in their own words
 |
|
|
|
 More This Than That - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 3/23/09 — Tuesday, March 24, 2009 —  Q Robert, in rolling out the details today, Timothy Geithner used a more, sort of, quiet approach -- pen-and-pad with reporters, not getting out there on television in a very public way. Why?MR. GIBBS: You guys always -- every time we do one of these things, we do a background briefing, and somebody asks if it can be on the record -- Q But this was a major -- MR. GIBBS: -- and, you know, we don't want just a speech, we'd like to do some Q&A, and so we put the Secretary of Treasury out on the record to -- Q This was a major event. Everyone was waiting for the details, and it almost seemed like it came out in a less than, sort of, bombastic way. MR. GIBBS: I guess he's worried a little bit less about what the packaging is on the present, and more importantly, what’s inside of the box. I suppose we could have rigged out some flags and printed up some placards and cued up some old campaign music, but I think what's important -- maybe not for Washington reporters, but what’s more important for the American people is to get the details of a plan that works to get their bank lending money again. I think that's, in all honesty, what the Americans people care most about. I think if you objectively look at what this administration has done, or what the economic team has done in the course of about nine weeks of service, I think you’d be hard-pressed to find nine weeks where more solutions were outlined of problems and challenges that have been facing this country probably since the 1930s. Q Just to follow another question –- Christina Romer, in an interview with CNN earlier today, talked about how if this doesn’t work that we’ll review it – we’ll tweak it, I think was the exact language that she used. Is there a backup plan if this doesn’t work? And to say "tweak" it, does that sort of instill sort of a lack of confidence that this will actually work? MR. GIBBS: Do we have a backup plan if it doesn’t work, and if we do have a backup plan, does that denote that we're preparing for it not to work? I want to sift through the circular -- Q I asked a backup plan because she said if it doesn’t work we'll "tweak" it. But I'm just wondering, does that give a sense of -- MR. GIBBS: Again, I think it is safe to assume that any policy that this administration or -- I'll speak broadly for any politician in the country -- if they roll out a plan, it's constantly evaluated to ensure that the objectives by which the plan was introduced are met by the implementation of the plan. And if the plan doesn’t meet through its implementation the objectives of what it was outlined to do, that that plan might be augmented to meet those objectives. Q That was deep. That was deep. MR. GIBBS: That was more this than that. (Laughter.) Banking | Economy | Obama Administration | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | TARP | Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner | White House Press Corps Labels: Banking, Economy, Obama Administration, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, TARP, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 2:54:00 PM  Framing This Thing - Press Briefing by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner 3/23/09 — Monday, March 23, 2009 —  Q Looking at the example you give in the fact sheet -- the first program -- you start with talking about $100 in bank loans, but the private investor only has to kick in $6 for -- seems to be on the hook for $6 at the end of the day, and the FDIC guarantees between there and whatever was paid for the bad loan.Do you think a person outside this room, outside the Beltway, looking at that would feel like that's a -- you know, you've gotten a good deal by getting someone to kick in $6 for a loan that is valued at a $100, that's being purchased for $84. SECRETARY GEITHNER: I'm very confident you and your colleagues will do a good job of framing this thing -- (laughter) -- but let me just come back to the basic point. Okay? The point is, relative to what? What our job is, is to try to fix this problem in our financial system at least cost to the taxpayer and ways to get the incentives right so we can have private capital come in and not have the government do all of it. And the alternative strategies would have the government either taking on all that risk ourselves, having all those losses on our balance sheet -- or, sitting back and letting this process of deleveraging continue to weigh on the American economy, pushing viable businesses closer to the edge, where they have to shrink their businesses to get through this. And that's not an alternative we're prepared to support. The key thing is, again, that you -- people have to compete for the right to get access to financing in this context and they have to put money at risk for it to work. Yes. Q Can you clarify under both plans who is actually holding the assets at the end of the day, and explain to taxpayers what the upside is to all of that? How are they going to share in the upside of this program? SECRETARY GEITHNER: These funds -- purchase assets -- they're managed by professionals who know how to do this for a living. If there is a return to these over time, which we expect there will be, taxpayers will share in that return. So taxpayers are getting to take the benefits of providing this financing to the market. Now, of course investors will share, too, in that return, as you would expect. That's the simplest way to describe it I think. Banking | Economy | Press Briefing | TARP | Treasury Department | Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner Labels: Banking, Economy, Press Briefing, TARP, Treasury Department, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 4:08:00 PM Geithner Time Loop Theory - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 3/20/09 — Saturday, March 21, 2009 —  Q On Geithner, is the administration sticking to -- are you sticking to this March 10th date for when he found out about this? Because I -- he was asked about it in Congress a week before - Q It was March 9th. Q March 9th. He was asked a week before, specifically. MR. GIBBS: And I think the Treasury Department addressed that in the newspaper this morning. Look, I think there's -- there has been -- obviously, the Treasury has talked about taking responsibility for knowing more about the timeline. Q When Secretary Geithner talked about that yesterday, he really parsed words. He said, on Tuesday, March 10th, I was informed about the full scale and scope of these specific bonuses. He's not saying that was the first time he learned about it -- MR. GIBBS: Well -- Q A very careful parsing of words here, suggesting he did know about it before then. MR. GIBBS: No, I -- I think if you read carefully the report you're discussing, the Treasury Secretary takes responsibility, as the President does -- Q But he's sticking by that October 10th date -- excuse me, March 10th date -- MR. GIBBS: Right, I -- Q -- even though he clearly knew about it before then. He was asked about it in Congress -- MR. GIBBS: But, again -- but again, Chip -- Q -- and he was overseeing the AIG bailout. I mean, is it -- MR. GIBBS: What committee -- Q It just doesn't seem credible. MR. GIBBS: That was Ways and Means? Q Yes. But he was specifically asked the question. MR. GIBBS: No, I understand. I understand. And I think he's addressed that and I think that's addressed in both the reports today and what he said yesterday. Chip, we're -- we understand and the President shares the outrage and the frustration that everybody has. The administration is taking steps to recoup money that's gone out, as well as to put in place a financial stability plan and to seek progress on getting our economy moving again. Q Let me just ask you specifically. When he says, on March 10th he was informed about the full scale and scope, is he saying that's the first he learned about it at all? MR. GIBBS: Chip, the question is predicated on the report in the paper and I think the report in the paper answers your question. Q So he did know about it before then? 20:54 MR. GIBBS: Chip, I will -- can somebody go get a dollar and buy Chip a newspaper so that he can read the report? Again, I think it's pretty clear -- Q Been read. MR. GIBBS: Excellent. Then I believe it's been answered. Q Robert, can I follow on that real quick? Why did you tell us that it was March 10th, then, that you found out? The statement from the White House was very specific, he found out March 10th. MR. GIBBS: Again, I would point you to the report that the Secretary of the Treasury takes responsibility, as does the administration, with knowledge about the structure and the scope of those bonuses. Q But we were accidentally or however misinformed about the day that he found out. MR. GIBBS: Well, let's -- let's not -- I'm just going to leave it at that. I think the report is pretty clear and so are the answers. Chuck. Q Did he misinform the White House about when he found out? MR. GIBBS: Chuck. Video (note the difference between the uhhh-redacted transcript and the video of uhhhs): AIG | Obama Administration | Open Government | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | TARP | Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner | White House Press Corps Labels: AIG, Obama Administration, Open Government, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, TARP, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 3:32:00 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 Going Backwards - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 3/16/09  MR. GIBBS: Jake.Q Did you guys first find out about these bonuses last week? MR. GIBBS: I think that's true, based on what I read in the newspaper. Q But you gave money to AIG two or three weeks ago. How could you not know that they have these millions, hundreds of millions of dollars -- MR. GIBBS: Well, again, Jake, there's -- according to news reports, there's existing contracts, some of which the President -- of which the President has asked the Secretary to examine, going forward. I think you also heard the President speak today about having a resolution authority that gives the government and taxpayers far more flexibility in dealing with the disposition of AIG in a way that gives taxpayers protection and flexibility; a disposition that we don't currently have, but steps that we would like to see taken in order to deal with AIG as a whole. Q But why didn't you attach it to the $30 billion you gave a couple weeks ago? MR. GIBBS: Again, Jake, the -- Q You're looking to retroactively attach it to this new $30 billion. MR. GIBBS: Well, they're looking through contracts to see what can be done to wrest these bonuses from their recipients. Q No, I'm sorry, I don't think -- I don't understand, so maybe I'm just not understanding. But President Obama said in early February when he gave the speech on executive compensation, "These kinds of compensation packages in the midst of this economic crisis isn't just bad taste, it's bad strategy, and I will not tolerate it as President. We're going to be demanding some restraint in exchange for federal aid." Since that time, he gave tens of billions of dollars in federal aid to AIG without demanding restraint. MR. GIBBS: Well, again, Jake, we've got existing relationships, contracts, as I just mentioned, that were negotiated a year ago, assistance that was granted outside of the legal authority prior to the creation of the Troubled Asset Relief Program. The President has asked the administration to go back and look at what remedies are possible to block those bonuses. Q Well, why didn't he do that before? MR. GIBBS: Well, again, the excessive compensation rules that you noted -- and I think somebody