in their own words
 |
|
|
|
 I Think There Was Just A Reference To The Larger Number - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 9/10/09 — Thursday, September 10, 2009 —  Q A couple of "specifics" questions. I noticed last night the President said 30 million or more than 30 million American citizens lack insurance and I was struck by that figure, commonly used figure -- the one the Census Bureau used today was 46 million people without insurance.MR. GIBBS: Forty-six point three, right. Q Right. So why did the President limit it to 36 million -- or 30 million citizens? Was this a way to draw a distinction between American citizens and those who are illegal immigrants and the subject of contention, or what -- MR. GIBBS: Obviously this has been a point of some contention during the speech, as I recall. Q Right. So -- MR. GIBBS: The legislation -- the proposal that the President outlined covers American citizens. I think he was clear for almost everyone that the legislation does not cover -- his plan would not cover illegal immigrants. If you subtract a rough estimate from that 46.3 million, you get a number that's somewhat unknown but in the 30s that represents American citizens, as the President pointed out. I would go one step further to point out that last night was not the first time that the President has talked about the fact that illegal immigrants aren't covered -- or would not be covered as part of his plan. He said that most recently in the interview -- radio interview that was done here, and said that also in the campaign in 2008. Q So in effect he's saying that a quarter or more of the people who currently lack insurance will still lack insurance once the plan is passed, is that correct? MR. GIBBS: Well, again, I don't know -- Q -- many uninsured people in this country presumably driving up health care costs. Is that correct? MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the President would look at -- because he's -- would look at how many American citizens are covered under our proposal, rather than looking at different numbers that don't include American citizens. Q What I'm asking, though, is it then his vision that there could still be at the end of the day as many as, say, 16 million people living in this country without health insurance who -- MR. GIBBS: Again, I don't think it's -- the President outlined a plan that doesn't cover illegal immigrants. The number that the President seeks to cover is to provide universal access to coverage for American citizens. I think you heard the President even discuss last night that there are going to be some American citizens who decide they don't want or don't need health insurance that are also going to be living here. Q Robert, what's the reasoning behind that? Obviously some concerns among conservative Republicans about this have to do with that you're not legislating the negative here, you're not adding -- you know, passing this amendment, I guess, that they want to triple-check that there's no way illegal -- I mean, why not go along with that if that assuages -- MR. GIBBS: Well, Chuck, I think -- Q What is the legal reason -- MR. GIBBS: Let me just give you this example. I got how many questions for how many weeks about why the President hasn't offered his views on the legislation, right? How come he hasn't introduced his plan? We did that last night. The President said in his plan it wouldn't cover illegal immigrants. Q So if it takes throwing an amendment on this, you guys are okay with that? MR. GIBBS: The President -- the legislation that the President will sign won't cover illegal immigrants. Q But in the past he has used the larger number, so then they were including illegal immigrants? MR. GIBBS: I think there was just a reference to the larger number. Q But you knew that included a very large number, millions of illegal immigrants. So isn't it logical for people to assume that for a long time you were including illegal immigrants in people you want to get health insurance? MR. GIBBS: No, no more than I would assume the logic of them having listened to what he said in the campaign where it's not going to happen. Q Well, Robert, Joe Wilson this morning said -- defended his outburst by saying that illegal immigrants could still buy money on the federal exchange. MR. GIBBS: Again, Jonathan, let me -- let me use the example -- Q Can you -- MR. GIBBS: No, no, no, no. Let me -- because I stood up here and caught a lot of spears for a lot of days about where the President's plan was. It was delivered last night -- 10 minutes after 8:00 p.m., zip code 20015, the President outlined and reiterated his belief, as enunciated in the campaign in 2008, that his plan wouldn't cover illegal immigrants. Q So are you saying -- MR. GIBBS: I'm not going to get into -- I'm not a member of the House. Q Right, but his -- look, in his plan, would he say that an illegal immigrant could not take money out of his pocket, go on the federal exchange, and buy an insurance policy with his money? MR. GIBBS: The policy would not cover -- the plan would not cover illegal immigrants, period. Q I think the question is the House bill, for instance, 3200, explicitly says that none of the subsidies can go to people who are in this country illegally. MR. GIBBS: Right. Q Right, but some -- what some of the criticisms, and what the Congressional Research Service analysis says of it, is that people who are illegal, as John points out, are able to buy insurance, as they already do -- MR. GIBBS: I can't speak for somebody that's here illegally. But I would think it would be somewhat of a bad course of events, if you're here illegally, to alert people that you are here illegally and sign up for a government program. Q Just to put the dot on that, I mean, there are illegal immigrants who are covered by emergency Medicaid all the time -- millions. MR. GIBBS: As a result of I think a 1986 law that was signed by President Reagan. Q Right. But the House bill -- MR. GIBBS: The last time Congress took up immigration reform, in 1986. Q The House bill would expand Medicaid, and that could lead to expansion of emergency Medicaid that would cover, possibly -- MR. GIBBS: Again, the proposal -- Q This is what I'm asking -- so when you say that illegal immigrants will not be covered, does that mean they can't be covered by any expansion in emergency Medicaid; they can't buy into the health exchange? MR. GIBBS: Again, again, let me check with the health care guys on how this would affect the 1986 law. But they would not be covered under the health care exchange in the proposal -- Q And they can't -- right, they can't -- they would be prohibited from buying insurance through the exchange? MR. GIBBS: As I understand that, yes. Health Care | Illegal Immigration | Legislation | President Obama | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | White House Press Corps Labels: Health Care, Illegal Immigration, Legislation, President Obama, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 7:50:00 PM  The Problem Is Obama Isn't Listening Enough - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 9/8/09 — Tuesday, September 08, 2009 —  Q Robert, there's a story on Politico, based on a speech that Steve Hildebrand, one of the President's former campaign advisors, delivered a couple of weeks ago over the recess, in which he expressed some concern on health care and other issues. And among other things he said that he believes the President needs to be "more bold in his leadership," that he's frustrated with the lack of performance in Washington in general, not just at the White House but Congress, as well. And specifically he said, "The problem is Obama isn't listening enough." How do you react to that kind of criticism from somebody who was a campaign insider?MR. GIBBS: Well, look, we all know and love Steve Hildebrand. He was there for longer than the campaign. He was involved in the President's decision-making on whether to run. I think Steve said in that article, and it's true, because he's talked to a lot of us, there's nothing in there that we haven’t all heard from him. But, look, I think Steve's frustration is the frustration of people not only in this town, but a lot of people outside of this town, and that is Washington's inability to address its big problems and get something done. That's what led the President to run for President and that's what led him to fight for reforming health care. Q But he's specifically saying the President is not being bold enough. MR. GIBBS: Well, I'll e-mail Steve and tell him which affiliate in Sioux Falls will be covering the speech so he can listen to the President. But, look, Ed, nothing that we haven’t gotten personally from Steve on our e-mail before. Health Care | Legislation | President Obama | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | White House Press Corps Labels: Health Care, Legislation, President Obama, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 9:46:00 PM By Any Legislative Means Necessary - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 8/20/09 — Thursday, August 20, 2009 —  Q The spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said that while they intent to -- their hope is that it will be a bipartisan health care reform effort, they will get health care reform accomplished "by any legislative means necessary." And I'm wondering if you could walk us through -- obviously people in the White House have been talking to each other, strategizing about different ways that this can be done. First of all, could you comment on today's Wall Street Journal story about the discussions about possibly splitting up the bill? But also, what are the thoughts -- obviously we all know that your intention is that it be a bipartisan bill, but beyond that what are you planning for?MR. GIBBS: I said this this morning. I have -- I read the story in the Journal. I've tried to get guidance from people. I have not been able to, largely because many people we get that from are on vacation. We'll try to get you better guidance on that in terms of splitting up bills. Q Jon, if you could give Robert the numbers? (Laughter.) Q That would be good. MR. GIBBS: I mean, Jonathan's story also had in there that the President was going to meet with advisors next week on this, and as I said in the gaggle this morning, unless that is a meeting that includes Marvin on a golf course, that's -- Q I did not say that. MR. GIBBS: Can somebody go get me the newspaper Q That was not supposed to be on the budget. That was just supposed to be on the -- MR. GIBBS: Maybe Jonathan could clear it up for both of us. (Laughter.) Q Are you going to take questions? (Laughter.) MR. GIBBS: Sounds like he needs to. (Laughter.) No, let me discuss a little bit -- obviously, our focus, as I said yesterday, is on continuing this process in a bipartisan fashion. You heard the President say that again today. He's reached out and spoken with members of Congress, including members of the Finance Committee over the past several days. Q Republican members of Congress? MR. GIBBS: Yes. He talked with Senator Olympia Snowe yesterday, talked with Senator Conrad yesterday, and, as we've discussed, talked with Senator Baucus on Friday. That's our focus, is continuing to work this in a bipartisan way. I know the six senators on the Finance Committee have a conference call slated, according I think even to Jonathan's report and others, that -- have a conference call on that tonight. Q Does the White House have a presence on that conference call? MR. GIBBS: Not that I'm aware of, no. I think this is part of the regular negotiating sessions that they've had that we have not taken part in. I am trying to get the extent to which conversations have been had here looking into what possibilities are next. I talked to the President briefly about it, and all he said was our focus was on doing something in a bipartisan way. Q Do you agree with what Jim Manley said about by any legislative means necessary -- obviously, bipartisan being the hope and the priority, but you're going to get this done? MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the President has said on a number of occasions that -- excellent, thank you. (Laughter.) Q Wow. Q What is that? MR. GIBBS: That's one, yes. You don't recognize a newspaper, Chuck? (Laughter.) And all he did was mention to me that our focus was on doing so in a bipartisan way. I think he'll continue even when he's out next week to talk to members of Congress, including additional members of the Finance Committee, including Republicans. Q He also said they -- Republicans conspired during the Clinton administration to defeat any health legislation. He indicated they might be doing the same. What do you think is going to break through that? And why do you need them? MR. GIBBS: Well, as I said yesterday, we take people seriously that say they're working and want to work on a bipartisan result for health care reform. I don't think the President is under any illusions that he's going to get every Republican to sign up for his ideas. The HELP Committee approved a piece of legislation with nearly 200 Republican amendments that had been added to it. I think he continues to be hopeful that we can continue to make progress, and until we see otherwise, that's what our focus is. Q Even if all the Republicans are against it? MR. GIBBS: Well, again, we take at face value that people have -- that Republicans that you read about in the newspaper are interested in working on a bipartisan solution to reform the problems that we all understand in health care. Bipartisanship | Congress | Health Care | Legislation | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | White House Press Corps Labels: Bipartisanship, Congress, Health Care, Legislation, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 5:53:00 PM What The President Always Maintained - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 8/19/09 — Wednesday, August 19, 2009 —  Q There are others inside and outside your base who think you've lost control of the argument and who wonder if the President has the political muscle to see this through.MR. GIBBS: Stay tuned. Q Well, I mean, would you -- how do you respond to the suggestion that you’ve lost control of the argument? MR. GIBBS: This is -- the argument is not over. The discussion is not over, the debate is not over, the legislative process isn’t over. Q You didn’t expect to have this back-and-forth within the party about the public option. MR. GIBBS: Again, contrived almost entirely by you guys. Q Why, why do you say that? MR. GIBBS: Again, because I said this this morning -- that this notion of changing the position on the public health care plan, or the public option, was -- Q Is absolutely wrong? MR. GIBBS: -- was not something that any of you all picked up on Saturday when the President said it. We did this this morning. None of you did that story. Q Why don't you say it flatly right now so we'll all write it? MR. GIBBS: Do you have your pen ready? Q Yes. Q What do you mean, what do you mean no one did that story on Saturday -- MR. GIBBS: "The President" -- Q Right here. Q -- when the President for the first time in public said -- or not -- MR. GIBBS: I missed yours. Q There was a lot of people that did this story. MR. GIBBS: I'll be happy to look that up. Nobody volunteered that this morning. Q So he's not going to cave at all? MR. GIBBS: No, I'm going to reiterate what the President has said all along, Helen. The President believes we have to have choice and competition. In a private insurance market where people are entering, they have to have the ability to choose among insurers that will drive down their costs and improve their quality. His preference is for a public option. If there are others that have ideas about how we can institute choice and competition, he's happy to look at those. Q Will he fight for the public option? MR. GIBBS: We will fight for whatever is best that brings about that choice and competition. That's what the President always maintained and that's what we've continued to say. Health Care | Legislation | President Obama | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | White House Press Corps Labels: Health Care, Legislation, President Obama, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 5:37:00 PM Gibbs Doublethink - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 8/18/09  Q What's been the response so far to the suggestion that the health care reform might not include a public option? I mean, is it winning any converts? Is it angering supporters?MR. GIBBS: First part of the question again? Q What's been the response so far, what kind of feedback to the suggestion in recent days that a public option might not be part of the health care reform? MR. GIBBS: Well, as I've said, now, yesterday and earlier today, the President -- his position, the administration's position is unchanged; that we have a goal of fostering choice and competition in a private health insurance market. The President prefers the public option as a way of doing that. If others have ideas, we're open to those ideas and willing to listen to those details. That's what the President has said for months. Coincidentally that's what the Secretary of Health and Human Services has said for months. It's what I've said for months. I think the suggestion somehow that anything that was said Saturday or Sunday as being new administration policy is just not something that I would agree with. Q There seems to have been a lot of people -- a lot of people took it as kind of floating a trial balloon, maybe looking for -- MR. GIBBS: Meaning the media. Q Well, no, your supporters -- some of your supporters in Congress actually do read it as a change. And in fact, Robert, if you look at what the President said to the AMA on June 15th, he said, "The public option is not your enemy. It is your friend." He's not saying that anymore. MR. GIBBS: What do you mean? Q He's no longer proactively -- forgetting about what he's leaving in or out. Let's just say he's proactively saying -- MR. GIBBS: Ed, you -- Q Can I finish my question? MR. GIBBS: No, I'll finish my answer first. Q Okay, go ahead. MR. GIBBS: The President was clear in two questions that he received at the town hall meeting on Saturday about the public option. The second question, which was a man in a red shirt over on the right-hand side, asked about the public option, and then the second-to-last question, the guy -- about the debate -- in the second or third row right off the podium, had the same question. Let me read this to you, Ed. This is -- you'll notice -- let me just read -- Secretary Sebelius, July 12th, 2009: "I think you're going to hear from senators in a little while about a variety of strategies to get to a public option. This isn't one size fits all. I think the President has said we could have competition -- the issues of competition and choice and how to bring that into the private marketplace. There are probably a variety of strategies, all of which are on the table." Any guess on what network that was on? Q I'm assuming it was on CNN, but on Sunday she was also on CNN -- MR. GIBBS: A very correct assumption. Q Okay. So on Sunday she was also on CNN and said that the public option is not the essential part of health reform. She didn't say that on July 12th or whenever you picked that out. And in -- on June 15th to the AMA, repeatedly the President proactively said, you know, the public option was the way to go, and said the public -- MR. GIBBS: I just said it was the preferred option. I just said it was the preferred option. But what I think -- Q But then why did he on Saturday say, if there is a public option or there's not, and then the Secretary on Sunday says it's not