White House Press Corps.org

MR. GIBBS: Jake.

Q If I could, just a quick question about North Korea. What is the administration's goal, other than some sort of piece of paper from the United Nations expressing disappointment with the nuclear bomb going off? What does the administration want to have happen concretely in terms of action?

MR. GIBBS: Well, look, I think that the Security Council is currently meeting. I think they're likely to discuss next steps as far as that goes. Let me, though, address the initial part of your question.

I think the uniform and unified international criticism that we've seen since the reports of this testing demonstrate the outrage that countries around the world have for these actions. I think North Korea continues to deepen its isolation from the international community and continues, as we've said all along, to take steps in the wrong direction.

Q I'm sorry, but you didn't actually answer my question.

MR. GIBBS: Well, I just said that obviously I think the Security Council is involved in some of these discussions --

Q You don't want to tip your hand as to what you --

MR. GIBBS: I don't want to get in --

Q -- guys would like?

MR. GIBBS: Yes.

Labels: North Korea, Nuclear Arms, Obama Administration, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, United Nations, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 3:55 PM

You'll Get A Text Message - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 5/22/09
— Saturday, May 23, 2009 —

MR. GIBBS: Good afternoon. Thanks for coming out here a little early -- I've got a meeting with the President, a few of us do, a little after 1:00 p.m., so I'm going to try to practice some brevity today. We'll see if that works out.

Let me give you a quick run through of the week ahead. At 6:30 tomorrow morning the President will announce his Supreme Court nominee. (Laughter.) Gotcha! I'm done. That's obviously a joke, but I did love to see that -- if somebody can quickly text me the name of a chiropractor because at least four dozen necks snapped in one direction. (Laughter.)

Q If it's quarter to seven it's --

MR. GIBBS: Don't worry, you'll get a text message. It's cool.

Labels: Haha, Nominees, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, Supreme Court, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 3:33 AM

Gosh, I Don't Finger-Point - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 5/21/09
— Thursday, May 21, 2009 —

MR. GIBBS: Chip.

Q He said at one point in the speech, no time for finger-pointing, which he often says. But then at 12 different -- 12 or 15, depending on how you interpret them -- points in the speech he pointed the finger directly at the Bush administration. And of course he's going to do that because he's changing their policies, but why even talk about stopping the finger-pointing when he does so much of it in the speech?

MR. GIBBS: Well, Chip, I think part of this was for an understanding about -- I don't think we can talk about where we're going without establishing how we got to this point. You can't set up the decision to close, the decision to go through the cases, making the decisions about bringing people to justice or transfer, without setting the stage on how you got there. I also think --

Q Why kind of hold himself up as, gosh, I don't finger-point; Washington has this culture of finger-pointing, I wouldn't do something like that --

MR. GIBBS: You can read me the reference that he's -- I don't have it off the top of my head, but is it in the latter part of --

Q I understand that "It's no secret there is a tendency in Washington to spend our time pointing fingers at one another. And our media culture feeds the impulses that lead to a good fight." (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: Aiding and abetting is the likely charge. (Laughter.) Well, look, is that I think in the -- is that in the section of the speech where we're discussing whether or not we should look backwards and have a commission?

Q Exactly.

MR. GIBBS: I think he lays out the argument fairly cogently in that section about why looking back -- leaving the media culture aside -- why looking back he doesn't think would be that beneficial in using that commission to make some of those determinations.

But I do think it is important -- I mean, I think he sets up in many parts in the speech, again, the same thing that I had talked about the last few days, is we've talked about this as a decision solely as one that the administration or this President made via the executive order on January 22, 2009, right? He talked in the speech today, though, about the fact that there are detainees that American courts ruled, not since the 20th or the 22nd, but in previous years, that we don't have the evidence -- we don't have enough evidence to hold individuals that are currently detained.

We talked -- again, I'll use the example I used yesterday that Jake asked me about last week. On Friday there was an individual transferred to France, a detainee that a George W. Bush federal judge had ruled the administration didn't have -- this government didn't have the evidence to back up a charge and ordered that person to be transferred.

