The Republican base is still not particularly enthusiastic about the field of potential presidential nominees according to Pew Research. From Pew:

In 2008, both Democrats and Republicans grew increasingly satisfied with the quality of the candidates for their party’s nomination as the campaign progressed. By contrast, the continued lackluster ratings offered by Republicans this year track more closely with how Democrats viewed their options in early 2004.

In January of that year, just 47% of Democratic voters felt the field of candidates was excellent or good; as many (47%) said the candidates were only fair or poor.

In the current survey, conservative Republicans and GOP-leaning independents express more positive opinions of the presidential field than do moderates or liberals (56% excellent or good vs. 43%). In January 2008, 70% of conservatives and 64% of moderates and liberals said the GOP candidates as a group were excellent or good.

It is rather remarkable that the GOP wasn’t able to field a better set of candidates. Looking at the raw economic and political indicators, President Obama should be in serious danger of losing in 2012. One would think this would have encouraged better candidates to step forward, but few did. The limited number of candidates that initially seemed acceptable to the GOP on paper, like Rick Perry and Tim Pawlenty, managed to implode quickly.

Looking at this poll I can understand why some rival campaigns call Romney a very weak frontrunner; the attack seems to resonate. Personally though I find this tactic extremely revealing. While it is probably true that Romney is, historically speaking, a weak leading candidate, what does it say about the quality of rival candidacies that this “weak” Romney is still managing to beat them so easily?

It appears Mitt Romney is on track to winning, not because he is a great candidate, but simply because he managed to be the best of a rather pathetic lot.

Sec. Timothy Geithner oversaw TARP (photo: TalkMediaNews via Flickr)

Along with Dean Baker and a few others, I’ve been fighting a lonely crusade against those who insist that TARP “made money.”

First of all, TARP wasn’t even the bailout, it represented about 2% of all emergency programs provided to banks. Second, the banks paying the money back they got at 0% interest and could lend out at 3% interest isn’t really an amazing scenario. Third, TARP wasn’t just supposed to save the financial system, it was supposed to restart lending and fix the housing mess, and on that score it failed miserably. But none of this usually gets factored into the bumper-sticker claims about TARP.

But if critics can’t get a hearing on this, perhaps the Government Accountability Office can. In a new report, the GAO faults Treasury for constantly shifting the goalposts on how they report that “profit” from TARP. It’s a slightly different argument, but one that highlights how this illusion of a successful TARP lies in manipulation of the numbers. This is from the executive summary:

Although Treasury regularly reports on the cost of TARP programs and has enhanced such reporting over time, GAO’s analysis of Treasury press releases about specific programs indicate that information about estimated lifetime costs and income are included only when programs are expected to result in lifetime income. For example, Treasury issued a press release for its bank investment programs, including CPP, and noted that the programs would result in lifetime income, or profit. However, press releases for investments in AIG, a program that is anticipated to result in a lifetime cost to Treasury, did not include program-specific cost information. Although press releases for programs expected to result in a cost to Treasury provide useful transaction information, they exclude lifetime, program-specific cost estimates.

Everyone puts their best foot forward, right? Only this has a damaging impact. Pretending that TARP brought back benefits to the taxpayer isn’t just about defending that action, but preparing for the next one. Future bailouts will be justified by the ability of Treasury to win profits through TARP. Except that’s not what happened at all.

As Yves Smith points out, GAO went after the specific problem with TARP – that policymakers lent money with one hand and made sure banks could get rich with the other, which devalues the “success” of the banks being able to lend back. And that has a serious cost.

While Treasury can measure and report direct costs, indirect costs associated with the moral hazard created by the government’s intervention in the private sector are more difficult to measure and assess.

That’s about as close as you’re going to get to government bureaucrats calling bullshit on their colleagues.

The entire report is available in a PDF. Ultimately, GAO recommends that Treasury “enhance” their communications by “consistently including information on estimated lifetime costs, especially when reporting on program results.” That’s actually a pretty narrow recommendation. It should also demand that reporting on “costs” of bailout programs consider the entire range of largesse provided in that bailout, not just the narrow sliver that makes Treasury look good.

Incidentally, GAO does discover that Treasury promised $45.6 billion for housing programs, mainly HAMP, and almost three years after the announcement they’ve spent $2.4 billion. And Treasury is throwing a time bomb into the proceedings: they continue to assert that all $45.6 billion will get spent. When it doesn’t, they will claim to have “saved” billions of dollars through TARP, without telling you that the savings came by not using the allocated housing money that is desperately needed.

Occupy Pittsburgh Day of Solidarity Poster

As Occupy Supply liaison RF Shunt posted a couple days ago, Occupy Pittsburgh has called for a day of action and solidarity today against their impending eviction from People’s Park.

The occupation was sued by Bank of New York Mellon on December 9th in an attempt to evict protesters from People’s Park in downtown Pittsburgh. BNY Mellon – which took $3 billion in TARP bailouts from the public – claims ownership over the public park even though it was built with taxpayer subsidies.

This morning was Occupy Pittsburgh’s preliminary injunction hearing, and they have planned a big demonstration outside the City-County Building in downtown Pittsburgh starting at 3:30PM. The group will then march on BNY Mellon and onto People’s Park to protest the lawsuit and their eviction.

The best remedy to stop an eviction is an outpouring of support from the community. It’s a lot harder to evict an occupation when the community openly values its presence and demands it stays. One of the ways Occupy Pittsburgh tried to show they deserve to stay in People’s Park was by disclosing their finances, including the amount of support they received from Occupy Supply (emphasis mine):

In one of the first public accountings of money that the Occupy group has spent, court filings said that Occupy Pittsburgh members donated $1,453 towards winterization efforts and received $5,070 worth of winter gear, including clothing and a sleeping bag from Occupy Supply, a national organization that disperses supplies to Occupy movements across the country. The group also said it spent $780 on a mess tent and shelving and storage for the cold-weather gear.

Occupy Pittsburgh chose to disclose its finances not only as a gesture towards transparency but to show that they are being responsible about health and have received overwhelming support for the community. One of the most common arguments used to evict protesters has been that their encampments threaten health and safety in the community and that occupiers are not prepared for winter weather. Occupy Supply and the support of the Pittsburgh community is demonstrating otherwise.

If you live in the Pittsburgh area, please consider heading down to the City-County Building at 3:30pm to show you support keeping Occupy Pittsburgh in People’s Park.

UPDATE: I forgot to note: Erie is doing something similar, using Occupy Supply to show city officials that they are part of a national support network that openly supports their efforts and is committed to shepherding them safely through the winter months and beyond. Check out liaison Mark H’s post on his visit to Erie City Council.

Occupy Pittsburgh’s full statement can be found here, and I’ve copied our email to supporters below the fold. [cont'd]