Two new independent reports peg available resources in the government’s Troubled Asset Relief Program at just over $100 billion — with one report saying the Treasury still has more than $370 billion in unspent TARP cash on hand.

The amount is important: Analysts and lawmakers are questioning whether the government will have enough TARP funding to finish stabilizing the financial system — especially after results from the government’s bank “stress tests” are released later this month; the results may require the Treasury to invest more capital in banks. Treasury also may need to spend more for auto makers, life insurance companies and other industries that comes knocking on its door for help. “I don’t think you can tell if it’s enough to finish the job because they don’t think we know how big the job is,” said Karen Petrou, managing partner of Federal Financial Analytics, a research firm in Washington, D.C. “The [government] stress tests for the top 20 banks are still incomplete and then once we get those results, we still aren’t sure what Treasury’s going to do with them.”

As a taxpayer, you and your children (and their children) are already financing the banking bailout. But the White House hopes you’ll pitch in a little more. NYT reports that the administration is pushing for the bailout equivalent of war bonds — funds that households would invest in out of some sense of patriotic duty.

Specifically, private individuals would be asked to invest in a fund that buys up distressed mortgage assets, holds them, and eventually (ideally) pays the investor a positive return.

It’s just like PPIP, but without the leverage offered to the big boys! Frankly, it sounds like a bunch of marketing hoo-ha. If the PPIP and the rest of the bailout schemes can’t bring the banks to health, then tell people it’s their patriotic duty to invest in these funds and contribute more to the cleansing of bank balance sheets.

Steven A. Baffico, an executive at Blackrock, offers a lovely quote that should some it all up: “This is an opportunity to forge an alliance between Main Street, Wall Street and K Street.” If that kind of talk from a Blackrock exec doesn’t set your internal alarm bells off, nothing will.

In a statement, the agency confirmed that certain life insurers are eligible to receive an unspecified amount of the money that remains from October’s $700 billion Wall Street rescue program. The transfer of the money is expected soon. ‘

‘There are a number of life insurers who met the requirements for the Capital Purchase Program because of their thrift or bank holding company status. These companies applied within the appropriate deadline,” said Andrew Williams, a Treasury spokesman, in a statement.

The $218 billion program was created as part of October’s bailout and is designed to help bolster the balance sheets of financial institutions.

The US Treasury is expected to issue rules today that would permit mutually owned banks – smaller banks that are numerous in Massachusetts – to participate in the government’s $700 bailout fund. Until now, only publicly owned banks that issue stock have been able to take government investments in exchange for capital. The Treasury, at the urging of US Representative Barney Frank, the Newton Democrat who chairs the House Financial Services Committee, is making accommodations so that mutual banks, owned by their customers, can take such investments, according to a person briefed on the plan. It’s unclear how many mutuals need the capital and will take advantage of a new program.

(By Beth Healy, Globe staff)

The TARP cost projection was raised due to changes in financial market conditions, new transactions and a shift in expected timing of payments, the CBO said. The Treasury Department announced plans to use some of the money to help avoid home foreclosures and made new deals with Bank of America and American International Group. Those programs involved higher subsidy rates than previously estimated, the report said. Congress passed the Wall Street bailout program in October with the goal of stabilizing banks and reassuring jittery markets.

(Reporting by Lisa Richwine; Editing by Jackie Frank)

Citing unnamed government officials and sources, the newspaper said the congressional restrictions in question include limits on executive pay.Experts at the Obama administration have concluded that this approach is vital for persuading firms to participate in programs funded by the 700-billion-dollar financial rescue package, the report said.

The administration believes it can sidestep the rules because, in many cases, it has decided not to provide federal aid directly to financial companies, the paper said.Instead, the government has set up special entities that act as middlemen, channeling the bailout funds to the firms and, via this two-step process, stripping away the requirement that the restrictions be imposed, The Post reported.

Although experts are questioning the legality of this strategy, the officials said it gives them wide latitude to determine whether firms should be subject to the congressional restrictions, the paper noted.

Last Updated: April 4, 2009 03:09 EDT

Former AIG CEO Maurice “Hank” Greenberg told a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Thursday that the government bailout of AIG is a failure.

In a prepared statement, Greenberg said:

“That plan has failed. A successful liquidation is impossible in the present economic climate since buyers for AIG assets at fair prices simply do not exist at this time. Fire-sale prices will bring taxpayers, who now own almost 80 percent of AIG, only pennies on the dollar for their investment in AIG.

“Since the day the treasury announced its plan to liquidate AIG, value has been destroyed because AIG’s people and their relationships — AIG’s business — are leaving. The evidence is overwhelming and indisputable that the American taxpayer is an investor in a steadily diminishing asset.”

Greenberg came to Congress with a 10-point plan to fix and rebuild AIG. He advocated reducing government ownership in AIG, splitting off the Financial Products division and asking the banks who received billions in payments from AIG, due to the bad bets of the Financial Products division, to return some of the money in exchange for equity in the company.

Greenberg also reiterated his denial for any wrongdoing on his part in the financial fiasco. He blamed the management who succeeded him after his resignation, as the result of fraud charges, from the company on March 14, 2005. He said the Financial Product group went off on a “tangent,” and in nine months booked more than double the amount of contracts for financial products, of lower quality, than it had in the past seven years.

“You would have thought that somebody should have called a halt until it regained its AAA rating and would slow down materially or discontinue,” he said. The lowering of AIG’s credit rating triggered the payouts to financial institutions that brought down the company.

“AIG did not have a solvency problem, it has a liquidity problem,” Greenberg added. AIG’s current management issued a statement contesting the 83-year-old Greenberg’s claim of innocence. “Given that Hank Greenberg led AIG into the credit default swap business, has repeatedly refused to testify under oath about a transaction he initiated when he was still AIG’s CEO, and is being investigated by the SEC and the Justice Department, we don’t understand how he can be viewed as having any credibility on any AIG issue.”

Daniel Farber is Editor-in-Chief of CBSNews.com