I think there are obviously a confluence of events that led us to the decision first to close Guantanamo Bay, but also a confluence of events obviously that were had over the course of the past few years and a discussion about changing the way our country looks at our policies even as the President discusses the first and foremost job that he has each day in protecting the security and safety of the American people. And I think that's -- that's the way he looked at the speech today, and I think that's what he laid out.

Labels: Guantanamo, President Obama, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, War on Terror, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 7:12 PM

Good Lord, Large Fly - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 5/20/09
— Wednesday, May 20, 2009 —

MR. GIBBS: Ms. Loven.

Q Does the White House agree with the FBI director that there are risks associated with bringing any Guantanamo detainees to the United States?

MR. GIBBS: Well, Jennifer, let me talk broadly about Guantanamo. Obviously this is a topic that, as you know, the President will discuss tomorrow. There are -- he will go through some of the decisions that we have to make regarding how to close down Guantanamo, something that Democrats and Republicans alike agree on, because it is -- it's hurting and has hurt our image in the world and our reputation, and has hurt our national security.

Q How much detail will he go into?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I don't expect that he's going to hand out a 100-page plan that will have every decision made. I think, as I said here yesterday, that before -- we share Congress's belief that before resources are given for a project that they need and deserve a more detailed plan. The President will lay out the framework on many of those decisions and some of the work that has to be done between now and then to make progress in closing Guantanamo Bay.

Jennifer, as you know, that a number of these decisions the administration -- any administration is going to have to make based on legal cases that are coming its way. I would also mention that the President will discuss in some -- in part of the speech discuss the state secrets privilege, some discussion about transparency and national security. So those are a basket of the topics that he'll discuss.

But to go back to some of these legal cases, again, there are -- there are orders that are pending and binding that order the transfer of detainees that courts here have ruled can no longer be held at Guantanamo. Jake asked -- good lord, large fly. Jake asked yesterday about a case where a former detainee was transferred on Friday to France. That was a case that had been pending where a judge appointed by the previous administration had ordered that a detainee -- there wasn't sufficient evidence to hold the detainee. That was a ruling that was passed down in 2008, and he's been transferred.

Q Can you respond directly to the FBI director, please?

MR. GIBBS: I can respond to anybody, including everybody in America, to say that the President understands that his most important job is to keep the American people safe, and that he is not going to make any decision or any judgment that imperils the safety of the American people.

Q So you think there aren't risks -- there aren't any risks with bringing --

MR. GIBBS: No, no. I said that the President isn't going to make any decisions or judgments --

Q But he's already decided to close Guantanamo.

MR. GIBBS: He has.

Q So he's apparently made the decision that there aren't risks in doing so, in bringing some of the detainees to the United States.

MR. GIBBS: No, because I haven't said that the -- the President hasn't decided where some of the detainees will be transferred. Again, those are decisions that the task forces are working on and that the President will begin to lay out and discuss tomorrow.

Labels: Guantanamo, President Obama, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, War on Terror, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 11:54 PM

A Vote Of No Confidence - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 5/19/09

Q Robert, back on Guantanamo. Are you saying that you have a plan that will satisfy the concerns of Congress and that -- but that hasn't been shared with them yet? The President has a plan --

MR. GIBBS: I don't remember that -- I appreciate that, but I don't remember making any remark like that.

Q So do you believe that the plan that the President will outline or discuss on Thursday will be enough to satisfy the concerns of lawmakers, such that they will put the money back in the bill?

MR. GIBBS: Well, let me try to say what I said earlier. The President and Congress will work together on a timeline for a renewed request for whatever resources are needed. The President still believes it in our national interest to close Guantanamo Bay; that's why he signed the executive order. And Thursday he'll outline his thoughts on detainee and detention issues, as well as the other issues like photos and memos that I talked about earlier.

Q The main concern on the Hill seems to be that detainees will be released from Guantanamo either inside the United States or will be even held in prisons inside the United States, which some find objectionable, or that they'll be sent to other countries and released there. So will the President address these concerns in his speech on Thursday?

MR. GIBBS: Yes. Yes.

Q And does he have some plan that -- for doing something else with these detainees, other than --

MR. GIBBS: Well, let's not get -- I'm not going to give the President's Thursday speech here on Tuesday.

