(Thumbnail image: HispanicBusiness.com)

"With respect to TARP specifically, I think you saw stories today, and you've seen stories over the last several weeks, that TARP has turned out to be much cheaper than we had expected, although not cheap." (CNBC)

The Obama Administration is planning to cut $200 billion from the Troubled Asset Relief Fund, also known as TARP. Media sources highlight the potential of the federal government using TARP savings to create more jobs.

Some say using the money that way is a good investment. Others argue it would be better to not spend any money at all, instead using the TARP improvements to lessen the growing deficit.

We're looking at multiple perspectives on what should happen with TARP savings from CNBC, FOX News, Canada's The Globe and Mail, and MSNBC.

First, director of Financial Regulation from CATO Institute tells CNBC using unallocated TARP funds to create jobs would be another ineffective spending program.

"A lot of this just seems to be ok, we're angry having bailed out the banks, so let's just use this as cover. If we get another jobs program that works like the magnificent stimulus did, then there's no reason to do it. So I think the TARP should be separated; I think the TARP was a mistake in the first place, and the way to minimize that mistake is to pay the money back for the deficit."

But an outreach coordinator from the Economic Policy Institute tells FOX News  that tapping into TARP to help create more jobs is a smart move for the Obama administration. He says TARP was initially supposed to create jobs, and it's about time that money does its job.

"Remember that a key portion of TARP was destined to do was not only to keep the financial system from crashing, check we've done that, but it was also to get the financial system lending again so that we could create jobs, and it's failed on that front. So it only makes sense, given 10 percent unemployment, to take those unallocated funds and use them in an efficient way to create jobs."

Canada's The Globe And Mail has the perspective that reallocating TARP savings won't help the Obama administration in the long-run for reforming Wall Street.

"The bad news is it's harder for the administration to push its hard line on long-term changes in the culture of banker pay when the industry is rapidly becoming less beholden to the government."

Finally, MSNBC talks to a Washington Post reporter who has the broader perspective that both Congress and the White House don't want to deal with TARP anymore. But he says it's certain the program will continue through 2010.

"Basically it would be the strategy by the Obama administration to say we're going to extend the life of TARP, an enormously unpopular program. But to make it slightly more palatable, we're going to take these $2 million from it and pay down the deficit."

So how do you think savings from the federal bailout fund should be used? Is it better to lower the naitonal deficit or use it as spending money to create more jobs?

Writer: Jess Blumensheid

Producer: Zach Wade