the essential part -- MR. GIBBS: No, no, the President said that on Saturday. Q Right, I said on Saturday, he said if there is one or not one -- he hasn't said that before. Well, answer that one part before you get -- he had not said if there is one or there is not one. He's not said that -- MR. GIBBS: The President said -- the President has said repeatedly that he's open to different ideas and discussions; that his preferred option was the public plan. He said that on Saturday. He said that on -- he said that on Saturday. I said that on Sunday. Secretary Sebelius on your network said that on Sunday. This notion that somehow something is markedly changed -- let's understand, first of all -- I want to step back just for one second and discuss -- because we threw around the notions of choice and competition. Let's discuss why you need choice and competition. In an insurance market where 30 million or 40 million or 46 million new participants or consumers could come into the marketplace, in a marketplace that's potentially dominated by, in some regions or areas of the country, one insurer dominating the market -- my home state of Alabama, BlueCross/BlueShield has roughly 89 percent of the private health insurance market, okay? We all understand that in a monopoly, where one side dominates the entire market, it's going to be hard to keep down costs, right? If you had one place to eat lunch before you came to the briefing, do you think it would be cheap? Q Probably not. MR. GIBBS: Probably not. If you had two places to eat, my sense is competing dishes might not be as expensive as if there were only one. The notion of adding that consumer choice through greater competition is the goal that the President has always said has to be paramount. When he talks about the essentialness of health care reform, okay, let's understand the principles that he's put up there, right? We have to cut costs for families and small businesses. That's essential. It has to be deficit-neutral. That's essential. What's essential is ensuring that we provide accessibility in health care reform to millions of those who don't currently have it. Q So when you say a public option is now the President's preferred choice, has been and is his preferred choice, is it -- MR. GIBBS: I'm not just saying that now, I'm saying -- Q Okay. MR. GIBBS: -- I said that repeatedly; the President has said that repeatedly. Q Okay, so is the public option an essential part of health reform? MR. GIBBS: I think the President answered that on Saturday. Q So it's yes. So why did -- MR. GIBBS: No, no, no, no, no. Q Why did the Health Secretary say no on Sunday? MR. GIBBS: What did the President say on Saturday? Q So it is essential. MR. GIBBS: No, no, no, no, no. What did the President -- Q It is essential. The Secretary said Sunday it's not. MR. GIBBS: Ed, Ed, what did the President say on Sunday? Or Saturday? Q Saturday he spoke positively about a public option but also said we could have or -- we may have it, we may not have it. MR. GIBBS: I think he used the word "essential." Q I'll have to go back and see if he used the word "essential." MR. GIBBS: You go back and look at the transcript -- Q So let's say, let's say -- I don't have the transcript, but if he did use the word "essential" on Saturday, why did his Health Secretary not use the word "essential" on Sunday? MR. GIBBS: They said the same thing on Saturday as they did on Sunday. Go back and look at the transcript, Ed. I think you'll find -- Q If it's essential, why did she say it's not? You can't answer that. MR. GIBBS: Go find the transcript, and I promise you you'll answer your question and wonder why you were phrasing it the way you did because, no offense, Ed, you seem to have heard what the Secretary said on Sunday but not what the President said on Saturday. Q I heard what he said. MR. GIBBS: Well, go back and take a gander at the transcript. Health Care | Legislation | Obama Administration | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | White House Press Corps Labels: Health Care, Legislation, Obama Administration, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 8:28:00 AM A Boring Consistency To Our Rhetoric - Air Force One Press Gaggle by Robert Gibbs 8/17/09 — Tuesday, August 18, 2009 —  Q Public option -- is it dead or not?MR. GIBBS: I got to tell you, this is one of the more curious things I've ever seen in my life. I was on a Sunday show, I said the same thing about a public option that I've said for I don't know how many weeks. The Secretary reiterated what the President said the day before, and you'd think there was some new policy. Q The language appeared to be -- MR. GIBBS: The language "appeared" to be? Q Well, the language on Saturday -- the President made -- saying that the public option was only a sliver, and whether it's in it or it isn't in it seems to move the ball a little bit from where you guys were. No? MR. GIBBS: No. I think you can go back and find the President saying -- look, the President has said that's his preference, but the President has also said I don't know how many times if the goals are choice and competition, right, the reason you have a public option is because you have an insurance market that doesn't have choice or competition. If somebody is trying to seek private insurance on -- private health insurance on a private market and only has -- because this happens in some areas or in some states where there's one insurance company that does business in that region, that that is -- that doesn't ensure the type of affordability and quality that you'd want to see in a health insurance system. So you have some competition that provides some choice, so that if a family of four might have different insurance needs than a single person or a couple that's married with no children or what have you. The goals are choice and competition. His preference is a public option. If there are other ideas, he's happy to look at them. Because I think his -- I think this is true not only for the issue of health care, but for virtually every other issue that he'll ever deal with in public life is he has goals about what he wants to accomplish and he's not necessarily wedded to one -- only one way of getting there. I think he's said that a hundred times. Q Just to be completely clear, has anything changed on the public option? MR. GIBBS: No. I challenge you guys all to go back and see what we've said about this over the course of many, many, many, many months, and you'll find a boring consistency to our rhetoric. Q The rhetoric, as you say, might be consistent, but the movement on the ground, so to speak, toward legislation hasn't been. Is there any recognition now that a public option is looking less likely to be part of a final deal? MR. GIBBS: Let me make sure I understand your question, because I want to know if it's -- is this predicated on legislative developments since Congress has been out of session, or are we trying to match the stampede of a series of stories to if not the consistent language that we've all been saying to some now legislative vote? Q It's just looking more and more likely that a public option is not going to be part of the final bill. I'm wondering if the White House is -- MR. GIBBS: I do think -- can I just -- I want to point out the -- how do I phrase this -- massive irony that I don't know that I saw any of your stories denote the fact that this might be -- that you're surmising now this was a political reality rather than -- Q That's what we're asking. MR. GIBBS: I understand, but did you think from the phrasing of Julianna's question that we might be coming to justify a series of stampeding stories in one direction based on something different than what we've always said? Q But you guys have -- you haven't exactly come out publicly since Sebelius' statement yesterday, come in front of the cameras to speak to us, to downplay -- MR. GIBBS: Because nothing has changed. Q But you haven't downplayed the remarks and the coverage either. MR. GIBBS: No, no, I think many people talked to you all yesterday. I think people sent e-mails. David Axelrod called people. Q (Inaudible.) MR. GIBBS: I didn't get an e-mail from you. Nothing has changed. I mean, we can go out and say nothing has changed, but that seems sort of silly since nothing has changed. Look, in terms of the political realities, obviously there's a public plan -- or public option in the House bill. There is a public option in the HELP bill. I don't know what the Senate Finance Committee will come out with. Air Force One | Health Care | Legislation | Obama Administration | Press Gaggle | Robert Gibbs | White House Press Corps Labels: Air Force One, Health Care, Legislation, Obama Administration, Press Gaggle, Robert Gibbs, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 9:20:00 AM An Agreement Before The 15th Of September - Air Force One Press Gaggle by Robert Gibbs 8/15/09  Q What's the message we're going to hear from your surrogates on the morning shows tomorrow?MR. GIBBS: Well, I think I'm one of them so -- Q Oh, really? I didn't even look at the list. MR. GIBBS: I think we'll spend most of our time talking about health care and the economy. Q It was interesting, both Valerie and Podesta have made a comment recently in which they said they thought that the ultimate product was going to -- I believe this is what they said -- it was going to end up being more centrist than to the left in terms of the legislation that would come out. I might be misinterpreting that, but the implication was that it was going to appeal to the moderate -- the more middle of America position on health care. MR. GIBBS: I haven't seen the comments, I don't know what John or Valerie said. Look, I think you're going to get a health care plan that -- well, as the President said today, you start with about 80 percent of agreement on what's going on in Congress. Obviously the plan that went through Energy and Commerce on the House side did so after quite a bit of negotiating and bargaining with Blue Dog Democrats on Capitol Hill, and we're -- I know the President spent some time with Senator Baucus yesterday talking about seeing if the Finance Committee can also get an agreement before the 15th of September. Air Force One | Health Care | Legislation | Press Gaggle | Robert Gibbs | White House Press Corps Labels: Air Force One, Health Care, Legislation, Press Gaggle, Robert Gibbs, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 8:56:00 AM We Don't Poll - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 7/30/09 — Monday, August 03, 2009 —  Q Okay, now for my real question. On health care, I think we all can acknowledge the President has really vamped up his publicity efforts, trying to get this message out. And yet in our most recent poll, it shows that support for health care has dropped 10 percent just in the last month, essentially coinciding with that public relations effort. And I wonder what you make of that and how you reconcile those two things, especially when I'm sure you feel that he's your most effective advocate.MR. GIBBS: Well, I think he is, and I think yesterday was a pretty good example. I think the President gave strong lift to things that I think in all honesty probably haven't gotten a lot of coverage -- insurance reforms, not allowing insurance companies to discriminate based on preexisting conditions, not allowing insurance companies to drop their coverage if somebody gets too sick. Q But he just started emphasizing that yesterday. MR. GIBBS: Well, but -- but that's been in the bill the whole time, right? So, you know, look, I do think the President is an able communicator, to say the least. I think there has been a lot of misinformation about the legislation, I think some of it unintentional; some of it, as we've talked about in this room, I think somewhat intentional. We talked about those examples. Look, the President doesn't spend a whole lot of time focused on polling. Q I was going to ask you, how often do you guys poll? MR. GIBBS: We don't poll. I think the DNC polls. The President isn't fixated on the ups and downs in polling. If we were, we'd have quit two years ago this summer, if ever even run for President. Q Does it cause any -- to the extent you do pay attention to it, is there any sort of soul searching? In other words, are you thinking maybe our message isn't effective, or is there any sense that maybe what we're trying to sell is not resonating and not -- MR. GIBBS: No, because I think in your -- I think in your poll, if you -- you know, in your polling, if you read the plan, what's one the numbers -- 56/38, right? Q I don't have the exact numbers here -- (laughter.) Q I thought you guys don't follow the polls. (Laughter.) Q Yes, exactly. MR. GIBBS: Once again, a series of teachable moments. Well, I watch NBC for God's sakes, Chip. (Laughter.) Chip missed the opportunity to ask me about his poll. Q Forty-two percent now say the President's plan is -- MR. GIBBS: Yes. I think if you read the full poll, it's different than the executive summary. Q I did kind of give you that one. MR. GIBBS: Yes, I sort of took it. But I think -- a couple things, and I talked a little bit about this this morning. Obviously we've been having a series of these debates for decades. I think many of the same lines of attack that you see in some cases being used today are the same that were used as we debated the creation of Medicare, you know, big government-run health care program; doctors won't be able to make decisions. So we understand that -- and you can go back 16 years ago, you can go back 40 years ago -- you know, there's a series of fairly tried and true phrases that are currently being employed by either people that don't want to see the American people get health care reform or special interests that have a vested political or monetary interest in the status quo that are using their megaphones, as well. The President will continue to push on this because he knows it's the right thing to do for the American people. And I think whether it is explaining, as he did in the news conference, that doing nothing means thousands more without insurance, families are guaranteed to pay more money in premiums, continued discrimination on the basis of preexisting conditions; whether it's emphasizing in the bill insurance -- for insurance reforms for people that are lucky enough to have insurance that they like that's already affordable to them. So I think the President will continue to do this and I think he believes he'll be successful. Health Care | Legislation | Polls | President Obama | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | White House Press Corps Labels: Health Care, Legislation, Polls, President Obama, Robert Gibbs, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 11:19:00 PM Broad Agreement? - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 7/27/09 — Monday, July 27, 2009 — Q Can I just follow, Robert? MR. GIBBS: Let me go to Helen first. Q Now that I'm being paid so much -- MR. GIBBS: Right, your -- (laughter) -- technically, this is your $100 million question. Q I'll take it. What is the 80-percent agreement that the President reached where -- narrowly getting the bill passed. MR. GIBBS: Well, I think there's broad agreement that the bill shouldn't add to the deficit. I think there's broad agreement that we have to increase access. I think there's broad agreement that we have the do something in both the short term and in the long term, meaning inside and outside a 10-year budget window, to cut costs. I think there's broad agreement on insurance reforms, that we can't let insurance companies continue to discriminate against individuals that are very sick or have a preexisting condition. And I think there's some agreement on things like limiting out-of-pocket expenses for individuals. I think there's a broad agreement on a number of things. Q And on the whole business of everyone at the table, why is Medicare for all wiped out and single-payer? MR. GIBBS: Well, I think we've talked about this before, Helen. Obviously -- Q I would like you to refresh my memory. MR. GIBBS: I'd be happy to. A preponderance of -- I forget, I think it's 60-some percent of people in this country get their health insurance through their employer. I think we've seen even over the course of the last 40 years -- Q They don't have jobs now. MR. GIBBS: Well, some people are -- you're working; Chip, for the foreseeable future, has a job. Q Maybe not. (Laughter.) MR. GIBBS: Well, see. Can you help him out with a little -- we've seen how hard it is over the debate over the past 40 years to go about reforming health care in order to provide increased accessibility, in order to cut costs for families and small businesses. I think obviously the disruption of doing away with an entire employer-based system is not something that's soon going to be feasible. Q Well, why have it employer-based? Why don't we have it linked to Social Security, Medicare? MR. GIBBS: Well, again, I think you've got a system that is already providing -- again, I don't know the exact number -- but the vast majority of people are getting their insurance one way. I think in order to totally scrap that system and start anew -- look, I think you've heard the President say if you were building something completely from scratch, that you might look at different solutions -- but this is not a system that we're building completely from scratch; it's a system that has been in place for quite some time. Q And can't be improved? MR. GIBBS: Oh, no, the President is working each and every day to improve it -- absolutely. Bipartisanship | Budget | Health Care | Legislation | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | White House Press Corps Labels: Bipartisanship, Budget, Health Care, Legislation, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 10:09:00 PM Transparently Opaque - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 7/21/09 — Wednesday, July 22, 2009 —  MR. GIBBS: Mark.Q Robert, isn't there a flip side to what you said to Ben that -- MR. GIBBS: Probably. Q -- yes -- (laughter) -- that if some Republicans are against it -- are against health care reform for political reasons, aren't there many Democrats that are for it for political reasons? MR. GIBBS: I don't -- I guess I don't follow you. Q Because they feel it would benefit them politically. MR. GIBBS: Well, I think -- I'm not entirely sure I understand the notion that a Democrat would simply be for it because the health care reform is a good thing to be for. I think health care reform is a good thing to be for because millions of Americans are struggling each and every day with the high cost of that insurance, those that are lucky enough to have it. There are millions that are -- that lose their health care when they change their jobs. They're unable to get health care because they have a preexisting condition, all things that the President wants to change. Q But there are political motivations on both sides. MR. GIBBS: Again, I think the American people want to see Congress do something. If that's a benefit of anybody in Congress, I think that's a good thing because it's likely the benefit of the American people. Q I tried. (Laughter.) Bipartisanship | Health Care | Legislation | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | White House Press Corps Labels: Bipartisanship, Health Care, Legislation, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 2:44:00 PM Expeditious Timetable - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 7/20/09 — Tuesday, July 21, 2009 —  Q Continuing on the issue of delay, the President's poll numbers have slipped on the issue of health care reform, and Senator Snowe has said that there's no reason to rush through an