Q You'd probably do a good job of it.

MR. GIBBS: Well, I'm not quite as tall. But I think the President will outline in greater detail his thoughts and thinking on this. He'll outline the reasoning of why he strongly believes, and many in both parties believe, that closing Guantanamo Bay is in our best national security and foreign policy interest. And he will go through a number of the decisions related to that and other issues that we've discussed in the last few weeks that all relate to it.

Q Isn't this, though, kind of a vote of no confidence, this withholding of the money that he has asked for?

MR. GIBBS: No, I don't agree with that at all.

Labels: Congress, Guantanamo, President Obama, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, War on Terror, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 11:37 PM

His Own Lovely Tones - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 5/18/09

Having a plan is harder than making a promise.

MR. GIBBS: Sheryl.

Q Robert, does the President still expect to close Guantanamo Bay one year after his announcement, which would be I guess January 20, 2010? And is --

MR. GIBBS: I think it's the 21st or 22nd, but, yes.

Q Twenty-first, thank you. And is he still planning on issuing a detailed map, if you will, of how to get there in another two months from now?

MR. GIBBS: I don't understand the second part.

Q Did he not say on January 22nd that within six months he would sort of issue -- the administration would issue plans for how it intended to close Guantanamo?

MR. GIBBS: I'd have to go back and look. I mean, obviously, Sheryl, the President remains committed to closing Guantanamo.

Q On January 22nd?

MR. GIBBS: On whatever date he previously intoned in the executive order.

Q And he's still confident that he can do that?

MR. GIBBS: He is. There are multiple task forces that are -- have been stood up, and are meeting to deal with the issues surrounding that closure.

Q And what will we hear from him Thursday in his speech? Will he address how he plans to get there? And also, will he talk about the military commissions decision?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think he talked about the military commissions decision in a statement Friday. And I took a few questions, as well.

Q He talked in a written statement, not in his own lovely tones.

MR. GIBBS: I think I saw that statement appear in your newspaper, if I'm not mistaken.

Q Sure, it was brief.

MR. GIBBS: I think the President will discuss in some detail issues surrounding detainees in detention on Thursday. And we'll have more on that as we get a little bit later into the week.

Labels: Guantanamo, President Obama, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, War on Terror, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 11:23 PM

The President Has Been Consistent - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 5/15/09
— Friday, May 15, 2009 —

Q One of the reasons that human rights groups are upset about the announcement today is many of them believed, based on a couple statements the President had made, that the President was looking -- then-senator, now President -- was looking forward to a system where detainees would be tried either through the Uniform Code of Military Justice, or through U.S. courts.

And there are a couple statements the President made. I’m wondering if you could just reconcile it. He said in August ‘07: "I have faith in America’s courts. I have faith in our JAGs. As President, I’ll close Guantanamo, reject the Military Commissions Act, adhere to the Geneva Conventions. Our Constitution and our Uniform Code of Military Justice provide a framework for dealing with the terrorists."

And then in August, the campaign issued a statement responding to the Hamdan conviction. The key line being: "It’s time to better protect the American people and our values by bringing swift and sure justice to terrorists through our courts and through our Uniform Code of Military Justice" -- no mention of military commissions.

Now, I understand he supported McCain-Graham-Warner back in ‘08. But how do you reconcile these statements with the military commissions? They make no mention of them.

MR. GIBBS: Well, look, Jake, the underlying issues in each of those statements affording -- first affording for swift and certain justice, as well as sufficient detainee protection that the Supreme Court has now rendered have to be a part of any military commission is embedded in the exact suggestions that the President is filing today with the Court, ensuring that -- the Court ruled last year that significant protection had to be afforded for the first time to detainees in order for something like this to be constitutional, and those are the changes that the President sought.

Again, I think if you go back and look at his statements and understand the role that military commissions have played in the history of the United States, the President believes that, in dealing with certain detainees at Guantanamo Bay, that this is an appropriate avenue.

Obviously we will also use, in some instances, Article III courts in order to ensure the certainty of justice that the President spoke about.

