in their own words
 |
|
|
|
 TARP Cover for the Auto Industry - White House Press Briefing by Dana Perino 11/17/08 — Monday, November 17, 2008 —  Q You've repeated over the last 10 days your opposition to funding anything for the auto industry out of the TARP program. Are you opposed to Congress amending that so that monies in that program could go to the auto industry? MS. PERINO: I don't think we think it would be necessary to do so when we already have a program with monies, $25 billion, appropriated specifically for the auto industry. The TARP funding is there for financial institutions. It was -- Congress never intended for individual industries to be able to come forward to -- Q And what if they change their mind? MS. PERINO: Well, I think that what they should be able to do is -- look, there's not an appetite in Congress, or in the administration, to open up the TARP funding for individual industries, because once you start down that road, it's a slippery slope to other industries that might say that they need help. But we do have an entire pot of money, $25 billion, that the auto -- that is specifically for the automakers. And we also know that opening up the TARP will not get through the Senate. Therefore, to avoid partisan gridlock, what we are recommending is to work hand in hand on a program that would simply amend the 136 program and help companies that can show long-term viability and a willingness to restructure. Q Would you guys veto? MS. PERINO: I think it's too early to say since we haven't even seen their legislation. It's too early to say. Q Dana, on that viability point, regardless of where the money comes from, whether it's TARP or the Department of Energy, it's still taxpayer money. Is that a good investment? Are the automakers a good investment? MS. PERINO: Well, I think that's another thing to remember, which is that the TARP program was specifically designed to help taxpayers get a return on their investment. This is monies that we are investing into companies. We are providing capital. And it has to be paid back. There is no direct subsidy that we are suggesting in the TARP. The Treasury Department has been making decisions based on what they think will at least make the taxpayers whole, if not help us get a return on that investment. When we're talking about the auto industry, and while we haven't seen the Democrats' proposal yet, it doesn't seem that would be the case, that the taxpayers would actually be paid back. But when we're talking about viability, what we mean is that a company needs to be able to show that they have long-term plans, so that they will be on -- have sound financing, and not have a vicious cycle of getting back into this situation again. One of the reasons that we agreed to go forward with the 136 program was to allow the companies to have access to a stream of funds to help them retool their factories so that they could build more fuel-efficient cars, which is what consumers of today are looking for. But in addition to that, the automakers have over time made some decisions based on their needs for their employees, and some of those decisions might have to be reworked, going forward. So they're going to have to be able to show how they can survive. If you look at their ability to compete worldwide -- we think that our companies can compete, but they're not going to be able to do so unless they make some of these really tough decisions. Q So are you saying they should get rid of pensions or health care provisions? MS. PERINO: It's going to be up to the companies to decide how best to -- how they can best compete in the world and show viability. We're not going to get into dictating that. Q But are you willing to let one or all of these three big automakers go under? MS. PERINO: Our position is that we want these companies to succeed. We have figured out a way to provide them funds so that they are able to do that. And we think that there is a bipartisan path that we could get this done very quickly this week and avoid that. Q But at the same time that you say that, you also are saying that they don't measure up to the viability standard, which -- MS. PERINO: But they might, and they might -- and if they can show that they can have a long-term -- that they have a long-term plan so that they are viable, then that would be taken into consideration. Q And so what is the next move for the administration to, you know, close the gap between you guys and the Democrats? MS. PERINO: Well, we're waiting for them to get back in town. We're waiting -- we haven't even seen their proposal. They've talked sort of around a proposal this week, but until we see it, it's really hard to react to it. And then we'll continue to work with our Republican colleagues as well to see if we can forge an agreement and get something done early this week. Automobile Industry | Congress | Dana Perino | Economy | Press Briefing | TARP | White House Press Corps Labels: Automobile Industry, Congress, Dana Perino, Economy, Press Briefing, TARP, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 6:55:00 PM
|
|
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
< whpc home