unfinished package. So what is the big deal about just taking a few more weeks to iron things out and get a deal done properly?MR. GIBBS: Well, I don't think one -- I don't think necessarily doing something on the timetable that the President has laid out is doing some improperly. Again, this is not a debate that started last month or even last year. Many of the issues that we're talking about are 40 years in the making -- maybe some longer than that. I think the President strongly believes that we can continue to make progress, that it's important to do that, and that delay is what opponents and special interests want to do to slow the process down, but American families and small business can't afford it. I think we're working through this on an expeditious timetable that can see reform happen this year. Q Is the President actually ruling out agreeing to any kind of delay beyond -- that would take us beyond the August recess? MR. GIBBS: Well, again, I think that you heard the President say on Friday here that looking at what had happened over the course of the week -- nurses supporting health care reform; doctors supporting health care reform; for the first time ever three committees introducing the same bill in the House, two of them getting that bill out of committee -- that we're continuing to make progress, and the President hopes that continues. Q But is he ruling out -- agreeing to any delay beyond the August recess? MR. GIBBS: Well, we think we're doing just fine right where we are making progress. Health Care | Legislation | President Obama | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | White House Press Corps Labels: Health Care, Legislation, President Obama, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 2:37:00 PM The Details Are Less Important - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 6/25/09 — Sunday, June 28, 2009 — MR. GIBBS: Let me go to Laura real fast. Yes. Q On the energy bill, what is the President or the White House's view on this provision that's come up regarding punishing imports from China and other countries that do not have similar controls on their carbon emissions? And sort of as a corollary to that, how important are the details of this actual bill right now, or is it more important just to get sort of anything out of the House? MR. GIBBS: Well, I've seen very little -- something but not in any detailed way, and we can look through something relating to I think some of these Ways and Means provisions. Again, I haven't -- I have not focused in on that. I think in terms of your larger picture, look, obviously getting something through -- onto the floor and through the House would constitute I think a big step towards progress and create momentum that it's possible to get this done. I think we are at a time and a place where, as the President said today, those that can deny that the planet is getting warmer -- we're past, in many ways, that debate. We have an opportunity to create millions of clean energy jobs. We have an opportunity to further lessen our dependence on foreign oil. And all of that together represents -- would represent a big step forward, and I think the President believes that that would be an important facet of getting something ultimately to his desk that he can sign. Q So, really, the details are less important than just moving the process forward? MR. GIBBS: Well, I mean -- I think obviously the fundamental details are important. I think moving the bill forward is tremendously important. And I think this is the first of quite a few steps, and I would assume that some of those details will be debated even -- will be debated further as this goes to the other side of the Hill and then ultimately when both bodies iron out whatever differences exist. Congress | Global Warming | Legislation | Obama Administration | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | Taxes | White House Press Corps Labels: Congress, Global Warming, Legislation, Obama Administration, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, Taxes, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 1:34:00 AM Likely To Impact Our Legislative Agenda (Cell Phone Rings) - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 5/13/09 — Wednesday, May 13, 2009 —  Q Robert, regarding the photos of detainees in Afghanistan and Iraq, you took several questions on this on April 24. You said that it was that DOJ decided it was hopeless to appeal and the administration had entered into an agreement to release the photos. You got a question about whether the President was concerned about if the release might do harm to our troops, and you said his decision was consistent with his goal of keeping the nation and the troops safe. And you said that this is among the many actions that are out of our control. So my question is what has changed to make you think that you have more control, and what has changed about the concerns about the harm to the troops? MR. GIBBS: Well, Chuck, as I said yesterday, the President was concerned about harm to the troops. I think part of my answer in that briefing also was a question about whether or not this was likely to impact our legislative agenda. The President, as you all know, met with his legal team last week because he did not feel comfortable with the release of the photos; primarily believes that -- and I'll go through some of the dates in the court that I did yesterday. This all stems from a FOIA -- first from detainee abuse investigations that were concluded by the end of 2004. There was a FOIA case that started -- the first ruling was in September of 2008. That ruling was appealed I believe in December of 2008. On March 11th, the Second Circuit declined to have the full circuit review the three-judge ruling appealing the decision that was made. The President does not believe that the strongest case regarding the release of these photos was presented to the court, and that was a case based on his concern of what the release of these would do to our national security. He believes that the release of these photos could pose a threat to the men and women we have in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan, and doesn't believe that we made -- doesn't believe that the government made the strongest case possible to the court and asked the legal team to go make that case. Q But what changed to -- you're just stating now that he is concerned that it would do harm, but -- MR. GIBBS: I'm not stating that now. I believe I've always stated that and I stated it as well yesterday. Q On the 24th you stated the opposite, that he had come to the conclusion that this would not cause harm to the troops. MR. GIBBS: I will go back and -- I looked at part of that a few days ago. I have not seen the full -- but I'll be happy to take a look at it. Q The question is, are you concerned that it would cause a backlash against our troops in harm's way? You said that the President has done a lot of back-and-forth in his mind over the course of several weeks about ensuring that this protected those who keep us safe, that it protected our national security. The President came to a determination that the decision that he made was consistent with all those criteria. MR. GIBBS: Well, the President reflected on this case and believes that they have the potential to pose harm to our troops. Q Was he pressured by the military? MR. GIBBS: No. In fact, this was brought up -- his decision was brought up with General Odierno yesterday at the end of their meeting, the meeting that General Odierno and Ambassador Hill had with the President. The President brought this up at the end of the meeting to inform General Odierno of his decision. Obviously, there has been concern. There was certainly concern throughout the process by folks that -- the harm that could be caused by the release. Q Did they make it known to him? MR. GIBBS: I think they have. But I would also say the President believes a couple of other things. Understand that the existence of these investigations are -- and I don't know the exact address, but they're on the DOD website. The President believes that the release of these photos will also provide a disincentive for detainee abuse investigation. The photos don't denote the existence of the investigations -- they're simply part of the potential evidence in the cases that have been finished since 2004. But if in each of these instances somebody looking into detainee abuse takes evidentiary photos in a case that's eventually concluded, this could provide a tremendous disincentive to take those photos and investigate that abuse. I would also add, lastly -- Q Wait, try that once again. I don't follow you. Where's the disincentive? MR. GIBBS: The disincentive is in the notion that every time one of these photos is taken, that it's going to be released. Nothing is added by the release of the photo, right? The existence of the investigation is not increased because of the release of the photo; it's just to provide, in some ways, a sensationalistic portion of that investigation. These are all investigations that were undertaken by the Pentagon and have been concluded. I think if every time somebody took a picture of detainee abuse, if every time that -- if any time any of those pictures were mandatorily going to be necessarily released, despite the fact that they were being investigated, I think that would provide a disincentive to take those pictures and investigate. Q How do you square this -- you use the term "sensationalistic." But how do you square that with your frequent comments about greater transparency? That seems completely at odds. MR. GIBBS: No, Chuck, again, the existence of the detainee abuse cases is not denoted by the photos. They're evidence contained -- or evidence as part of those investigations. The existence of the cases are on the websites, they're on the DOD website. Okay? So the notion that somehow you don't know about these investigations because you haven't seen the photos doesn't make any sense. Q Right, but you agree that you should allow photos, for example, of the troops that were killed in action coming back to Dover Air Force Base. MR. GIBBS: No, again, let's be precise. The President and the Secretary left it up to those involved in those cases for families to determine whether or not they wanted to make the ceremony open to the press or not. Q The point I'm trying to make is that you have -- you're saying -- you have acknowledged that the existence of photographs can be a compelling component of understanding what's going on in any given situation, and in the name of transparency it seems like it would apply here. MR. GIBBS: The President doesn't believe that the release of these photos adds in any way to that. It only adds to pose harm. Q Robert, can you go over the sequence of events that led to his thought process? Because on April 24th, when the Pentagon was explaining its decision to release the photos, it said that -- the spokesman said that there was a feeling that the case has pretty much run its course. And now you're saying that the President feels that there's a strong argument to be made -- MR. GIBBS: Because the argument that the President has asked his legal team to make is not an argument that the previous legal team made in that case. They argued a couple of different things including a law enforcement exception, and a judge ruled that to seek a law enforcement exception you have to disclose the name of the person that would be -- that harm would be derived for in seeking that exception. This is a different argument that the President thinks is compelling. Q When did you decide that it was important to make that argument? Did one of the lawyers come to him and say -- MR. GIBBS: No, he came to the lawyers. Q And when did all of that take place? MR. GIBBS: That was a meeting that was held last week in the Oval Office. Q Robert, if that was such a compelling case why was that not weighed in April then? Because it seems like -- was there a failure here at the White House in the first go-round in April to fully weigh the national security implications? MR. GIBBS: The argument that the President seeks to make is one that hasn't been made before. I'm not going to get into blame for this or that, understanding that there was significant legal momentum in these cases prior to the President entering into office. We are now at a point where it is likely that some stay will be asked to prevent the release of these photos. And I believe the date, that we have until June 8th to appeal -- to seek review of the decision by the Second Circuit. Q Well, on April 24th, you also said, the Department of Justice decided based on the ruling, the court ruling, that it was "hopeless to appeal." Now you're saying it's not hopeless. MR. GIBBS: Well, based on the argument that -- yes, I said that it was hopeless based on the argument that was made during the course of the original FOIA lawsuit, the appeal, the three-judge ruling and the decision to decline the full circuit to make that -- to make those determinations. The President isn't -- what I'm saying to you, Ed, is the President isn't going back to remake the argument that has been made. The President is going -- has asked his legal team to go back and make a new argument based on national security. Q This new argument -- if you're saying basically that this could put troops in further harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan -- former Vice President Cheney, General Hayden, others have made the same argument about releasing the so-called torture memos. Do you have any regrets about putting those memos out -- MR. GIBBS: No -- Q They've made the same argument about them. MR. GIBBS: Well, I'll use the example I've used on this before, Ed. You didn't begin to report on enhanced interrogation techniques at the release of the OLC memos, did you? Q No. MR. GIBBS: Okay. I'm sensing -- Q But you all are saying -- MR. GIBBS: Hold on. I'm also sensing that the graphic that CNN uses to denote what happens when somebody gets waterboarded wasn't likely developed based on reading memos that were released three weeks ago. The existence of enhanced interrogation techniques were noted by the former administration in speeches that they gave. You read about the enhanced interrogation techniques in autobiographies written by members of that former administration. The notion that -- Q So by that argument, our graphics would not also be based on any prisoner photos you might release because we already know that people we're abused in prisons. So why not put them out there -- MR. GIBBS: I'm not sure that you'd do a graphic of a photo. Q Well, a graphic of someone being abused. We all have seen the Abu Ghraib photos. And you were saying about the photos back in April, look, it's already exhausted and essentially these photos are going to come out anyway. MR. GIBBS: Based on the previous legal argument, yes. The previous legal argument denoted that the case had been lost. There's a new legal argument that's being made. But my sense is, Ed, why do you do a graphic on CNN? Q We're trying to show people what -- explain to people what -- MR. GIBBS: Okay. The President believes that the existence of the photos themselves doesn't actually add to the understanding that detainee abuse happened, was investigated, that actions were taken by those that did indeed or might have undertaken potential abuse of detainees, and that those cases were all dating back to finishing in 2004. The President doesn't believe the release of photos surrounding that investigation does anything to illuminate the existence of that investigation, only to provide some portion of sensationalism. Q But, Robert, is that really his role to decide whether or not it illuminates? That's not the President of the United States' role to decide, well, this information will illuminate for the people and this information isn't -- MR. GIBBS: No, the role of the President in this situation is as Commander-in-Chief, and if he determines that through the release of these photos that they pose a threat to those that serve to protect our freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan through the illumination of whatever, he can make a determination to ask his legal team to go back to court and make a legal argument that he doesn't believe was made and provides the most salient case and most important points for not releasing these photos. Those determinations are indeed made by this President and are being made. (Cell phone rings.) Just put in on vibrate, man, we did this before. (Laughter.) Q I'm sorry. MR. GIBBS: That's all right. It's all right. Q -- time it happened. MR. GIBBS: Third, actually. It happened twice that one day. Go ahead. Q The Bush administration has obviously made the argument that releasing these specific photographs will endanger troops and they did so in a way that he described with -- while seeking the FOIA exemption for law enforcement personnel. The Second Circuit Court ruled against that, saying that it's not -- that exemption is not intended "as an all-purpose damper on global controversy." What is this new argument that the President wants his team to present? MR. GIBBS: That not seeking an exemption for law enforcement -- (cell phone rings.) Give me the phone. (Laughter.) All right. This is -- come here. Let me see this. (Laughter and applause.) This is enhanced interrogation technique. (Laughter.) Q He threw your phone. MR. GIBBS: No, no, somebody caught it, no worries. (Laughter.) I made the determination that -- (laughter) -- the illumination of the sound was distracting to the briefing as the Press Secretary to the President of the United States. Q Here's that mallet you wanted. (Laughter.) (Cell phone rings.) (Laughter.) MR. GIBBS: You, too? You want to do this, too? Here, come on. (Laughter.) Q Gibbs wants to take my phone, but I don't think it's a good idea. (Laughter.) Q No favoritism. Q I'll explain later. (Laughter.) MR. GIBBS: I assume it's your banker, with a suit like that. (Laughter.) Sorry. This is -- cotton candy down the street, it's a circus. The President believes that the specific case surrounding the damage that would be done to our troops and our national security has not fully been developed and put in front of the court to make. That's the case that the legal team will now make. The Department of Justice will seek to look for different avenues; as I said earlier, likely seek a stay. Q With the Supreme Court? MR. GIBBS: Well, you could seek a stay with an additional judge. The June 8 deadline also is for an appeal to the Supreme Court, and that's likely the next -- (cell phone rings.) Golly, guys. Just put them on vibrate. Yes, go ahead. Q The specific avenue that your legal team is going to go, you're not sure if it's going to be going back to the District Court? MR. GIBBS: I don't know. I'll check with -- we'll check with those guys specifically. I think in some ways they're looking at whether it is to go to a lower court, or to go to the Supreme Court. Q And then just to follow up on the new argument. So are there specific -- is there specific case law arguments that the President knows that exist that were not used? Because I find it hard to believe that the Bush administration didn't turn under every rock to try and find an argument -- MR. GIBBS: Well, the President doesn't believe that was the case. And the President, after reviewing the case, believes that we have a compelling argument. Q Could you let us know what those new arguments are? MR. GIBBS: Yes. Q Thank you. Q Is part of his concern here, though, that this would open the flood gates for new calls for an investigation? And what does this mean for his stance on whether more memos should be released and that type of