Q I’m sorry, just to follow up. I mean, are these just two statements where, if you could go back, you would just add the term "military commission"? They were just -- they were just vague? Because --

MR. GIBBS: No, I think that the -- I think if you look back at all these statements, Jake, the President has been consistent in his views on this issue and been consistent on what was lacking in order to ensure justice, in order to ensure protection, and most of all to ensure that this process goes forward with -- and doesn’t see repeated legal stalls in going through the court system.

And again, the notion of military commissions in a larger sense is something that’s been with us now for almost eight years. I think some 242 detainees resided at Guantanamo when the President took office, obviously at certain points there have been even more, and exactly three cases have gone through this system in those almost intervening eight years. I don’t think this is a system that works in any way, shape, or form for the American people.

Q But if I can just follow on that, when you say the President has been consistent, the quote that Jake read from 2007 where the President flatly said, I would reject -- using the word "reject" -- the Military Commissions Act. He’s not rejecting it today. He’s embracing the Bush law --

MR. GIBBS: No, no, no, no --

Q -- with tweaks. He’s embracing that law but saying, "I want to tweak it."

MR. GIBBS: "I’m buying a car except I’m changing the engine and painting it a different color and calling it a different" --

Q Well, he’s not rejecting this law. There’s not a new law coming. He’s not rejecting this. He’s saying, "We’re going to live with this law with tweaks."

MR. GIBBS: No. The law, as you talk about it, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, passed in late September of 2006 and signed by this President, was ruled in 2007, Section 7, to be unconstitutional, okay. That law doesn’t work, okay. The President will seek a continuance in the nine cases that are currently part of the military commissions, setting those cases aside for 120 days in order to institute these changes. These cases won’t go forward under these rules. Therefore, the system that was set up by Congress and signed by then-President Bush won’t be the course under which these cases will ultimately be heard. Your characterization is just simply wrong.

Q So then why is the ACLU saying you’re just building on a flawed system, a system that is unconstitutional, as you just pointed out? You’re just building on that flawed system.

MR. GIBBS: Well, you know, Jake -- I’m sorry, not Jake, Ed, you -- sorry -- (laughter) -- you know, I think you started out on Monday wondering why -- in questioning why we were being so much like -- so opposite of George Bush in all these questions. And on Friday I’m answering questions about why are we so much like George Bush on all these questions. I’ll let you guys discern what inflection point -- what period of day that all changed.

But this notion that somehow the law is the same under the protections that the President is entering into, I would simply point to you the opinion that Justice Kennedy wrote in a Supreme Court case in 2007, denoting that without the protections that the President is enumerating to the court today, those trials can’t go forward.

This notion is the same -- the notion that this is the same vehicle is simply -- it’s simply not true. The protections --

Q So if you want to take issue with the characterization of the relation to Bush --

MR. GIBBS: I think you should take issue with those --

Q -- former President Bush --

MR. GIBBS: I don’t think I would. I think you should. I think the protections that are afforded -- that the President will ask the court or will note that he’s going to send to Congress to amend represent a far different system. Again, in 2006, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Carl Levin and John Warner all supported a piece of legislation similar to what the President is enumerating today. Have you asked each of them why they’re --

Q You just said three Republicans, right? Warner, Graham, McCain --

MR. GIBBS: Four. I’m sorry, and Susan Collins. Four Republicans joined 11 Democrats in a 15-9 vote for a very different set of rules governing military commissions.

Q When you mentioned President Bush --

MR. GIBBS: That which got politicized, a different proposal got into the mix, and the law that ultimately came from that was very different than what was proposed in the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Q But when the ACLU and other critics say -- what they complain about, in part, is they look at the executives orders that were signed on week one of this administration, and there seemed to be a signal that was being sent that you were turning the page on the Bush years, there was going to be a sharp break. Now you’re looking at what you did on the photos Wednesday, what you’re doing here today -- they’re getting the sense that you’re moving closer to President Bush. And again, you’re quoting what Republicans were saying, like John Warner, John McCain. And they see John McCain cheering this decision today and they say this is not what we voted for.

