Today -- Sunday, October 3, 2010 -- marks the official end of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, better known as TARP. As you may recall, TARP was signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 3, 2008, at the height of the U.S. financial meltdown triggered by the subprime mortgage crisis. The original plan was to authorize up to $700 billion in spending to buy up (surprise, surprise) "troubled" assets, which included those bad mortgages and other questionable financial instruments. As it turned out, the government ended up spending nowhere near $700 billion, and in July of this year, the Dodd-Frank Act put a cap of $475 billion on TARP.

Whether or not you are a fan of TARP -- or of the numerous financial institutions and businesses that were bailed out using TARP funds (see this link for a great graphic of who got the funds) -- many economists believe that the program did indeed achieve its intended goal of stabilizing the U.S. economy in a time of great uncertainty. In fact, while it was originally expected that TARP would lose $356 billion, it now appears that the loss will amount to "only" about $50 billion.

But does this mean that we should rely on the government to bail out every unprofitable business, and every troubled industry? The answer is clearly no. I agree with my colleague Kathy Allen that President Obama's recent signing of the $30 Small Business Jobs Act is a big mistake. Small businesses don't need more loans, they need more customers buying more of their goods and services. And the quickest way to raise demand is for their customers to have more discretionary income. This outcome can be the direct result of lower taxes.

While neither of the two major political parties in this country has a very good track record of financial austerity over the past couple of decades, I for one am very interested in seeing which party the American People decide to put their hope in during the upcoming midterm elections. I'll be up late on the night of November 2, watching the election returns roll in.