thing? MR. GIBBS: Well, I'm not sure that this case is necessarily analogous and I wouldn't want to draw broad conclusions not based on some specificity. Q What is his current stance on whether there should be an investigation? MR. GIBBS: Well, I think we covered that a few weeks ago. Q We covered it, but -- MR. GIBBS: Well, I should say that it hasn't changed since we last covered it. Q He's sort of gone back and forth on that issue. I mean, he sort of left the door open to it, but then you've signaled -- MR. GIBBS: No, no, no. We'll do this again. The President believes that the determination about whether or not anybody broke the law should be made by those who determine whether or not anybody broke the law, and that, in this case, would be the Department of Justice. Q But should there be any kind of congressional panel looking into this? At one stage, you raised the idea of a 9/11 type of -- MR. GIBBS: Yes, I think the President -- and I have said this before -- the President believes a lot of this is being investigated by the Senate Intelligence Committee; that that's an avenue and a venue that possesses, because of clearances and such, a broad ability to conduct an investigation, and he thinks that an appropriate place for it to be. Yes, sir. Q On the argument that this would -- that release of the photos would be a disincentive into investigations, wouldn't it also be a disincentive into detainee abuse? And on those investigations, we don't -- if they're administrative rather than judicial, we don't know the outcome of a lot of those investigations. MR. GIBBS: On the first part -- I can certainly check with Pentagon on part two. Look, I think you could certainly argue that it hasn't always been the case, because obviously there continue to be cases, regrettably, of detainee abuse. But at the same time, if each and every photo that is taken, regardless of whether that -- regardless of the fact that it doesn't actually add to the notion that these cases are being looked into, the President believes provides that disincentive. On behalf of CBS, Mark. You're now the sole representative for the -- Q Let me get my cell phone out. (Laughter.) MR. GIBBS: Yes, exactly. You want to phone it in? (Laughter.) Q How was this decision on the photos consistent with what he said on his second day in office: "I will hold myself, as President, to a new standard of openness. Information will not be withheld just because I say so." MR. GIBBS: Look at that. I got a "hmm." Because, Mark, the President has, in this case -- welcome back. Q What did I miss? (Laughter.) Q There was a call for you. (Laughter.) MR. GIBBS: Will somebody brief Bill on the new Supreme Court nominee. (Laughter.) Because, again, the President -- as I said to Jake's question, the President made this determination as the Commander-in-Chief; made this determination as somebody who is charged with protecting our men and women in harm's way. That's why this determination was made. That's why he's asked the legal team to go back to court. Q And his statement is for civilian matters, and not for national security matters? MR. GIBBS: No. I think, again, Mark, as I said, I don't think the -- the existence of the photos doesn't denote -- isn't the only thing that denotes the existence of an investigation. The website includes documentation that underscores the potential abuse that was being investigated through the year 2004. The President doesn't believe that the existence publically of the photos adds to that. Q I want to change topics for just I'm sure what will be a brief moment. (Laughter.) MR. GIBBS: Thirty seconds to respond. No, I'm kidding. Q Former SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt today said that when it comes to the government imposing executive compensation restrictions across all -- the whole financial services industry, that it can't work, it won't work, and that the government shouldn't be micromanaging in this way. Why does the President think that it will work now and why is he okay with such micromanaging? MR. GIBBS: Well, I don't necessarily want to buy into the premise of Mr. Levitt in this case. I think the President has talked about -- repeatedly, in previous years as well as this year -- and set up a standard for what makes sense in terms of executive compensation, certainly related to companies or financial institutions receiving extraordinary assistance from the government. Q These are firms that don't receive extraordinary -- MR. GIBBS: I think the President has outlined his thinking on the notion that -- and I don't have the exact figures in front of me, but I think you can see over a several year period, if you go back, executive compensation as it related to the average worker in a business, that has ballooned in only a short period of time; that there is an important interest in ensuring some fairness in this and in giving, as the President has talked about, giving shareholders some say in ultimately the type of compensation that their executives receive. Q Even at hedge funds, private equity firms? MR. GIBBS: Well, I would point you to Treasury for the notion of what they're looking at. Obviously, the say-on-pay provisions that the President has supported are not legally binding, but through the court of public opinion might have an impact on some of that. Yes, sir. Q A couple on the photos, and then on a separate topic. The President has been Commander-in-Chief throughout his presidency, since January 20th. What is it about his role as Commander-in-Chief that occurred to him differently after the White House announced and the Pentagon said it was going to, the Justice Department reaffirmed the decision to release these photos? Are you telling us there was an inadequate weighing of the national security implications before, and there's now been a more intensive one recently? MR. GIBBS: I don't know the exacting of that, except to say that the President has spent a considerable amount of time thinking about the specific instance recently. That's why the meeting was had last week in the Oval Office with his legal team. Q What instigated that more intensive or -- whatever how you describe it -- MR. GIBBS: That's what I seek to check. Q And did the President come up with this idea of a national security argument, or did someone bring it to him and did he say that's a path I want to go down? MR. GIBBS: As I understand it, the President, in reviewing this, didn't believe that the case that was being made was the most effective on the grounds of national security. Q He was the originator of the idea to take this case back and make the national security argument? MR. GIBBS: The meeting, specifically, was had to bring the legal team in to inform them and others of a change in the way this case would be handled, and the President discussed directly with them the notion that they'd be making a different argument than one that he believed had previously been made. Q The argument being made is his? Okay. Separate topic. The National Rifle Association is going to meet this weekend. And they tout that their membership has increased 30 percent since the President was inaugurated. And they say that's because there is some palpable anxiety, legitimate or otherwise, that people have about their gun rights. I'd like you to address that generally. What does the White House think about that? What's erroneous or misguided about that particular impression out there? And more specifically, Senator Feinstein has committed publicly to bringing the assault weapons ban to the floor of the Senate and pursuing that legislatively this year. If that were to pass through Congress, would the President sign or veto that? MR. GIBBS: I think the President's views on the support of an assault weapons ban, as he said in the campaign, are known. As we've been reminded repeatedly in this room, there's a lot of stuff on the docket, and I think the President, certainly in the recent trip to Mexico, covered his thinking on that. In terms of increased membership at the NRA, I don't -- obviously, I'm not privy to their statistics. I think if you go back and look at the most previous presidential elections, I think the very same people that you might be talking to argued that stances cost Democratic nominees the change of being President of the United States. And I think this President articulated the viewpoint that he was a believer in the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms, and I don't think -- I don't believe that his actions have denoted anything that would give the NRA members cause for concern. Q Just to follow up on the assault weapons ban, you said yesterday you need a legislative vehicle to engage more directly in the question of "don't ask, don't tell." There's going to be a legislative vehicle on the assault weapons ban. If it gets there, what's going to happen? MR. GIBBS: When you change the word "if" to "is," then we'll get into the hypothetica. Q Robert, first, when did the President see these pictures? MR. GIBBS: I know he has seen them. I don't know the first day he saw them. Q Do you know if they're qualitatively different, the content, than what we've seen so far? MR. GIBBS: You mean, as far as the Abu Ghraib -- I personally have not seen the pictures. I can certainly seek to find somebody who has or seek to find -- seek to see the pictures myself. Q One more quick thing. What does the President think that the release of the OLC memos -- what new light did that shed on the debate about which books have been written about? MR. GIBBS: Well, I think any number of things. Obviously that was -- and we're talking about -- in talking about legal scenarios, obviously those avenues and the arguments that could be made, the President and the team believe were exhausted. The President also believed that, as you've heard him say, the most important thing relating to these techniques, in his opinion, was the executive order banning their use. At the same time, I don't think that helped the legal argument. So the President I don't think believed that the release of the memos did -- had an analogous impact that these photos would have. Jeff. Q As you know, during the presidential campaign, then-Senator Obama talked a lot about -- his campaign was based on the idea of improving America's image around the world. How does he believe that that's possible without showing these photographs and sort of cleansing that idea? MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the President would believe that the -- making the -- that what's important in dealing with the potential detainee abuse is to investigate that abuse and act accordingly on that investigation, right? I think you could draw an analogy to a murder case. If somebody is involved in that case, is it more important to show the crime -- the picture of the crime scene or deal with the potential that somebody might have killed somebody? I think the President doesn't believe that the release of the photos in and of itself add to the notion that you discussed; that instead what's important for our values and for our image around the world was to understand that if this was taking place, that it be looked into and that it be dealt with. That, in this case, has happened, and it was done without the release of the photos. Q And how will he explain this, whenever he decides to speak on this, if it's at the commencement address, which I doubt, or in the coming days? How do you plan to have him address this personally? Because there obviously is a lot of concern about this from some of his supporters on the left. MR. GIBBS: Well, I doubt that he would do this this evening at Arizona State. I haven't talked about that with him. There may be occasion to take questions in the next few days. We'll have a town hall meeting tomorrow and certainly the topic could come up there. Afghanistan | Interrogation | Iraq | Legislation | Obama Administration | Photos | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | War on Terror | White House Press Corps Labels: Afghanistan, Interrogation, Iraq, Legislation, Photos, President Obama, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, War on Terror, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 9:31:00 PM This Conversation Is A Little Silly - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 5/7/09 — Thursday, May 07, 2009 —  (Chart not to scale due to Spending) MR. GIBBS: Chip. Q When you and the President both are questioned on spending and deficits, you often say the previous administration and the deficits that you inherited. But even that previous administration last year proposed bigger budget cuts than this from discretionary spending. Wouldn't you at least want to exceed what they -- what their goals were? MR. GIBBS: Well, no, no, no. I would reject that notion simply -- again, based on what we proposed this week. I don't think the previous administration sought to close tax loopholes for offshore tax havens at $210 billion. I don't think the previous administration entered into contract and procurement reform that we believe will save tens of billions of dollars -- legislation that's going through the Senate right now. Q That's a pretty good answer. MR. GIBBS: Not bad. Next. (Laughter.) Q But how is -- staying on this a minute -- (laughter) --the President said the following: "During these difficult economic times, Americans are tightening their belts and making tough decisions about where they need to spend." One half of one percent -- how is this truly a tough decision and a tightening of the belt? Why not say, you know what, we're going to do 2 percent, 3 percent, 4 percent? No, but you want to have a money argument, but the percentage doesn't matter. People are cutting back their spending by 10 percent, companies are cutting -- MR. GIBBS: NBC? Q -- by 5 percent. Trust me, no -- MR. GIBBS: The stock of GE? Q A lot of -- a lot of companies are cutting back by real numbers. One half of one percent doesn't strike us as a real number. MR. GIBBS: Well, I'd -- do this. Let's do this. Let's you and I walk out on the street today. Let's interview maybe a dozen people and ask them whether they think $17 billion is a lot of money. I'm free right after this. Let's go -- Q You're a political guy. You can ask the question. Q And then ask them do they think one half of one percent -- one half of one percent is a lot of money. MR. GIBBS: We can do that. And then let's ask them if $210 billion, which the President proposed on Monday, is a lot of money, or a hundred and some billion dollars in changes to insurance company middlemen as part of Medicare is a lot of money, or contracting and procurement reform in our weapons system is a lot of money. Let's ask them if cutting the budget deficit in half over two years -- over four years is a lot of money. Q Do you still stand by that projection, by the way? Because all of the others -- MR. GIBBS: No, no, don't stand by that -- it's not my projection, Chuck. Q No, it's your -- but budget projections have changed, GDP has changed, unemployment -- tax revenues that are coming in. Do you really still think you can actually cut the deficit in half? MR. GIBBS: Don't believe me saying it. Don't believe me. Simply go up to Congress, go to the Congressional Budget Office, and ask them for the scoring on the budget that passed the House and the Senate. I'm happy for you to go -- don't believe me; go ask the people that keep the score on this, Chuck. I'm simply saying -- Q No, wait a minute. You guys have not changed your -- but the projections get changed in July, do they not, on the budget? MR. GIBBS: There will be a mid-session economic review based on where the economy is. But, look, Chuck, if you're willing to predict where the economy is in July, any of us would be happy to take notes. Q Really quick, does the President support this economic commission that's passed Congress, both Houses? It's got to come to the President's signature. Is he going to support that, even though it's not a bipartisan split; it's a 60-40 -- MR. GIBBS: Six to four. I haven't asked them specifically to evaluate the legislation, but I'm sure if it landed on his desk the President would sign it. Jonathan. Q This conversation is a little silly because in fact he's not cutting $17 billion -- MR. GIBBS: I want to defend both Chucks -- (laughter) and say I don't think it's silly. Q But he's not cutting $17 billion. He's cutting programs worth $17 billion, but there are more than $17 billion worth of expansion, expanded programs, and new programs. There isn't a $17 billion cut from projected budget cuts. MR. GIBBS: Well, there's 17 -- I'll go back and look at the transcript. You just said there are not $17 billion in cuts; there's $17 billion in cuts to programs. Q Right. Q It's not net. Q It's not net, right. Q Not net. MR. GIBBS: No, I get where he's going. Again, the budget is cut -- not based on what I say; what the Congressional Budget Office says -- the budget deficit is cut in half in four years. That's a net, that's an actual cut in spending by the government. Budget | Congressional Budget Office | Legislation | Obama Administration | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | Taxes | White House Press Corps Labels: Budget, Legislation, Obama Administration, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, Taxes, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 7:22:00 PM Lowering Corporate Taxes By Raising Them - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 5/4/09 — Monday, May 04, 2009 —  Q When the President had a Q&A session with the Business Roundtable, this idea, the tax proposals he's introduced today, came up. And one of the questioners said, Mr. President, would you consider, as you evaluate this policy, reducing corporate income tax rates -- because there is an economic argument that one of the reasons these tax havens flourish is to avoid higher corporate income tax rates around the globe, particularly in the U.S. The President said he would take it under consideration. It's not here today. Can we therefore assume we're not going to see any proposals from this White House on lowering corporate income tax rates anytime soon?MR. GIBBS: Well, I think what the President has laid out here would lower corporate taxes because for 10 years we are instituting certainty in the research and development tax credit. Businesses will pay less taxes by taking advantage of that. But as I said a minute ago, the President believes this is a down payment on tax reform and I think the President would be -- I think the reason the President said he would take that under advisement is the President believes that closing loopholes and using that to bring down the corporate tax rate is exactly what he has in mind. But what that requires is a closing of the loopholes and the tax havens that you talk about that companies are taking advantage of to put money elsewhere to avoid paying taxes here. Q Chairman Baucus said that this needs further study to assess the impact on the plan -- of the plan on U.S. businesses. Mitch McConnell said, I can't endorse a plan that gives preferential treatment to foreign companies at the expense of U.S.