On April 13, 2012, the US Department of the Treasury released new cost estimates for the Troubled Asset Relief Program. Looking principally at actual and projected contractual cash flows, the document concludes that: "Overall, the government is now expected to at least break even on its financial stability programs and may realize a positive return." 

Measures to help avoid a future crisis and proposals to change the way in which the government responds to crises should they happen nonetheless.

On January 14, the Administration proposed that large banks (those with consolidated assets above $50 billion) be taxed to reimburse the federal government (and thus taxpayers) for the costs of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP).

Politicians have frequently directed harsh rhetoric toward particular corporate taxpayers that earn high profits. At times, this rhetoric has been accompanied by policy proposals that single out a narrow set of profitable taxpayers for disparate treatment. Perhaps the most notable example is the war against Big Oil.

Even with its status as a "program," we should insist on appropriate and regular accounting for TARP to ensure financial responsibility.

Purchasing "toxic" assets is no easy solution.

The Shadow Committee believes that despite the shortcomings ofFAS 157 (Fair Value Measurements), simply suspending the accounting rulewould be a mistake. Instead, the Committee recommends that the SEC and banking agencies make a concerted effort to require more detailed information about the holdings of specific financial assets as well as the methods by which the assets are valued.

Renewed fighting in Afghanistan could call for a new strategy.