MR. GIBBS: But, Ed, first of all -- let me give you two answers. First of all, go back and talk to those that voted for S. 3901 in 2006. The reason that bill didn’t get a majority was, that’s not what the Bush administration wanted, okay? And secondly -- and I would say this to somebody who criticizes us from the left and criticizes us from the right -- one thing that we’re not having a debate about is whether or not these tactics exist, whether they can currently be used by this administration, because this President took, with one stroke of a pen, the swift action to ensure that these enhanced interrogation techniques aren’t used by this administration.

I think, if I understand the former Vice President of the United States correctly, I’m to understand that he doesn’t necessarily agree with that, marking somewhat of a change from the previous administration’s discourse of justice.

Q I didn’t mention the former Vice President in my question.

MR. GIBBS: I did.

Q Okay.

MR. GIBBS: I did.

Labels: ACLU, Military Commissions, President Obama, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, War on Terror, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 6:12 PM

Just Like Bush And Totally Opposite Of Bush - Air Force One Press Gaggle by Robert Gibbs 5/14/09

Any resemblance to persons political or not is purely coincidental

Q Robert, on the photos, do you know if the administration has communicated to the court yet its decision to retract what it had said previously? And the ACLU and others have been really harsh, calling the administration just as bad as the Bush administration now when it comes to secrecy. Does his decision on this reflect a fundamental kind of position that you think he takes or is going to take in his tenure on secrecy when it comes to national security?

MR. GIBBS: Well, let me -- a couple comments.

Q Thought you might.

MR. GIBBS: One, I suppose, since you all keep asking me about Dick Cheney and how we're so different than George Bush in keeping the American people safe, it's a little hard to answer a question about why somebody thinks we're just like George Bush.

Q On this issue, they're saying. I mean, you know, they're saying on the issue of secrecy.

MR. GIBBS: Dick Cheney is not talking about global warming, right? I mean, we can't be either -- we can't be just like Bush and totally opposite of Bush all in the same issue. So I'll let people decide what part of the spectrum they think we land on. I think there are a lot of analogies out there that people probably haven't thought well through before they opened their mouths.

The second thing is, look, I think it is very -- I don't think it makes any sense to look at these things -- I think each of these things has to be looked at individually, right? Like let's take, for instance -- because all the stories today include this analogy to Abu Ghraib. Let's understand that Abu Ghraib -- the existence of the photos was the first that people understood of the notion of detainee abuse. That's what led to the investigation.

In this case, these photos are part of investigations that have been completed. The existence of these photos are not how we know about the abuse; it's because they've been investigated.

So I think we're all trying to draw parallels that might not necessarily work. I think the President is going to take -- look at the individual facts on a case-by-case basis and make the determination that he best believes protects our national security.

Q And I think most people would understand the kind of case-by-case approach. On the other hand, there are people who would probably say they voted for this President because they understood him to have a fundamentally different belief when it comes to these kinds of issues, and a fundamentally more open approach to issues like secrecy -- they voted for him because they didn't like George Bush's approach to kind of keeping everything secret and not turning -- and not being transparent. And that's what you guys promised, is a fundamentally different approach.

MR. GIBBS: And I'm pushing back on -- because now you seem to -- you've morphed from this being the ACLU's question and --

Q I'm just -- I'm playing devil's advocate here, Robert. I'm just --

MR. GIBBS: I'll be transparent and make this The Washington Post's argument. I think if you have any doubt about where we stand on the issues of detainee abuse, enhanced interrogation techniques and torture, I'd be happy to provide you the copy of the executive order that once and for all ends their use as part of this administration. I think if anybody has any doubt about how we fundamentally differ from the past administration on this issue, I'd suggest they take a look at that.

And again, I just want to push back on this whole premise that somehow -- these cases are on the Internet. These cases have been investigated. These cases -- we've seen punishment handed down for people that are involved in these cases. The notion that these photos add anything other -- anything to the record about these cases other than some matter-of-fact sensationalism -- that's why the President believes that the detainee abuse investigations are important and it can't be overlooked and it shouldn't be overlooked. But materially, these photos don't add anything to it.

Labels: Air Force One, Bush Administration, Dick Cheney, Obama Administration, Photos, Press Gaggle, Robert Gibbs, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 4:43 PM

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.