-based companies and the 52 million people they employ. At least at this level of bipartisanship, there appears to be some more that Congress would like to learn about this than it presently knows. How do you answer that? MR. GIBBS: Well, we are fortunate that Congress has to the power to call hearings and investigate the topic, but we're happy to have a long discussion about the fairness of tax havens and tax loopholes that let companies avoid paying the taxes -- taxes like you and I pay each day -- and instead reward companies that are investing right here and creating jobs in America. Congress | Legislation | Obama Administration | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | Taxes | White House Press Corps Labels: Congress, Legislation, Obama Administration, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, Taxes, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 4:46:00 PM Grading On A Curve - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 4/28/09 — Wednesday, April 29, 2009 —  Q At the 100-days mark, what kind of a grade would you give the President on bipartisanship? Certainly his idea of bipartisanship isn't to have people change parties. How would you grade him on working with --MR. GIBBS: Well, but I don't think we're sending anybody back, if that's your -- (laughter.) Look, I think on each and every issue the President has reached out to members of the other party. Q And how has he done MR. GIBBS: I think he has -- I think at every turn he's asked for their help and their support and asked for their ideas. On some issues we've seen big bipartisan votes; on others we've seen more partisan votes. I said here yesterday I'd let the Republicans delineate for you the thinking behind their strategy of the first 100 days. I think if you look at both what the President and the team have achieved in the first almost hundred days it's something we're proud of, understanding that there's a lot of work going forward and that -- my sense is that whatever hundred-day mark we're at, 100, 200, 300, or so forth, that the next hundred days will be equally or more important than the previous. The President takes the long view on all this, as he did during the campaign. He thinks the American people are focused on what our efforts are doing to produce jobs and stabilize the economy, not just on the 99th, or 101st, or 100th day, but each and every day. Q Is he dissatisfied with his achievement on bipartisan so far? MR. GIBBS: No, I think he'll continue to work on it. I think he'll continue to have members of Congress down here to discuss the issues. I think he'll continue to reach out to the bipartisan leadership and see how we can work together to move things forward. I will tell you, Ann, our goal is to get First Lady-type approval numbers. (Laughter.) Bipartisanship | Congress | Legislation | President Obama | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | White House Press Corps Labels: Bipartisanship, Congress, Legislation, President Obama, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 2:58:00 PM Taking Responsibility - Air Force One Press Gaggle by Bill Burton 03/18/09 — Friday, March 20, 2009 —  Q So why did it take two days for the Treasury Secretary to tell the White House and, subsequently the President, to be informed about the -- what were then the impending bonuses?MR. BURTON: Well, I'm going to refer you to what the President had to say before Marine One took off from the White House. But he, of course, is taking responsibility for what we do here, and what he's making sure is that we get the tools that we need to make sure that this does not happen again. As for, you know, timelines and different things like that, we've been through this for the past couple of days, and Gibbs and others and folks at the Treasury have answered these questions. And for any more specifics on that, I'd refer you to some of the information that they shared with folks yesterday. Q Well, I mean, up until now, Robert -- until the timeline was released last night, we didn't exactly know what the sequence was. So, I mean, is there any concern that it took two days for the Treasury Secretary to tell the White House about it? MR. BURTON: As the President said, he's very confident in how Secretary Geithner is doing. And, you know, one of the things that we're going to talk about today in California -- because I imagine people are going to have questions about AIG, these bonuses, things that are happening in the economy. The President, as he has said, shares the profound anger of the American people about these bonuses, about the folks who are getting them. And we're doing everything we can to make sure that this doesn't happen again and to make sure that taxpayers are made whole on the money that's been paid out. Q Do you anticipate any change in the internal communication system, though, so that it will flow more smoothly, more quickly? MR. BURTON: As I said, the President feels good about how Secretary Geithner is doing, and we're looking forward at what we can do to make sure that we don't see these sort of egregious problems ever again. Q The bonuses that have already been paid at AIG, there's really nothing that can be done about that, at least from the executive branch -- is that the thinking? MR. BURTON: Well, the good news is some progress has actually been made on this, in the sense that -- and Liddy talked about this in his testimony today -- some folks at AIG have already paid back their bonuses. Other people are being encouraged to do the exact same thing. So some progress is getting made on that. Secretary Geithner outlined how taxpayers would be made whole in his letter to Congress last night, and I can get that to you if you don't, by chance, have it. And, you know, so we're going to be working with AIG to see what we can do here to make sure that taxpayers are getting exactly what they deserve from the investments that we're making in order to stabilize that company. AIG | Air Force One | Bill Burton | Legislation | President Obama | Press Gaggle | Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner | White House Press Corps Labels: AIG, Air Force One, Bill Burton, Legislation, President Obama, Press Gaggle, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 2:17:00 PM Making a Hash of the Details - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 3/17/09 — Tuesday, March 17, 2009 —  MR. GIBBS: Jonathan.Q Last night, administration officials said that after carefully reviewing the situation they concluded that under current law these contracts could not be broken without actually costing the taxpayers more money in legal fees than would have been recouped. A few hours -- MR. GIBBS: To break the -- Q To break the contracts. That under current law, to break those contracts would actually cost the taxpayers more money than to let the money go out. About four hours before that, the President of the United States walked before the cameras and said that to block -- he promised to pursue every legal avenue to block these bonuses and make the American taxpayers whole. Did the President, when he went before the camera, did he know at that time that the legal review had already concluded that actually to block those bonuses would be pretty much legally unfeasible? MR. GIBBS: Yes, and he asked us to look again. That's what he announced at the remarks in which you point -- happened four hours earlier, and that's why the review of provisions in existing law, including the Dodd compensation requirements as contained in the Recovery and Reinvestment Act, are one of the avenues with which the administration continues to look. Again, let's point out that that's a piece of legislation that Congress has passed but rules have yet to be promulgated on, which provides an interesting case because the legislation contains provisions dealing with TARP money and preexisting contracts. Q So when the administration officials came back four hours later and said, you know what, we can't really break these contracts, did that mean that the second review that the President was asking for was over and that -- MR. GIBBS: No, I just -- I'm not announcing the end of the review. I'm bringing you up to date on the existing review that takes place, including the provisions that I just read out. Q And, I'm sorry, one more, then. And when Larry Summers went on television on Sunday morning and said, laws are laws, contracts are contracts; we have to respect them -- MR. GIBBS: Again, you're -- now you're asking me about something that happened Sunday. I've now brought you up to speed on what probably happened at around 4:00 p.m. on Monday. So I think you can assume that what I've said about 4:00 p.m. on Monday brings you most up to date on a timeline that you're asking me about sometime on Sunday morning. Q But how much consultation with the economic team and the political team had been done before Mr. Summers, Dr. Summers's appearance on the Sunday shows? MR. GIBBS: Well, again, the legal deadline for the bonuses had passed. There was a review and there's an existing review, as the President ordered yesterday. Yes, sir. Q Robert, we understand from your answers here that you don't have knowledge of the exact timeline, but would it be accurate to say that you were blind-sided, that the President was blind-sided by this? MR. GIBBS: No. And I will certainly seek better timeline answers to enumerate the negative answer I just gave you. Q Why wouldn't it be accurate to say that? MR. GIBBS: Because the Secretary obviously took steps last week to lessen the blow of what was both contractually obligated and what had been promised but was not part of a contract that lessened the amount of money that was paid out. Again, the Secretary of Treasury did good work in changing what was potentially out there, and I think obviously he did so in order to protect the American taxpayers. And that's why I think -- that's the basis for me answering that question. AIG | Economy | Legislation | President Obama | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | TARP | Treasury Department | White House Press Corps . Labels: AIG, Economy, Legislation, President Obama, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, TARP, Treasury Department, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 7:43:00 PM A Billion Dollars An Hour - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 3/11/09 — Thursday, March 12, 2009 —  Q Robert, following on what Jennifer was saying about gentle rhetoric from the President today, when you mentioned that Congress didn't get nine of the 13 appropriations bills done, that's something the Democratic Congress -- his fellow Democrats failed to get those bills done last year. Now Mitch McConnell today, the Republican Leader, was saying that when you add up the $787 billion stimulus, you add on the $410 billion the President is about to sign for omnibus, that's a billion dollars an hour in 50 -- 51 days. When the American people look at that, is that really change to the way Washington is working?MR. GIBBS: Well, I probably shouldn't engage an individual Senator who ran Congress for a number of years where deficits set records, and I won't do something like that today. I mean, I -- (laughter.) Q Tomorrow maybe? MR. GIBBS: Or later in this briefing. (Laughter.) Q But the President is signing these now. Regardless of what Mitch McConnell did before, the President is signing -- MR. GIBBS: Well, but hold on, let's not -- I'm asked about the debt every day. That's not exactly -- let's not exactly put aside -- Q That's last year's business, right? MR. GIBBS: No, I -- well, according to some in the Senate, it was last hour's business. The President has proposed a return to fiscal sanity, and a path towards fiscal responsibility. Look, here's what I would say -- I'll break my campaign promise and engage the Senator from Kentucky, and any senator or representative in Congress. They're -- it is certainly within one's right to criticize the budget. That's -- we get that. I think the best way for him to put forward a budget that we can look at and debate and see whether there's honest accounting -- whether we take into account natural disasters, paying for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the possibility of continued financial stability, investments in health care, education, and energy independence -- I think the best way to do that is for Senator McConnell, and anybody else, to put forward a budget plan that does those things and puts ourselves on a path towards fiscal responsibility. I think that's the best way to have the debate joined. It's an important debate that we're having, and I think it's important that, as Mr. Buffett said, we work constructively together to try to solve our economic challenges. But that's all part of the process. Q Why did the President apply a different standard of "this is last year's business" for this legislation, when in things like TARP, when he was President-elect, he reached out to then-President Bush and said, look, we need to authorize the other $350 billion -- even though TARP was last October, it was clearly last year's business -- MR. GIBBS: Well, no, no. let's be fair, Ed. Q I am being fair. MR. GIBBS: Okay, well, let's understand -- how does the next $350 billion get triggered? Q It's triggered by the President -- MR. GIBBS: No, it gets triggered by the Senate. The Senate had to -- I'm sorry, one House of the Congress had to basically authorize the re-spending of that money. So that was something that was put in by last Congress -- at our request certainly -- I mean this -- but it's not a -- trust me, having listened to some of those phone calls, it wasn't a one-sided deal. Triggering an additional amount of money in order to be spent in the current -- isn't last year's business. Q There are a whole host of things like that, that President Bush -- you've said you inherited from President Bush, but you're not running away from them -- like Iraq timetable. The President followed through on that, said -- MR. GIBBS: I'm glad to see you -- Q Okay, the question is, on this piece of legislation, the President used the principle: This is last year's business. So even though it's got all kinds of things I don't like, I'm going to sign it anyway. Okay? There are a whole bunch of other things he got from President Bush that he doesn't like either. And he's going to change -- President Bush didn't want to have a timetable in Iraq, but President Obama came in and said, we're going to put that timetable -- I campaigned on that. Well, he campaigned on earmarks, as well, pulling them out of these bills. Where is the consistency? MR. GIBBS: I'm having a lot of trouble connecting the dots in your -- I mean, I suppose the President could have come in and assumed that people weren't in Iraq, but I don't understand your analogy. Q You're saying this legislation is last year's business, but he's signing it into law this year. He could have vetoed it. Why wouldn't he veto it? MR. GIBBS: Let me give you last -- let me give you yesterday's answer. The President believes that, despite protestations, that appropriations bills designed to be completed before September 30th of the previous year are last year's business. I think any reasonable look at the appropriations process would understand that. The President believes that, moving forward, dozens and dozens of appropriations bills will cross his desk because he's asked, first and foremost, that Congress not lump large bills together. And to be fair, that's done virtually every year; six to nine of these appropriations bills get glommed on at the very end or go into overtime in order to do that -- that changing the rules going forward were important because the President is best able to have an impact on that legislation moving forward. That's what the President enumerated through transparency and a full set of earmark reforms that -- I bet when we look back on a year or two from now we'll see a decrease in the number of spending projects, just as the President has asked that we put ourselves back on a path toward fiscal responsibility through a budget that will cut the deficit in half in just four years. Congress | Legislation | Obama Administration | Pork | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | TARP | White House Press Corps Labels: Congress, Legislation, Obama Administration, Pork, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, TARP, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 2:50:00 PM Let Them Eat Pork - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 3/10/09 — Tuesday, March 10, 2009 —  MR. GIBBS: Mark.Q Robert, is it still the President's intention to sign the omnibus bill when it reaches his desk? MR. GIBBS: It is. Q He has no second thoughts about it? MR. GIBBS: No. Q Does he believe that everything in that bill is essential spending, considering the over $1.5 trillion deficit he's projecting for this year? MR. GIBBS: Mark, I dare say that -- I bet many Presidents have signed bills that may not meet a hundred percent of their desires. As I've said before, this is -- we're finishing the appropriations process that is generally concluded before the fiscal year starts on October -- this would be October 1, 2008. This stuff should have been done before Senator Barack Obama became President-elect Barack Obama, and certainly before he became President Obama. That having been said -- and I've said this from up here and I think it is safe to assume that tomorrow we'll have more on our concern for the appropriations and the spending process moving forward -- because though this represents one bill and several different appropriations bills, over the course of the President's tenure in Washington, dozens of those bills will come to his desk and that there will be some new rules of the road. Q Are you saying the bill contains more spending than he thinks is necessary or warranted? MR. GIBBS: Again, I have not and I think it's reasonable to assume that the President has not gone through each and every item in the legislation. This is necessary to continue funding government. It represents last year's business. Although it's not perfect, the President will sign the legislation, but demonstrate for all involved rules moving forward that he thinks can make this process work a little bit better. Q Is it going to be a public event? MR. GIBBS: I don't know. The President signs -- certainly some events that he signs things on are public, and some of them are not. Q These are the rules of the road? MR. GIBBS: Yes. Congress | Legislation | Pork | President Obama | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | White House Press Corps Labels: Congress, Legislation, Pork, President Obama, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 10:50:00 PM Take the Bull by the Tail and Face the Situation - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 3/4/09 — Thursday, March 05, 2009 — Q Secretary Vilsack, just moments ago, spoke about saving $18 million in savings on modernizing financial systems, $400,000 by canceling a consulting contract. And he spoke very movingly about everybody is tightening their belts in this nature and, therefore, the government needs to do so. You probably know where I'm heading with this. The President is going to sign a bill, the spending bill, which contains $8 billion in earmarks. Democrats in the Senate are now calling for the President to, if not make an effort to have it stripped in the Senate, to veto the bill. Evan Bayh has an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal today. I don't fully understand this argument that this is -- we're moving forward. This bill hasn't even come to the President's desk yet. If you guys are really serious, why not take the bull by the horns and get this stuff out of the omnibus spending bill? MR. GIBBS: Well, let me try again, what we've talked about before. This is the culmination of the legislative business from the previous fiscal year and the previous Congress. The President is greatly concerned, and I think that shows in the efforts that he's taken to illuminate through transparency and accountability wasteful spending and earmarks in legislation. That's why he put his on the Internet. That's why he hasn't asked for any in the past few years. The President believes that we can work with Congress