asked this at the background briefing that we had -- obviously are prospective based on some limitations that we have in looking backwards. The President has asked Secretary Geithner and members of the administration to exhaust all legal remedies in looking backwards to see what steps could be taken to block these bonuses. Q I know, but since -- and I'm sorry to belabor this point -- but since President Obama gave his speech, you guys gave more money to AIG. Why wasn't it attached to the new money? MR. GIBBS: Because it's -- again, it's part of the -- Q Part of the old contract. MR. GIBBS: Right. It's part of -- Q But you're looking now retroactively to see if you can attach something to that old money? MR. GIBBS: That's what we're looking at. Q Well, why didn't you do it at the time, if you're looking to retroactively do it? MR. GIBBS: The administration is taking the steps today to go back and see what can be done, as Jeff said, to call those bonuses back. Q But, Robert, to follow up on Jake's point, did Secretary Geithner make a mistake by not reviewing these contracts -- they're a year old -- before he cut a new check to AIG? Why didn't he do that? MR. GIBBS: I would certainly ask the Treasury -- I'll ask the Treasury that. But again, to some degree, there are legal instruments and contracts that predate this administration, that predate the legal founding of the TARP program. The President has asked this administration to exhaust all legal avenues to see what can and should be done going backwards. Economy | Obama Administration | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | TARP | Treasury Department | Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner | Wall Street | White House Press Corps Labels: Economy, Obama Administration, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, TARP, Treasury Department, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, Wall Street, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 12:20:00 AM 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 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 Banks vs. Automakers - White House Press Briefing by Tony Fratto 11/24/08 — Monday, November 24, 2008 —  MR. FRATTO: Yes, Mark.Q Tony, in Lima over the weekend, President Bush spoke at length about the importance of free markets. Why don't all these bailouts undermine free markets by keeping troubled, distressed companies from failing? MR. FRATTO: Well, not at all. I mean, what these efforts are doing are to prevent the financial system from failing. It's never been about any one particular company. We let thousands of companies fail in this economy every year. It's a -- actually, an important part of a healthy company is to have companies competing against each other, and some of them fail, and the winners win, and that's good. But when you have systemically large companies that can bring down not just the entire U.S. financial system but the global financial system, and have a devastating effect on our broader economy, the government has to step in. And so we have an obligation to preserve that very important part of our economy, and that supports the free market system. Our firms can't get out there and do trade if they don't have trade financing. Firms can't get out there and distribute funds to their -- to companies who distribute products here and around the world if they don't have overnight credit financing. So that part of our economy is critical. We need to keep it in place; we need it to be strong; we need it to fill all of the holes in our economy that need financing in order to be able to do their business in a free and open economy. Q What guarantees do you have that they will do that, in terms of lending? MR. FRATTO: That they will lend? That's the business they're in, and the banks have no -- Q That may be, but they're not doing it. MR. FRATTO: Well, look, I think we're pretty confident in the guidance that we've given to banks to get out there and lend. They actually have been lending. They've had to shore up their balance sheets to make sure that they're in a good position. But banks only make money one way, and that's to be out there lending and making loans. Now, it's a very difficult economy we're in right now, so there's a question of the demand side of people requesting loans from banks also and whether there are good bets out there. We want them to make good business decisions. But banks are only in the business of lending, so they can't be profitable companies going forward unless they are looking for opportunities to lend. Q Why don't we help the automakers? MR. FRATTO: We are helping the automakers -- or at least we have a plan to help the automakers. We had a bipartisan agreement on the floor of Congress -- well, actually, it never made it to the floor because the Democratic leadership decided not to bring it to the floor. But we had a bipartisan agreement that we believe would get bipartisan support. It was for $25 billion in the loan program that would have freed up that money in a way that would support the automakers in their efforts -- to help to support them as they become viable firms, because these are important parts of our manufacturing base. We want to see the automakers succeed. There seems to be some misconception out there that we don't want to help the automakers. We do want to help the automakers. We had a bipartisan agreement to do just that, and we believe that's where those funds should come from. And by the way, the news overnight where -- this was a relatively unexpected effort by Treasury and the Fed. If you had said two weeks ago that they were going to have to take this action for Citibank, I think that would have seemed unlikely. This is a very dynamic situation we're dealing with, and the financial system is still fragile. But that also speaks to the need to preserve the funds in the TARP for their intended purpose. We