Labels: Afghanistan, Interrogation, Iraq, Legislation, Photos, President Obama, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, War on Terror, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 9:31 PM

The President Has Great Concern - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 5/12/09
— Tuesday, May 12, 2009 —

MR. GIBBS: Major.

Q Robert, Senators Graham and Lieberman have written the President a letter about pending release of the photographs of the treatment of detainees, and they would like the President to consider reversing that decision made by the Justice Department and the Department of Defense. And in their letter, they say the release of these old photographs of past behavior --

MR. GIBBS: Well, let me -- the decision made by the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice relating to a series of court cases dating back to September of 2008, as well as an appeals case dating back to March 11.

Go ahead.

Q That's the legal foundation, yes. And in their letter, they say this will "serve no public good" -- I'm quoting now -- "but will empower al Qaeda propaganda operations, hurt our country's image, and endanger our men and women in uniform." Is this something that is being considered by the President for reversal or is this a policy that will go forward? And does he have any anxiety about the potential consequences of the release of these photographs?

MR. GIBBS: Well, obviously the President has great concern about any impact that pictures of detainee -- potential detainee abuse in the past could have on the present-day service members that are protecting our freedom either in Iraq, Afghanistan, or throughout the world. That's something the President is very cognizant of, and we are working to -- we are working currently to figure out what the process is moving forward.

Q Does this mean -- does that mean the decision could be reversed?

MR. GIBBS: I don't want to get into that right now.

Q So you can't commit either way?

MR. GIBBS: I'm not going to add much to that right now.

Labels: Al Qaeda, Department of Justice, Photos, President Obama, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, War on Terror, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 5:58 PM

We're All In This Together - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 5/11/09
— Monday, May 11, 2009 —

MR. GIBBS: Jake.

Q I'm wondering if the White House is at all concerned that you're not preparing the American people sufficiently for the fact that they, along with everyone else, will have to give something up for health care reform to happen. The President has talked a lot about everyone is going to have to give something up. But I'm wondering -- I mean, if you look at the Dartmouth study that Mr. Orszag talks about all the time or you look at some of the cost-cutting measures that are being discussed, there are some things that patients will have to give up. And I just -- I don't hear anybody in the administration -- and I know you're not drafting the legislation -- but I don't hear anybody in the administration talking about that at all.

MR. GIBBS: Well, I mean, I think you prefaced your question by the President discussing overall the notion that we're all in this together and in order to reform the system each of us is probably going to have to give. I think what the President would tell you in response to this question, Jake, is right now what they're paying for and what their outcome is, is as outsized here as in any country in the world; that we can make reforms that will cut the cost that they -- the families and small businesses -- bear each day with a series of outcomes that is even greater than what we're experiencing now.

Whether that's dealing on the front end with wellness and health prevention is something that certainly may be moderate on the front end, but has huge impacts and effects, particularly in the amount of money that you're spending on health care in the out years.

So, look, I think this is a -- this will be a long process. But I think the President believes that today was an important step in seeing health care reform come to fruition this year. I think many of the actors that were involved in previous health care reform debates on the opposite side are now -- have what the President talked about, a seat at the table, and are actively involved in looking for a solution that will cut costs for the American people.

Q Just a follow-up to that. Is there any talk of these cost-saving proposals that the industry is talking about, making them mandatory instead of just voluntary?

MR. GIBBS: Well, the President in meeting with the group this morning -- before they went out, he said to this group, you've made a commitment; we expect you to keep it. And I think there's a pretty good conceptualization of the baseline for health care spending. And I know on some of the calls over the weekend -- this isn't something that CBO will score. But you guys all do stories, and we certainly watch the amount of health care inflation each year. And I think people believe that there's a sufficient ability to track whether or not these reforms are being taken.

We certainly believe that the players that are involved and the trade associations that they represent are genuinely serious about moving health care reform forward. But we will be certainly evaluating throughout this process how effective they're being, how effective the government is being at curtailing costs for Medicare and Medicaid in hopes of making sure that that savings is realized by American families.

Health Care | Obama Administration | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | White House Press Corps

Labels: Health Care, Obama Administration, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 6:48 PM

A $357,000 Photo - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 5/8/09
— Friday, May 08, 2009 —

Q Robert, will your office release the photo and report about the mock Air Force One flyover today or tomorrow?