to reduce wasteful spending in the future. Q Why not now? MR. GIBBS: Well, we are -- Q This isn't a legislation -- I guess -- you make it sound as if the legislation is written and it's just waiting for him to sign, and it's not. It's being worked on right now on Capitol Hill. It's in the progress of being assembled. So it's not that he comes to office and this is outstanding business. MR. GIBBS: Well -- well, it is outstanding business in the sense that typically appropriations bills are done before half the fiscal year is over. Q Right, but it's not too late to, like, tell Harry Reid, if you send this to me with this $8 billion --- MR. GIBBS: I think as I said before, Jake, that the President will lay out some very clear objectives on how we move forward. There will be, over the course of the next several years, dozens and dozens of appropriations bills that cross his desk. And we'll change the rules going forward, understanding that we have to deal with last year's business. Congress | Economy | Legislation | Obama Administration | Pork | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | White House Press Corps Labels: Congress, Economy, Legislation, Obama Administration, Pork, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 2:50:00 PM Pork for All My Friends - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 3/2/09 — Wednesday, March 04, 2009 —  Q A quick follow on the omnibus. Last week it was pointed out that a couple of Cabinet secretaries, LaHood and Mrs. Solis, have earmarks in this omnibus from last year, leftover funding. Now it's also been learned that Vice President Biden has -- I think it's $750,000 for the University of Delaware satellite station, and Rahm Emanuel $900,000 for the Chicago Planetarium.Since the President talked so much about earmarks in the campaign, and as President, about keeping them out of the stimulus -- I know this is leftover business from last year -- but as something that he is either going to sign or veto, why not have earmarks that come from his administration essentially at least taken out to set -- send a signal, number one? And number two, is he -- is there any chance he'll veto this bill and send it back and say, get these earmarks out; there's over 9,000 of them? MR. GIBBS: Well, I think you saw remarks this weekend by the chief of staff and the budget director about the legislation. Obviously the President is concerned, despite the progress that has been made in this town, about the size and the scope of earmarks that we've seen over the past few years. I think even the most cynical among us would have to at least acknowledge that the number of overall earmarks has been cut. I think it's important to recognize that a piece of legislation probably twice the size of the piece of legislation that you're asking me about was passed through Congress at the President's direction without earmarks. This is the finishing up of last year's appropriations legislation. And I think what's most important and what the President would tell you is important here is that though he doesn't control everything that happened before he became President of the United States, that dozens and dozens and dozens of appropriations bills will go through Congress and come to his desk over the course of the next four years. And -- Q But this incremental reform you're talking -- MR. GIBBS: Hold on. Well, hold on. The President you will see and hear outline a process of dealing with this problem in a different way, and that the rules of the road going forward for those many appropriations bills that will go through Congress and come to his desk will be done differently. Q So he'll have a new standard that he's going to lay out for the appropriations bills that will come to his desk that are actually written while he's President? MR. GIBBS: Yes, sir. Q And when is this? MR. GIBBS: Soon. Congress | Legislation | Pork | President Obama | Press Briefing | Rahm Emanuel | Robert Gibbs | White House Press Corps Labels: Congress, Legislation, Pork, President Obama, Press Briefing, Rahm Emanuel, Robert Gibbs, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 1:51:00 AM This Time, It's Personal (Video) - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 2/20/09 — Friday, February 20, 2009 — White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs directly attacks CNBC's Rick Santelli and his call for a New Tea Party protest against President Obama's anti-foreclosure plan. Apparently, to answer Rick's question, President Obama was listening and didn't like what he heard. Q On the foreclosure plan, aside from Rush Limbaugh and that cable rant on the floor of the Exchange, there really does appear to be some -- MR. GIBBS: Chuck's network? (Laughter.) Q -- there really does appear to be some anger out there from people who just don't believe the President when he said that only people who acted responsibly are going to be helped here. How can you assure people that you're going to reward only people, only homeowners who acted responsibly? MR. GIBBS: Well, let's go through this, because I do think this is very important. And I've watched Mr. Santelli on cable the past 24 hours or so. I'm not entirely sure where Mr. Santelli lives, or in what house he lives, but the American people are struggling every day to meet their mortgage, stay in their job, pay their bills, to send their kids to school, and to hope that they don't get sick or that somebody they care for gets sick and sends them into bankruptcy. I think we said a few months ago the adage that if it was good for a derivatives trader that it was good for Main Street. I think the verdict is in on that. Here's what this plan will do: For the very first time, this plan helps those who have acted responsibly, played by the rules, and made their mortgage payments. This will help people who aren't in trouble yet keep from getting in trouble. You can't stay in this program unless you continue to make mortgage payments. That's important for Mr. Santelli and millions of Americans to understand. Here's what this plan won't do: It won't help somebody trying to flip a house. It won't bail out an investor looking to make a quick buck. It won't help speculators that were betting on a risky market. And it is not going to help a lender who knowingly made a bad loan. And it is not going to help -- as the President said in Phoenix, it is not going to help somebody who has long ago known they were in a house they couldn't afford. That's why the President was very clear in saying this was not going to stop every person's home from being foreclosed. But Mr. Santelli has argued, I think quite wrongly, that this plan won't help everyone. This plan will help, by the money that's invested in Freddie and Fannie -- will drive down mortgage rates for millions of Americans. The President in his speech was very clear in saying that every American with a mortgage payment should call their lender and see if they can refinance right now. This plan helps people that have been playing by the rules but can't get refinancing, get that refinancing so their home doesn't become foreclosed on. And Mr. Santelli might also know that if you live in a home that's near one that's been foreclosed, your home value has likely dropped about 9 percent, which for the average home is about $20,000. Now, every day when I come out here, I spend a little time reading, studying on the issues, asking people who are smarter than I am questions about those issues. I would encourage him to read the President's plan and understand that it will help millions of people, many of whom he knows. I'd be more than happy to have him come here and read it. I'd be happy to buy him a cup of coffee -- decaf. (Laughter.) Chuck. Q I want to sort of follow up on the criticism that -- MR. GIBBS: Let me do this, too. This is a copy of the President's home affordability plan. It's available on the White House web site, and I would encourage him: download it, hit print, and begin to read it. Q The criticism that's coming on the housing plan is similar to the criticism that came on the bank bailout vote before you came into office and in Phase II, which is there are people who were irresponsible who will be helped -- period. It's going -- that is a fact, that is going to be -- that is going to be -- people are going to use that to say this is not fair. So what do you -- how do you -- you know, how do you justify that? I mean, how do you -- MR. GIBBS: Well, look, there is -- there will be people that made bad decisions that, in some ways, will get help. This plan, though, I think it's important for the American people to understand, was designed to help those that have been responsible. As the President has said, if your neighbor's house is on fire or if several houses are on fire, you don't debate it; you get a hose and try to put the fire out. That's what's most important. This plan will stop the spread of those foreclosures because it addresses those that are -- that potentially could be in trouble but aren't there yet, get the help they need so that the foreclosure sign doesn't go up on their front yard. But I also think it's tremendously important that for people who rant on cable television to be responsible and understand what it is they're talking about. I feel assured that Mr. Santelli doesn't know what he's talking about. CNBC | Economy | Legislation | Press Briefing | Rick Santelli | Robert Gibbs | White House Press Corps Labels: Economy, Legislation, Press Briefing, Rick Santelli, Robert Gibbs, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 4:56:00 PM Because Democrats and Republicans Worked Together (Laughter) - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 2/13/09 — Wednesday, February 18, 2009 —  Q Can I follow up one thought, or try Jennifer's question one more time --MR. GIBBS: Sure. It's allowed. (Laughter.) Q -- looking forward on the Gregg nomination. What can you do differently to make sure this kind of thing doesn't happen again. Does it -- does the White House Counsel's Office need to be more deeply involved? Do they need to ask more questions? I mean, you know, the -- MR. GIBBS: Well, I just -- I'm not entirely sure. You guys ask questions for a living. What might we pose that -- Q Yes, that would be an excellent idea. Get us involved. (Laughter.) MR. GIBBS: "Are you likely within a seven-day period to come to a different conclusion than the one which you're giving the President?" (Laughter.) You know, I don't -- Q Well, most of us thought he might. (Laughter.) MR. GIBBS: I mean, I don't know -- I don't know, maybe -- Q "Are you aware the President is a Democrat?" (Laughter.) MR. GIBBS: You know, the ten best questions I'll certainly get from you all over e-mail, I'll pass on to the Counsel's Office to expand our process. You know, again, I think that -- you know, like I said, it's hard to generalize over individual instances. You know, I mean, there's been a lot of discussion about, even in today's papers, about what does this mean for bipartisanship; is bipartisanship dead; isn't it just futile or silly for the President to reach out to the other side of the aisle? You know, it all seems somewhat silly to me, the arguments. I think if you look at the four -- the almost four weeks of this administration, and even a little bit beforehand because the President had to be -- was involved in talking to senators, including working with Senator Gregg on approving the money for -- the additional $350 billion for financial stability. That was done with Democrats and Republicans. The legislation the President signed to ensure that if a woman works in a factory all her life and is paid less than a man, that that won't stand in a court of law in this country. And that was done with Democrats and Republicans working together, and the President's signature. The expansion of children's health insurance, a very successful program that will now cover an additional 4 million people, was done with bipartisan support, and the President's signature. And I think when the dust finally settles today, whatever time that is, I think you'll see an economic recovery plan that moves forward because Democrats and Republicans worked together in order to get it to the President's desk -- something, as I've said, he'll sign quickly. And then we'll look forward and continue to reach out to Republicans in a way that moves an agenda forward that works best for the American people. The President is not going to -- the President is not going to stop reaching out to Republicans because one Republican he respects decided to change his mind and continue to serve and represent his state in the U.S. Senate. The President will continue to work and reach out to folks to move the agenda of this country forward. Bipartisanship | Congress | Economy | Legislation | Nominees | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | White House Press Corps Labels: Bipartisanship, Congress, Economy, Legislation, Nominees, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 9:22:00 PM Public Comment Period Waiver - Air Force One Press Gaggle by Robert Gibbs 2/12/09 NOTE: Due to the incredibly slow and sporadic manner in which the White House Press Office releases press briefing and gaggle transcripts, this entry is just now being posted after a delay of 7 days. This transcript was only released at about 8pm on 2/18/08, even though the timestamp on the document misleadingly claims "February 12th, 2009 at 8:02pm". "For Immediate Release" seems to be a relativistic term on these documents and should not be taken seriously.  Q During the campaign I'm pretty sure it was on your website that you said that all bills should have some kind of public comment period and they should be posted on the website for five days before the President signs it. What are you going to do about this one?MR. GIBBS: That included non-emergency legislation. Q Ahhh -- the waiver. (Laughter.) There was a waiver. MR. GIBBS: It's not a waiver, it was written right there on the website. We are working out a series of procedures to ensure that -- for non-emergency legislation, that people do have five days to look at the legislation that's been passed by Congress before it's signed into law. There have been some -- we're working through the technicalities of how that happens and we'll get a process together. I know there's something up on the White House blog on this right now, or has been within the past few days. Obviously, if we get this bill, this would certainly meet the President's test of emergency legislation. And if we're lucky enough to have it pass, we'll sign it rather quickly. Q And I just have a question about that. What would be the point of the public only getting to look at it by the time it's been completely passed and the President is about to sign it? I mean, by then it's kind of all over. MR. GIBBS: Mara, I'm amazed at the number of differing hurdles that -- Q I'm just curious. You know, you didn't post it while it was in progress. In other words, you're just waiting until the very end -- MR. GIBBS: Mara, people can go to the same website you go to when you read bills. There's congress.gov, there's the Library of Congress. There are any number of resources. I can only imagine that your reporting is informed by the careful examination of that very legislation throughout the process -- Q I'm just wondering why you wanted the five days in the first place. MR. GIBBS: It's important to put out -- for people to understand -- I think we've seen instances where legislation is done quickly and it's important for people to get a look at what's in those bills. And that's why the President outlined that policy. Air Force One | Legislation | Obama Administration | Open Government | Press Gaggle | Robert Gibbs | White House Press Office Labels: Air Force One, Legislation, Obama Administration, Open Government, Press Gaggle, Robert Gibbs, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 8:23:00 PM A Plan That Folks Agree On - Air Force One Press Gaggle by Robert Gibbs 2/9/09 — Monday, February 09, 2009 —  Q Axelrod pointed out that the President's approval ratings, when you talk about the stimulus, are higher than Congress. Why isn't the President taking more of a leadership role. You just said, the makeup of the bill should be up to the House and the Senate. Why not -- why doesn't the President say, okay, no, no, this is a provision, this is a provision?MR. GIBBS: Well, let me -- let me start by rejecting more or less the premise of your question, that the President isn't taking a leadership role. Q Well, I don't say he wasn't, I said "more of a." MR. GIBBS: Okay. Maybe I misunderstood the question. Q No, I didn't mean to suggest that he wasn't taking a leadership role. Like, why not -- why not exert more about the details of the plan than the House and the Senate? MR. GIBBS: I feel confident that by -- certainly through Tuesday and then hopefully by the end of the week, we can get a plan that folks agree on and get it to his desk. I think you'll see the President continue to exert the type of leadership that the American people are looking for; that you'll see the President highlight for all of Washington the problems that Americans are facing, particularly in Elkhart and next in Fort Myers, and then Thursday in Peoria where, you know, Caterpillar announced layoffs based on a faltering economy. Air Force One | Economy | Legislation | President Obama | Press Gaggle | Robert Gibbs | White House Press Corps Labels: Air Force One, Economy, Legislation, President Obama, Press Gaggle, Robert Gibbs, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 4:24:00 PM The Ways of Washington - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 1/29/09 — Thursday, January 29, 2009 —  MR. GIBBS: Sheryl.Q Robert, something you said earlier struck me. You said that it's going to take longer than 10 days to sort of change the ways of Washington. Does the President believe that the vote in the House was the result of sort of the deep ingrained patterns of the parties voting along party lines, or does he think that it was the result of philosophical differences over whether this bill would in fact work? MR. GIBBS: Well, I think that's in many ways a question to ask those that exercised that vote yesterday. Q Well, no, you're assessing the bill and the vote and the way -- MR. GIBBS: It's hard for me to speak to the mindset of -- either collectively or individually -- members of Congress. The President and his team formulated a proposal that they thought, and a framework and principles, that they thought would put money back in people's pockets and spend money to create jobs. That's what we endeavor to do, and what the process endeavors to do as it moves forward. Q Can I follow on that, though? Q Robert, you're the one that said, "changing the ways of Washington." What did you mean by that? MR. GIBBS: Well, I think there's any number of ways. I mean, obviously we've had a several-day discussion about bipartisanship. We've had -- we've talked about different vote counts. We've talked about nominations and confirmations. And we've seen somebody -- certainly some people in this room seem surprised at the lengths the President will go to to reach out to the other party, regardless of the results that happen on any given day. But that's not going to change the President's desire to do that reaching out, and to try, as I said earlier, figure out a way that even while we disagree we don't have to do it in a way that's disagreeable. Q Well, I guess the question is, doesn't your statement imply that it was politics as usual? If you say, there were no Republicans, it's going to take awhile to change the ways of Washington, doesn't that imply that it was a political move by the