It started with a Wall Street Journal story from yesterday that said the White House either is considering not spending all of the TARP money that remains unspent or doesn't think it's going to need to spend the funds because the situation is improving faster than expected.  As a result, it may be able to lower the projected 2010 deficit and the amount the government will have to borrow.  Here's the money quote:

Agreeing not to spend a certain amount of TARP money will enable the White House, in its budget projections, to assume less money out the door and, therefore, less debt issued. The move would also reduce the deficit by an unknown amount since a certain level of spending and borrowing is already factored into estimated future deficits. (Italics are mine).

Over at his Reuters blog, Jimmy Pethokoukis has been subjected to the same type of personal comments attack that CG&G's own Bruce Bartlett did for taking a similar position as Bruce on Rep. Ron Paul's proposal to have the GAO audit the Federal Reserve's monetary policy operations.  After looking at the comments, it's hard not to conclude that this was a coordinated assault (calling it a "response" would be far too mild).  In fact, many of the comments use remarkably similar language.

(Like Jimmy P's blog, CG&G moderates the comments it receives and some of the most vicious responses to Bruce's post were deleted.  We love comments that further the discussion, but those that are vile never see the light of day.)