don't need to be taking funds out of the TARP program for other purposes -- and with respect to the automakers, especially when we have a $25 billion loan program that was specifically set up for their use. Q Well, what's the hang-up? Is it because the money is coming out of the -- MR. FRATTO: That's a question for Congress, Helen. The money is there; we tried to work on both sides of the aisle to design it in a way that the automakers could access it and to help them move forward and be viable. So I would put that question to the Democratic leadership of the Congress. Automobile Industry | Economy | Press Briefing | TARP | Tony Fratto | White House Press Corps Labels: Automobile Industry, Economy, Press Briefing, TARP, Tony Fratto, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 6:33:00 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 TARP Cover for the Auto Industry - White House Press Briefing by Dana Perino 11/17/08 — Monday, November 17, 2008 —  Q You've repeated over the last 10 days your opposition to funding anything for the auto industry out of the TARP program. Are you opposed to Congress amending that so that monies in that program could go to the auto industry? MS. PERINO: I don't think we think it would be necessary to do so when we already have a program with monies, $25 billion, appropriated specifically for the auto industry. The TARP funding is there for financial institutions. It was -- Congress never intended for individual industries to be able to come forward to -- Q And what if they change their mind? MS. PERINO: Well, I think that what they should be able to do is -- look, there's not an appetite in Congress, or in the administration, to open up the TARP funding for individual industries, because once you start down that road, it's a slippery slope to other industries that might say that they need help. But we do have an entire pot of money, $25 billion, that the auto -- that is specifically for the automakers. And we also know that opening up the TARP will not get through the Senate. Therefore, to avoid partisan gridlock, what we are recommending is to work hand in hand on a program that would simply amend the 136 program and help companies that can show long-term viability and a willingness to restructure. Q Would you guys veto? MS. PERINO: I think it's too early to say since we haven't even seen their legislation. It's too early to say. Q Dana, on that viability point, regardless of where the money comes from, whether it's TARP or the Department of Energy, it's still taxpayer money. Is that a good investment? Are the automakers a good investment? MS. PERINO: Well, I think that's another thing to remember, which is that the TARP program was specifically designed to help taxpayers get a return on their investment. This is monies that we are investing into companies. We are providing capital. And it has to be paid back. There is no direct subsidy that we are suggesting in the TARP. The Treasury Department has been making decisions based on what they think will at least make the taxpayers whole, if not help us get a return on that investment. When we're talking about the auto industry, and while we haven't seen the Democrats' proposal yet, it doesn't seem that would be the case, that the taxpayers would actually be paid back. But when we're talking about viability, what we mean is that a company needs to be able to show that they have long-term plans, so that they will be on -- have sound financing, and not have a vicious cycle of getting back into this situation again. One of the reasons that we agreed to go forward with the 136 program was to allow the companies to have access to a stream of funds to help them retool their factories so that they could build more fuel-efficient cars, which is what consumers of today are looking for. But in addition to that, the automakers have over time made some decisions based on their needs for their employees, and some of those decisions might have to be reworked, going forward. So they're going to have to be able to show how they can survive. If you look at their ability to compete worldwide -- we think that our companies can compete, but they're not going to be able to do so unless they make some of these really tough decisions. Q So are you saying they should get rid of pensions or health care provisions? MS. PERINO: It's going to be up to the companies to decide how best to -- how they can best compete in the world and show viability. We're not going to get into dictating that. Q But are you willing to let one or all of these three big automakers go under? MS. PERINO: Our position is that we want these companies to succeed. We have figured out a way to provide them funds so that they are able to do that. And we think that there is a bipartisan path that we could get this done very quickly this week and avoid that. Q But at the same time that you say that, you also are saying that they don't measure up to the viability standard, which -- MS. PERINO: But they might, and they might -- and if they can show that they can have a long-term -- that they have a long-term plan so that they are viable, then that would be taken into consideration. Q And so what is the next move for the administration to, you know, close the gap between you guys and the Democrats? MS. PERINO: Well, we're waiting for them to get back in town. We're waiting -- we haven't even seen their proposal. They've talked sort of around a proposal this week, but until we see it, it's really hard to react to it. And then we'll continue to work with our Republican colleagues as well to see if we can forge an agreement and get something done early this week. Automobile Industry | Congress | Dana Perino | Economy | Press Briefing | TARP | White House Press Corps Labels: Automobile Industry, Congress, Dana Perino, Economy, Press Briefing, TARP, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 6:55:00 PM
|
|