Republicans? MR. GIBBS: Again, I'd leave it some to them to figure out motivations. I think we all believe -- Democrat or Republican, Congress or the executive branch -- that we're going to be held accountable to the American people to get something done. Again, whether it's unemployment claims, whether it's GDP numbers, whether it's layoffs, we're in a crisis that requires us acting quickly to get something done. Bipartanship | Congress | Economy | Legislation | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | White House Press Corps Labels: Bipartisanship, Congress, Economy, Legislation, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 7:14:00 PM Animal House - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 1/27/09  Q At the meeting today Congressman Pence, among others, expressed concern that they had been shutout of this process when it comes to negotiation on Capitol Hill. Does the President think that Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Obey have been bipartisan the way he likes to hold out bipartisanship as a goal? MR. GIBBS: You know, Dick, I have not been in meetings about the stimulus bill. I can only talk most substantively about the viewpoint of the President and his involvement in this. And I think on any number of occasions -- whether it's going up there when he was President-elect, whether it's bringing a group down here last week, whether it's going back up there today -- that the President believes honestly that we can put something together with input from both parties that will most benefit the American people. Q But is he, for want of a better word, leaning on Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Obey and others to be more bipartisan? You're probably not going to get more than a dozen Republican votes tomorrow -- that's hardly bipartisan. MR. GIBBS: You know, I think we've all seen votes in this town where a few Republicans sometimes are hard to come by or a few Democrats are hard to come by. We'll take what we can get tomorrow. I think the most important thing about tomorrow is keeping this process going. Because again, the American people deserve a process that understands the severity of the crisis that they're involved in, not to get involved in some "Animal House"-type food fight on Capitol Hill about what's going to happen up there. I think what's most important is that we move this process along. The President was willing to go up there today and do what he can to help move that process along and get something quickly for the American people. Congress | Economy | Legislation | Press Briefing | Republicans | Robert Gibbs | Stimulus Package | White House Press Corps Labels: Congress, Economy, Legislation, Press Briefing, Republicans, Robert Gibbs, Stimulus Package, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 4:15:00 PM Tranche Warfare - White House Press Briefing by Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Joel Kaplan 12/19/08 — Friday, December 19, 2008 —  Q Can you give us a breakdown of who's getting what out of the first $13.4 billion? And is there a distinction of how much you're making available in, say, loan guarantees, which is something Ford was more interested in, versus outright cash out the door? MR. KAPLAN: Yes. The loans that are being announced today are for the GM auto manufacturer and Chrysler auto manufacturing company. Ford, in Treasury discussions with them, I believe does not believe that it needs a loan today. Out of the total -- I mentioned that the total is $17.4 billion -- $13.4 billion of that is going to be made available to these two companies in December and January, and $4 billion is needed in February by GM. So if I do my math correctly, I think that means that $13.4 billion also happens to be the number, coincidentally, that is going to GM, and $4 billion is the number that is going to Chrysler. Q And how do-- MR. KAPLAN: But it's a little confusing because these numbers just -- literally coincidentally happen to be the same, the total -- the total that -- Q So some of it will be in the $4 billion that is the post -- or second tranche amount? MR. KAPLAN: Right, the February tranche of $4 billion is for GM. So $13.4 billion is being divided by GM and Chrysler in December and January. Q Evenly, like -- MR. KAPLAN: No, not evenly. Q Okay. MR. KAPLAN: I believe that it is $4 billion for Chrysler and the remainder, which would be $9.4 billion in December and January for GM, with the remaining $4 billion in February for GM. I apologize, I know those -- it's a little confusing just because of the coincidence of the numbers. Q And how do you resolve the Cerberus issue, because they are a private company -- it calls for warrants, the loans. How does the administration -- or the loan terms deal with that? MR. KAPLAN: Yes, the specifics of how the Treasury intends to get warrants from Chrysler, which is privately held, I'm going to have to rely on Treasury to give the details on. But these loans are to the auto manufacturing companies of GM and Chrysler. Automobile Industry | Joel Kaplan | Legislation | Press Briefing | Treasury Department | White House Press Corps Labels: Automobile Industry, Joel Kaplan, Legislation, Press Briefing, Treasury Department, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 5:23:00 PM Automakers Bailout Up in the Air - Air Force One Press Gaggle by Dana Perino 12/12/08 — Friday, December 12, 2008 —  Q Will you start using TARP money now? Are you going to direct the Treasury --MS. PERINO: I didn't say that. I didn't say that. I said that given the current state of the U.S. economy, we'll consider other options if necessary, and I said including use of some of the TARP; that's one of the options. Q How soon -- walk us through his thought process right now. Who does he need to talk to first? What decisions need to be made before he decides -- MS. PERINO: He's in regular contact with all of his economic advisors. And so we'll be weighing all of the options and making decisions as soon as we need to. Q How soon does he feel he needs to make a decision? MS. PERINO: We didn't discuss that. I mean, obviously we have talked about he urgency of the situation. We have been pushing to get this done; we wanted to get it done last night. Both Congress and the -- the House and the Senate had bipartisan majorities supporting our approach, but they didn't get it over the goal line. And so we have to consider what other options we would take. But I don't have a time frame on it. Q Are you basically saying that you are going to make the decision -- it's not Congress now? I mean, basically, you are going to make the decision on what to do -- MS. PERINO: Congress spoke. Congress spoke last night. They don't have the votes to do anything, despite having majorities in both the House and the Senate supporting a reasonable approach that we put forward. We thought that the legislation could have even been improved. We thought that senators were making good progress last night and talking about the Corker amendment. But again, it just -- it didn't get the votes that it needed to pass the Senate. They needed 60; I think they had 53. Q You mentioned the use of -- you mentioned TARP funds as one option. Are there any other options? MS. PERINO: We're going to weigh all options. I mentioned TARP, as that's been something that you all have been asking about for weeks. And it's just one of the options that's out there, sure. Q Can you describe the other options? MS. PERINO: No. Q Is the Federal Reserve -- cash from the Federal Reserve an option? MS. PERINO: I don't know. Q Will the decision be made this week? I mean, it's Friday today. Or is next week -- MS. PERINO: I don't know. Air Force One | Automobile Industry | Congress | Dana Perino | Legislation | President Bush | Press Gaggle | TARP | White House Press Corps Labels: Air Force One, Automobile Industry, Congress, Dana Perino, Legislation, President Bush, Press Gaggle, TARP, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 9:45:00 PM Kicking the Can - White House Press Briefing by Dana Perino 12/11/08 — Thursday, December 11, 2008 —  Q Dana, one of the concerns of some Republicans is this doesn't solve the automakers' problem. Bob Corker says you're just kicking the can down the road. With $14 billion you really only get them into the Obama administration. Is that the solution to -- is this only a matter of holding off for a few months the ultimate collapse of one or more of the auto companies? MS. PERINO: Well, I don't think that the companies think that they have a few months. That's why we are trying to act now. I will let them speak for themselves, but I think they've been very open about the difficulties that they're having right now. And that is why they've come and asked for help. It's not an easy thing or a thing to do to come and ask the federal government for help. You have to put away your pride and say, we want these -- we want our companies to be able to be successful; here's what we're going to be willing to do. Now, the auto czar that we would put in place would have the opportunity to make them -- force them to make really tough concessions. But the other thing is, is that if we don't act and these companies go away, we could wake up and not have any domestic auto industry, which is certainly not the outcome that this President wants and I would think that most members on Capitol Hill don't want it either. But here's the thing, Wendell -- for those members who think that, I would ask them just to look at this legislation because there's really only one of two outcomes: either fundamental restructuring that will make them viable in the long term, or an orderly bankruptcy filing. And we're just asking for a little bit of help from money already appropriated to help the automakers in order for them to be able to either make their companies profitable or to go into an orderly bankruptcy. Those are the two outcomes that we're seeking. Q And the idea that you're kicking the can down the road? MS. PERINO: I don't see how that -- we're trying to pass legislation today. I don't understand how that's kicking the can down the road. Plus, we have also been working with the Obama administration, as you heard -- I'm sorry, Obama team, not quite administration yet -- but we've been working with them, making sure that they understood the actions that we are wanting to take. And I think that they've been at least generally supportive -- I won't speak for them -- but generally supportive of the measures we're taking, because they recognize the ramifications of not acting. Automobile Industry | Congress | Dana Perino | Legislation | Press Briefing | White House Press Corps Labels: Automobile Industry, Congress, Dana Perino, Legislation, Press Briefing, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 10:52:00 PM Car Czar - White House Press Briefing by Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Joel Kaplan 12/10/08 — Wednesday, December 10, 2008 —  MR. KAPLAN: Ann. Q What kind of person is the President going to look for as this designee? I mean, someone from outside of government; how skilled and knowledgeable within the auto industry; and someone who would serve past this administration? MR. KAPLAN: It's a good question, Ann. The legislation provides a great deal of flexibility on who could fill the post of President's designee. And that will be flexibility that this President will have the ability to exercise for the next 41 days, and flexibility the next administration will have. And that's something that we will want to be in continuing contact with the President-elect's team on to figure out what's the best way of doing that to achieve everybody's goal here in the legislation, which is to empower the person and make them successful, but recognizing that there will be a new President on January 20th, and a new team, and we want to make sure that however we proceed, it's consistent with the President-elect's view on how that can be most effective, because it will be under their administration that this decision will ultimately get made. Q It sounds like you want -- that he is thinking of somebody, because of the time frame, who would not be serving just for a few days and then someone else coming in. Would it be the President's intention to try to find someone who would remain, who would be acceptable to the new administration? MR. KAPLAN: I'll just reiterate, we'll -- we expect to work closely with the President-elect's team in figuring out, once this legislation is passed, what the most effective means possible is of implementing this legislation, recognizing that we've got a transition. Q Would the designee work for the White House or be in one of the Cabinet departments? MR. KAPLAN: As I said, the legislation provides a great deal of flexibility, and right now we're focused on getting that legislation enacted so that we have that flexibility. When we're prepared to exercise it, we will let you know how the President intends to exercise it. [...] Q And what does the President think of Paul Volcker for this car czar? Q I was going to ask the same thing. MR. KAPLAN: Really? Well, that's funny because I was going to dodge it when she asked it. (Laughter.) Look, we're -- as I said to Ann, we're focused on getting the legislation passed. Obviously Paul Volcker is a person of tremendous stature and gravitas. But I have no reason to believe that there's been any decisions about who the person would be, if it would be a person from the outside. We're going to -- we're just going to reserve all flexibility on that until we actually get the legislation, until we have a chance to consult with the members of Congress and with the President-elect's team. Q A quick follow on that, Joel. How quickly after the legislation passes would you be looking to name the car czar? MR. KAPLAN: Quickly. Obviously -- Q Days? MR. KAPLAN: We would look to move as quickly as we could. We will obviously want to consult with members of Congress and with the President-elect's team. I can't tell you exactly how quickly that will be. Besides this briefing, I'm mostly focused on working with the Congress on the legislation itself so that we're in a position to have that -- to have the luxury of moving quickly on the person. [...] Q With the President's designee getting so strong authority on the plans, et cetera, how much does this run counter to what the President has said for years, that it is not the role of the government to run private companies? MR. KAPLAN: Yes, it's not the intention in this bill of this President's designee to run the private companies; it's the purpose to empower somebody to sit down with the private companies and all of their stakeholders, who so far have not, apparently, been capable of making agreements that would render them a viable entity going forward, which is why they've come to the government and to the Congress looking for assistance. So this is not somebody who is going to run the companies; it is somebody who is going to be empowered to, like I said before, bring them around the table, knock heads, and tell them, if you want assistance from the taxpayer going forward you're going to have to make some difficult concessions. Now, what are those concessions you're prepared to make, and show me how that adds up to a plan for financial viability. It's not something you would want to do in normal times, and it's not something you would normally do with another company or industry. We're in very challenging economic times. It is our view that to have a uncontrolled bankruptcy in the next couple of weeks in these firms could have very significant and damaging consequences for the economy. So we think there is a rationale for providing them temporary bridge financing, as I started the briefing with, if you can have some reassurance, some very substantial reassurance that the taxpayers' investment in these companies is going to be protected. And that's why you have an empowered President's designee to ensure that that investment is protected. And that's what I've tried to describe. Automobile Industry | Car Czar | Joel Kaplan | Legislation | Press Briefing | White House Press Corps Labels: Automobile Industry, Car Czar, Joel Kaplan, Legislation, Press Briefing, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 6:13:00 PM Ave, Caesar, morituri te salutant! - White House Press Briefing by Dana Perino 12/8/08 — Monday, December 08, 2008 —  Q What about this idea of an oversight board? Is the White House okay with that? MS. PERINO: One of our ideas was a financial viability advisor. They gave me an acronym of FVA, if you want to add one to your list. (Laughter.) This is a person who would be named by the President with the authority to negotiate a credible viability plan with automakers seeking assistance. So, for example, if an automaker comes to the government seeking assistance, we will make short-term financing available, providing that the automakers and the stakeholders, like the UAW, agree to negotiate with the advisor in good faith and on a credible plan for long-term viability. Near the end of that short-term period, the FVA will report on whether the automaker is executing a credible plan for long-term viability. And if he or she determines that they are indeed -- and progress is being made in negotiations, then additional assistance could be made available at that time. If the talks, however, are not headed in that direction and if that fails, then the FVA will submit an alternative viability plan that would involve restructuring through Chapter 11, and require automakers to repay the government the amount of their short-term bridge financing. Long-term financing in this case would only be made available subject to the approval of this new advisor. Q So -- and that's different from what they're talking about is an oversight board? MS. PERINO: Not necessarily. Again, we don't know what the legislative language is going to show. I think that the key is advisor, more than one, but an entity that would serve as a viability validator. Q But what you're talking about are conditions for oversight to work, not necessarily if it's this particular person or board or whatever. MS. PERINO: Right. Our idea was one person that would serve as an advisor, somebody appointed by the President. Of course when you're working on a negotiation, you talk to them about their ideas, as well; we'll see what they come back with. But our concern right now is on the process, because we haven't seen the legislation, so we can't give you any more details. Automobile Industry | Congress | Dana Perino | Legislation | Press Briefing | White House Press Corps Labels: Automobile Industry, Congress, Dana Perino, Legislation, Press Briefing, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 8:27:00 PM The Big 3 Bailout Request - White House Press Briefing by Dana Perino 12/3/08 — Wednesday, December 03, 2008 —  MS. PERINO: Matt.Q The automakers' funding request, in their just-presented plans, totaled $34 billion in loans and credit lines, and that would be above and beyond the $25 billion in the Energy Department technology improvement funds that were already appropriated by Congress. That's quite a big sum over and above what the White House has shown a willingness to agree to or to support. MS. PERINO: Good point, right. Q What's your -- what's the White House -- MS. PERINO: Well, that's a good point, and we'll have to -- again, we're going to have to look at the plans and see what may or may not be able to be supported by us for those companies as they move forward. We have said that we want to try to help the automakers, and we've put forward a plan that we think that can get bipartisan support. But we need to look at each of them and see if what we would be able