MR. GIBBS: Today.

Q Can you tell us when or under what circumstances?

MR. GIBBS: It will be sometime later this afternoon. I think the final stuff is on my desk to review when I get back and we'll release the report, the photo --

Q A photo.

MR. GIBBS: Yes.

Q How would you suggest the American people interpret the handling of this in relationship to the administration's commitment to transparency?

MR. GIBBS: I'd suggest they'll be able to read the report, which the President instructed the deputy chief of staff to undertake. We'll have -- without getting into some of what's in there, I think you'll also have -- I don't think this is the only look into this incident that's taking place.

Q Secretary Gates had his own.

MR. GIBBS: Right. The President has also, without getting into some of the recommendations -- and I've got to finish reading all this -- looking into some of the breakdowns that allowed something like this to happen. And the President instructed the staff to ensure that it doesn't happen again, and those are the steps that we're taking.

Labels: Air Force One, Obama Administration, Open Government, Photos, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 7:57 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.

Labels: Budget, Legislation, Obama Administration, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, Taxes, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 7:22 PM

Conjoined Twins - White House Press Briefing by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton 5/6/09
— Wednesday, May 06, 2009 —

Q Madam Secretary, as this plan was being developed, the U.S. believed that a lot of the insurgency issues were going to be in eastern Afghanistan. Obviously the problem has now emerged more heatedly in Pakistan. How has that affected this strategy of the U.S. as this summit came together?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Jake, I think that the wisdom of the approach that we took even before the President was inaugurated has been borne out by the events of the last months. We were determined to see Afghanistan and Pakistan as a region, as two countries that were dependent upon each other, influenced each other, and needed to figure out a way forward together. So, if anything, the fast-moving conflict and, frankly, the adaptability of the enemy that we are all fighting has demonstrated clearly the wisdom of that approach.

One of the other comments that was made today is that Afghanistan and Pakistan are conjoined twins -- and, in effect, they are. But they were never treated that way. They were kind of one-off: What are we going to do about Afghanistan, and, oh, by the way, what are we going to do about Pakistan? And we have a history there, as you know. We have a history of having been deeply involved and then having withdrawn. And so I think seeing the two countries as connected geographically as they are, and in this common struggle against al Qaeda and the Taliban and their allies, has given us the flexibility to be able to move more agilely than we did before.

Q Madam Secretary, President Zardari said the following yesterday. He said -- on the U.S. relationship -- "I think it needs more effort; I think it needs more understanding on both sides." What is your understanding of his greatest concerns, from his point of view, that you picked up on in these meetings today -- on the U.S. relationship?

SECRETARY CLINTON: You know, Chuck, I think that's a very fair statement. I think that it does require more understanding on both sides. One size does not fit all. You don't take a strategy from one part of the world and impose it on another part. You don't look at each country just through the prism of the terrorist threat and expect to really understand what's the best way to combat that, and also to begin removing conditions that gave rise to it.

And I think that in my conversations with President Zardari -- whom I've known a very long time and was a great admirer and friend of his wife -- if you talk with him, as I have, about what he faced coming into office -- he's been President for less than eight months, and he inherited a very difficult and unmanageable situation. We have a pretty well functioning government. We've changed directions policy-wise, but you don't have to start from scratch -- and so I think a little more understanding on our part about what he confronted.

You know, he has successfully navigated some real crises. He made a very brave decision when he first came in to raise the price of wheat. Might not sound like a big deal, but it was a huge political challenge. But by doing so, Pakistan is now self-sufficient in wheat again. You know, you have to look at what he was facing: an economic crisis, a military-terrorist crisis, a legitimacy crisis -- just an enormous array of challenges. And I think if you're more understanding of both the history and the conditions, you not only can perhaps empathize a little bit, but be smarter in the suggestions you make, understanding what the consequences will be. And that's what we are trying to do through this process.

Q What are his asks? What are his asks specifically of us?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, you know. They're very public: more economic aid; more assistance with the military and police in terms of what they need to now go after this new enemy; what I just sort of read off in response to an earlier question about the sort of assistance we're going to offer, from agriculture to the economy to intelligence. That's what they're looking for.

