama administrations.
The voters have already inflicted punishment on TARP backers. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) was called “Kay Bailout” by her primary opponent, and was defeated in her attempt to win the 2010 GOP gubernatorial nomination. TARP is also a major issue in the primary battles confronting Sen. John McCain (AZ) and Bob Bennett (UT).
Rep. Gresham Barrett (SC) is feeling the heat in his gubernatorial primary, and was booed of a stage because of his TARP support. Many Republicans supported TARP which was proposed by the Bush Administration. In 2008 it was endorsed by McCain and then Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK). Former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) said supporting TARP was difficult for any Republican but it was the “correct and courageous” thing to do. Romney went on to say:

I hate the way TARP was administered, but I can tell you that we were on a precipice unlike anything we have known before in modern history with the potential of a complete collapse of our currency system and our financial system. Had we not taken action, you could have seen a real devastation. . . TARP prevented a systemic collapse of the national financial system. . . It was intended to prevent a run on virtually every bank and financial institution in the country.

Nicole Gelinas of the free-market Manhattan Institute noted: “We were never going to escape this debacle without pumping massive amounts of taxpayer money into the financial system.”
The first $350 billion TARP installment was spent by Bush and the second $350 billion installment went to the Obama Administration. TARP passed the Senate on October 1, 2008 on a 74 to 25 vote, and the House approved it on October 3 by a 263 to 171 vote.
TARP was supported by 34 Senate and 91 House Republicans, but public opinion was always strongly against TARP. TARP was designed to address the subprime mortgage crisis, and it was enacted during a year of tremendous upheaval on Wall Street.
This difficult year included the sale of investment banks Bear Stearns and Merrill Lynch, the failure of Lehman Brothers and the government rescue of the American International Group, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. None of this halted the panic on Wall Street.
TARP was a capital investment in the financial system to prevent a huge collapse. It was essential to save the financial markets because they have an enormous impact on pensions, savings, investments and mortgages. In the fall of 2008 many experts said the worldwide banking system would collapse within days without TARP.
After Lehman Brothers failed in mid-September of 2008, all commercial credit in the United States came to a halt. With the credit markets frozen there was tremendous volatility in the stock market. Bush was told by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, that a failure to act decisively could plunge our nation into another Great Depression.
They said without a massive government intervention, America faced a total financial collapse because of lost confidence in the banking system. Bush said, “I readily concede I chucked aside some of my free-market principles when I was told by my chief economic advisers that the situation we were facing could be worse than the Great Depression.”
Rep. Sue Myrick (R-NC) spoke for many of the GOP TARP supporters in September of 2008 by saying “We’re on the cusp of a complete catastrophic credit meltdown. There is no liquidity in the market. We are out of time. Either you believe that fact, or you don’t. I do.”
Former Sen. John Sununu (NH) is one of the two Republican members of the TARP oversight panel. He says the program “did help to stabilize financial markets during the critical period of November and December in 2008.”
Republican primary voters are now attacking lawmakers in their own party for supporting a program that A) was created at the behest of a Republican President and B) was central to saving America from a serious depression. The infusion of $350 billion by the Bush Administration was the best way to slow the nation’s slide to the financial edge. The program worked and the Republicans should be glad it did.
UPDATE – TARP Ends, October 4, 2010
As of October of 2010, $67 billion remains outstanding of the TARP funds which went to the auto industry. GM is planning to raise funds through an IPO, an Initial Public Offering. The government is ultimately expecting to lose $17 billion on the auto loans, but at the same time they are making a $9 billion profit just from the money that was lent to Citibank. Treasury Secretary Geithner said:

The returns we’ll get from our investments in banks and AIG will be more than enough to cover the money we’ll lose in autos. The net costs of TARP will be a fraction of their original advertised cost, but profits aren’t the proper measure to use when evaluating TARP. I don’t like to focus too much on just the accounting cost. We weren’t in the business to make money. Even if they had lost much money, that would have been the right thing to do. I think it’s an excellent record for careful financial stewardship.

Geithner pointed to metrics such as the speed at which the price of borrowing came down in 2009, the resumption of economic growth in the second half of 2009, and the speed with which banks raised private capital to replace public funds. As Daniel Gross of Yahoo Finance has written: “TARP has been an enormous success from a policy perspective — it saved the financial system and averted a second Great Depression at a very low price to taxpayers. But politically, like the assets it was designed to remove from banks, it remains toxic.”

It should also be noted that TARP was not the only effort to unfreeze the credit markets. In the words of Robert Samuelson, the Federal Reserve also “devised ingenious ways to provide credit to parts of the financial markets (commercial paper, money market funds) that were being abandoned by private lenders. For almost two years, it held its short-term interest rate near zero. All this arguably averted a second Great Depression but obviously did not trigger a vigorous economic recovery.” In late 2008 the Fed authorized a $1.725 trillion purchase of Treasury bonds, mortgage backed securities and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bonds.

“The Tale of TARP”, Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/02/AR2010100203366.html

Bush’s $350 Billion TARP is About to Break Even by Gregory Hilton

The Obama administration announced today that over the next year it will begin to sell the government’s 7.7 billion shares in Citigroup. The Citigroup shares are one of the last remaining legacies from Bush administration’s first installment of the Toxic Assets Recovery Program (TARP). The sale means the Bush outlay of $350 billion in TARP funds will break even, or result in a profit.
All of the major financial institutions which received funds from the Bush administration have been able to meet the requirements established by the Treasury Department. Over 80% of these funds have now been repaid with five percent interest, and the government earned $19 billion. All six of the biggest U.S. credit-card issuers have also returned their bailout money, and these initial TARP funds were repaid about a year after their distribution.
Citigroup was one of the hardest hit banks and they received $45 billion in bailout money, more than any other financial institution. The Treasury paid $3.25 a share for its stake in the bank during the 2008 credit crisis. The good news for the taxpayers is that the shares have increased steadily in value, and the government will receive a hefty profit of between $8 and $10 billion.
The remaining major question mark from the Bush TARP funds is the insurance giant AIG, which has been rapidly selling its assets. The taxpayers could still lose $12 to $20 billion on their AIG investment. If that does happen, it will be subtracted from the $29 billion in profits which were received from Bush’s TARP. Once again, the bottom line is that Bush’s TARP will break even or will result in a small profit. This is a far different outlook than what was predicted during the final months of the 2008 campaign.