to support could actually be a good investment for the taxpayers, and we just don't know that yet. Q But you had said yesterday that $25 billion sounded -- the technology funds alone sounded pretty generous. MS. PERINO: Well, I think that to the American people, that giving $25 billion in taxpayer dollars to a specific industry is generous. But these are very serious times, and I'm sure the companies have spent a lot of time thinking through what they think they will need. And we'll have to wait and see what their plans say. Give us a chance to look through them. Let's see what they have to say tomorrow, and let's see what kind of support they can get on Capitol Hill tomorrow, as well. I think that remains a little bit of a mystery. Automobile Industry | Congress | Dana Perino | Legislation | Press Briefing | White House Press Corps Labels: Automobile Industry, Congress, Dana Perino, Legislation, Press Briefing, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 4:38:00 PM Harry Reid: An American Prorogation - White House Press Briefing by Dana Perino 11/20/08 — Thursday, November 20, 2008 —  Q But my question is, if Congress does not act this week, is the administration just going to watch GM sink? MS. PERINO: If the Congress doesn't act this week and one of the companies is in imminent danger of insolvency, we would suspect that they would want to come back and finish the work that they didn't get done this week. Q You would anticipate that Congress would come back? MS. PERINO: We would -- I can't imagine a scenario where they wouldn't come back, unless the answer is that they just don't care. And if that's the case, then the American people ought to know that and hear it from them. Q What are the chances that something is going to get done this week? MS. PERINO: Well, we always remain hopeful. We believe the path that we've set forward could get bipartisan support if it was allowed to come for a vote. And so we would ask them to just think about taking a step back from partisan politics and throwing up obstacles for the sake of throwing up obstacles, and consider our proposal, and the one that Senators Bond and Voinovich have put forward, because we do think that they would be able to get help for the automakers in a way that would help them get through this rough patch, but also help them restructure, make the hard decisions necessary to restructure. I think the key point is that the American taxpayer should only be asked to help these companies if they're willing to make the hard decisions necessary to be viable in the long run. Q But why do you remain hopeful? I mean, are you hearing anything in the -- MS. PERINO: Well, they haven't left town yet. The gavel hasn't come down. And presumably, given the rhetoric that they've used over the past week, the Democrats believe that the automakers need help. Well, if that's the case, then they should allow us to move forward to have a vote on something that we think could get passed. The truth is Senator Reid's idea could not get enough votes in the Senate to get through the process. So the alternative would be to, well, could we think of another way, a bipartisan way where we could get the automakers help? Instead, he just wants to pull the plug and leave town. And we don't think that that is a good way to help the auto industry, and we certainly don't think it's a good signal for the bipartisanship that everyone pledged over the past year. Automobile Industry | Congress | Dana Perino | Democrats | Harry Reid | Legislation | Press Briefing | White House Press Corps Labels: Automobile Industry, Congress, Dana Perino, Democrats, Harry Reid, Legislation, Press Briefing, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 5:26:00 PM It's a TARP! - White House Press Briefing by Dana Perino 11/18/08 — Tuesday, November 18, 2008 —  Q Congressman Hoyer says he is hopeful that the Democrats can reach a compromise with the White House on aid to automakers. Does the White House believe that such a compromise can be achieved this week, or are you beginning to see this as something that's going to have to be left for -- to be worked out with the Obama administration? MS. PERINO: Well, of course we remain hopeful that we can find a bipartisan solution. We think that we already have a bipartisan solution, because we have legislation that's already on the books, where money has already been appropriated to help automakers through the DOE loan program, 136 loan program. We've already put forward regulations that would guide how that would work. What we're simply saying is that maybe we can work together to amend that process so that companies that can prove viability could take advantage and have that money sooner if they need it during this rough patch. The House and Senate are in today, but they're having hearings. I think tomorrow you'll probably see a little bit more action once they're able to bring something to the floor. We still don't know exactly what they would bring to the floor. But we think that we have a solution here that is very logical and very reasonable. Perhaps it's so logical and so reasonable that people really just can't get their arms around it, because it's Washington, D.C. But we think that we have a path forward. And we'll let you know as we continue to work with members of Congress whether or not we can forge an agreement. We hope to do so this week. Q When you say "amended," do you mean amended so that it is not required to be used for fuel efficiency? MS. PERINO: Right, that those funds would be freed up and that they could use those funds for other things. That does not mean that we are relaxing any standards when it comes to fuel efficiency. President Bush proposed the changes that we are starting to implement now; Congress finally passed them. And we have a chance now to really improve the fuel efficiency of these vehicles. What we're saying is that the Congress already passed $25 billion for the auto industry so that they could retool their factories and meet those standards. They're still going to have to meet those standards, but if they need that money sooner and need it for other purposes, we're saying simply amend that bill and allow that money to be used for other things. And if in the future they decide -- the next administration and the Congress decides to add additional funds to help the automakers to meet those standards, that will be up to them. We just don't think that we should provide the $25 billion that was already on the table, plus an additional $25 billion, unless companies can show us that they have a long-term path for viability. Q So, Dana, is the primary sticking point, then, just the source of the money? If it comes from TARP, you don't like it; but if it comes from the Department of Energy, you do like it? I mean, does the White House completely agree that automakers do need and deserve this money? MS. PERINO: We want the automakers to succeed. There is a pot of money that exists, it's there for the taking, it's on the table. And we think that a simple amendment to the law that has already been passed to allow them to be able to use these funds is the best way for us to be able to help the automakers right now. And so we're going to try and help them do that. We don't think that these funds should be taken from the TARP. That was never the intent of Congress. That money is specifically for the financial industry, to help prevent collapse in our financial system. And that's what Secretary Paulson and Ben Bernanke are talking about this morning on Capitol Hill. Q So that's the only difference is that you don't like one source and they like a different source? I mean, I don't really see -- it seems like that is very close to an agreement. MS. PERINO: It's a significant difference. Well, it's a significant difference when you're talking about which pot of money to use, because we want the money that has already been appropriated, that we have rules that govern how it would be used. We also went through the process of rushing through, but doing it in a proper way, the rules of the road to prove viability that's defined in our legislation. What the Democrats put forward yesterday is a proposal that fails to require automakers to prove viability. We don't think that taxpayers should be asked to throw money at a company that can't prove that it has a long-term path for success. That's a key difference between us and them. Bret. Q Isn't it true that they want both? They don't one or the other, they want both. MS. PERINO: Right, they want the money that's already been appropriated and they want an additional $25 billion, which we think is unnecessary and unreasonable at this point. Automobile Industry | Congress | Dana Perino | Legislation | Press Briefing | TARP | White House Press Corps Labels: Automobile Industry, Congress, Dana Perino, Legislation, Press Briefing, TARP, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 6:39:00 PM Favorability and Power - White House Press Briefing by Dana Perino 10/14/08 — Tuesday, October 14, 2008 —  Q According to some of those who were a part of the banking meeting yesterday, they were not all enthusiastic about signing off on this initially. In the President's dealings with banks, with the allies, with Congress, has he felt any impact related to his relatively low -- historic low job approval rating in the country? Has that had any impact, or been any disadvantage to him?MS. PERINO: The President is focused on leading; he doesn't focus on the approval ratings. And yet -- I wasn't in the meetings yesterday, but I would imagine that there was probably some reluctance to move forward with this, but a willingness to do it, because everyone recognizes that we have to do it in order to protect everybody and to get this economy moving again. So, sure, there's not a soul that wanted to have to do this. But if we're going to do it, we better do it right. And we better implement the legislation in a way that gets it done appropriately. This legislation got passed; this legislation is being implemented. The banks are going to participate in this program, and they have an incentive to get the government out of their business. We'll have a quarterly dividend that comes back to the American taxpayer at a 5 percent rate for the first three years. That jumps to 9 percent after those first three years. And so they have every incentive to work very hard to get their businesses back up to par, and return to normalcy. Q Has the President felt any impact from the poll numbers that are out this week giving him a historically low job approval rating? It hasn't had any impact on his dealing with foreign leaders or with Congress? MS. PERINO: Well, I think that if anybody who saw the statements yesterday by Prime Minister Berlusconi and others, all the conversations he's had, the United States is the one helping to provide the leadership necessary to steer this ship, so that we can all save our economies. That's what this President is focused on. He's not focused on the approval ratings as a lot of the media are. Dana Perino | Economy | Legislation | Polls | President Bush | Press Briefing | White House Press Corps Labels: Dana Perino, Economy, Legislation, Polls, President Bush, Press Briefing, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 7:53:00 PM Bailout Pork - White House Press Briefing by Tony Fratto 10/3/08 — Friday, October 03, 2008 — MR. FRATTO: Yes, Mark.Q Tony, listening to the debate on the House floor, many of the opponents were quite alarmed by what they described as a "pork-laden, earmark-laden bill." They talked about tax breaks for rum producers in Puerto Rico, arrow -- wooden arrow makers in Oregon for Hollywood producers -- MR. FRATTO: I think you should look for -- Q How do you answer that? MR. FRATTO: Well, the ranking member, ranking Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee just put out a very long statement addressing some of those things. And as he pointed out, this was the same package that was promoted by Republicans not too long ago. I think Representative Camp had sent it up as -- or put it forth on their motion to recommit, same exact package. There are -- the rum provision, it's not a tax break for rum producers. These are excise taxes that actually go back to the government of Puerto Rico. Some of these things have sort of interesting headline-making characteristics to them, but when you look deeper at them, they make a lot of sense. I mean, I didn't know anything about children's arrows, but I've learned a lot over the last 24 hours, and it turns out that the -- Q Did you get the point? (Laughter.) MR. FRATTO: You hit the bulls-eye with that one, Mark. (Laughter.) It turns out that the excise tax is -- would be 39 cents an arrow, but it only costs about 30 cents an arrow to make, so there are very real reasons why you wouldn't want to have that kind of tax on that kind of product. So I would point you to what Representative McCrery put out. He has a document that explains each one of these provisions. And the entire package of extenders is something that we are very, very comfortable supporting. Congress | Legislation | Pork | Press Briefing | Tony Fratto | White House Press Corps Labels: Congress, Legislation, Pork, Press Briefing, Tony Fratto, White House Press Corps
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 6:14:00 PM Raising FDIC Coverage - White House Press Briefing by Tony Fratto 10/2/08 — Thursday, October 02, 2008 —  MR. FRATOO: Jennifer.Q I'm trying to understand this deposit insurance increase. MR. FRATTO: Sure. Q One of the reasons obviously that the vote went the way it did on Monday was that folks were uncomfortable with the idea of so much government money into the private markets, into Wall Street, that whole line of concern. But I'm trying to understand how protecting deposits that are over $100,000, which is a lot of money -- not -- most regular people don't have $100,000 sitting around in any one account --how is that getting to the Main Street regular people -- MR. FRATTO: Sure. Actually, it's one of -- America's small businesses use their local banks in order to fund their operations. That's where they keep their money for day-to-day operations -- their funds for payroll, for example. And so they would have -- in fact, a great many of them would have far more than $100,000 in their accounts. And what a lot of small businesses have had to do across the country is to split up their accounts as they felt that maybe banks were threatened -- split up their accounts in numerous banks, which is incredibly inefficient; it's not a very efficient way to do business. And you're also noticing that small businesses were moving their funds from banks that were perceived to be weak to banks that were perceived to be strong, and so really not normal ways of doing business. Raising the cap allows them to have the confidence that they can keep those funds in their local bank. They don't have to move them around. And so it's a much bigger cushion. Q Okay. Congress | Legislation | FDIC | Press Briefing | Tony Fratto | White House Press Corps Labels: Congress, FDIC, Legislation, Press Briefing, Tony Fratto, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 4:32:00 PM Add-ons to Financial Bailout Bill - White House Press Briefing by Tony Fratto 10/1/08 — Wednesday, October 01, 2008 —  Q Tony, is the White House concerned at all about the possibility of losing votes in the House because of the add-ons in the Senate bill?MR. FRATTO: Right now we're focused on the Senate. We think the modifications are helpful and will help to achieve passage in the House. Q Didn't you want a clean bill, though? You didn't want a lot of add-ons and you're ending up with add-ons. MR. FRATTO: Well, we didn't want a lot of add-ons. We didn't want things that we felt would be harmful to the economy. But since we started working with the Congress 10 days ago on the actual legislation, we've made a number of changes and modifications. The things that are being added on right now, on the tax extenders, these are things that we have all supported. In fact, both Houses support extending the tax credits for renewable energy; both support AMT reform. There's a dispute in terms of whether they should be offset, and of course, we have opposed increasing taxes to pay for fixing a problem in the tax code. And the FDIC decision has been a recent one that we think will garner some additional support. So, yes, look, this is not -- it's never a straight line in trying to get legislation like this, and we're very appreciative of the Senate's efforts to try to develop this legislation in a way that will be successful. Congress | Legislation | Press Briefing | Senate | Tony Fratto | Wall Street | White House Press Corps Labels: Congress, Legislation, Press Briefing, Senate, Tony Fratto, Wall Street, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 5:26:00 PM Wall Street Bailout and McCain - White House Press Briefing by Dana Perino 9/26/08 — Friday, September 26, 2008 —  Q What do you think -- what progress do you think happened between yesterday and just now for John McCain to say he's going to resume his campaign and go to the debate?MS. PERINO: I don't know. I couldn't tell you what his -- Q He says there's been progress since yesterday's meeting. MS. PERINO: Senator Reid said the same thing; so did Senator Gregg. And I'm going to let the negotiators continue. As I said, we've been -- we feel like we've been close, but we're not quite there yet. There are many members of Congress, especially on the House Republican side, who have a lot of concerns, and I understand those concerns. We get it. This President did not want to have to take this route, either. But it was after being briefed repeatedly by his Secretary of the Treasury and his Fed Chairman that if we did not do something drastic, that we would have -- we would be facing financial calamity, that the President of the United States said we can't sit by and let that happen. If we have a way that could fix it and to stabilize and strengthen the financial markets, we have an obligation to do that. Q Do you think the debate adds to or detracts from the work that will be done on the Hill? MS. PERINO: I just don't know. But I think it'll be fun to watch. (Laughter.) Congress | Dana Perino | John McCain | Legislation | Press Briefing | Wall Street | White House Press Corps Labels: Congress, Dana Perino, John McCain, Legislation, Press Briefing, Wall Street, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 5:53:00 PM Farm Bill & Veto - Air Force One Press Gaggle by Dana Perino 5/22/08 — Thursday, May 22, 2008 —  Q Farm bill -- where are we with the farm bill?MS. PERINO: You tell me -- or the Democrats tell me. Q What did he veto? MS. PERINO: He vetoed -- the President vetoed the bill that the Democrats sent us. And, look, I understand there's a technical error and we'll have to see what the Congress decides to do, but maybe it gives them one more chance to take a look and think about how much they're asking the taxpayers to spend at a time of record farm income. The Congress had an opportunity to put forward -- I'm sorry -- to implement reforms, much needed reforms, and they decided not to. And I think with this move it shows that they can even up screw up spending the taxpayers' money unwisely. Q What was that -- MS. PERINO: Said they can -- they've proved that they can even screw up spending the taxpayers' money unwisely. (Laughter.) Laughter by reporters. (Laughter.) Air Force One | Congress | Dana Perino | Legislation | Pork | Press Gaggle | Vetoes | White House Press Corps Labels: Air Force One, Congress, Dana Perino, Legislation, Pork, Press Gaggle, Vetoes, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 10:14:00 PM
|
|