Q Madam Secretary, a couple of questions. One, the Zardari government said it wanted time to have this negotiated arrangement in Swat Valley to see what would happen. They've now seen what has happened and are responding militarily. There are some reports in the region that the civilians on the ground now see the government in a different light, and saw that they tried to negotiate, saw what the Taliban did, and there's a backlash against the Taliban. Do you believe that was an inherent wisdom that maybe the U.S. did not detect before in the strategy?

And number two, with the sense that the refugee crisis in that area -- now that the Pakistan government has asked civilians to try to leave -- is that going to be something the U.S. and both these nations are going to have to confront in the very near term?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I'm sorry, say that again.

Q Well, the military's advice being to try to exit parts of the Swat Valley because of a assumed military offensive -- will that create a humanitarian issue that all three of these countries are going to have to deal with in a very near term?

SECRETARY CLINTON: You know, Major, I'm not going to second-guess the approach that was taken by the government of Pakistan vis-à-vis the Taliban in Swat Valley. Whatever the motive behind it might have been, the reality on the ground soon proved otherwise; that one had to confront the increasing influence and geographic spread of the Taliban. There aren't that many Taliban fighters, but they are so intimidating and they are so ruthless that a very few can control a large swath of territory, which is something that I think everybody learned in watching this unfold.

So the other point to remember -- it goes back to Chuck's earlier question -- is there have been areas of Pakistan that have been ungoverned for a very long time. The British Empire did not govern them; no Pakistani government, civilian or military, attempted to govern them; and they were basically left alone, and they left the central government alone -- it was kind of a unspoken agreement.

But what nobody bargained for was foreign fighters and foreign money and a foreign ideology that would in some way link up disparate elements within these regions into a network, a syndicate, if you will, of extremist groups. And I think that has changed -- that's another one of the paradigm shifts. You know, you could leave those folks alone and they took care of their own business, but that was fine, we were okay in Lahore and Islamabad and Karachi and other places. But as they became more aggressive, and as they kind of broke out of the traditional model of how they had stayed close to home and basically controlled their own surroundings, that produced a new challenge.

And I think that it's part of the change in attitude that we're seeing in the Pakistani military and intelligence services, and in the civilian government.

Q And the issue --

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we're obviously concerned about that. We're going to watch it and see what we can do to help.

MR. GIBBS: She's got a couple of important meetings she's got to get to, so we're going to let her go.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you, Robert.

MR. GIBBS: Thank you for coming.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thanks, everybody.

Q Come again. (Laughter.)

Labels: Afghanistan, Hillary Clinton, Pakistan, Press Briefing, Taliban, War on Terror, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 9:09 PM

The Pakistanis Are Nervous - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 5/5/09
— Tuesday, May 05, 2009 —

MR. GIBBS: Helen.

Q Does the President have congressional approval to send thousands of troops to Afghanistan? And what does he mean that extremists are a direct and general threat to us? Can you explain that?

MR. GIBBS: Sure. I presume that the authorization for increased troop activity in Afghanistan goes back to 2000 -- I don't know exactly when the vote was, late 2001. I think the President outlined a strategy to deal with this region and to deal with Afghanistan and Pakistan, understanding that al Qaeda and its extremist allies operated in these two countries. I think it is clear from their actions that they pose a threat not only to those countries, but also to the United States. And I think we saw that --

Q Are they a threat because we're there intervening in their civil war? Or are they going to come here?

MR. GIBBS: I think it was pretty apparent the threat that they posed and the destruction that they ultimately caused in 2001, and that the President will take action to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda and its extremist allies.

Q Robert, what is the President going to do to reassure Zardari in Pakistan when he comes here tomorrow that this growing opposition on Capitol Hill or sort of reticence opposition on the Hill is from reticence about providing aid to the country -- how is he going to reassure him that he can guarantee the money, that the money is going to come, that Congress will be able to get this done?

MR. GIBBS: Flesh out for me the reticence a bit.

Q I guess that it seemed to be -- Chairman Obey today saying that he -- on sort of a stricter basis, he's not going to have an -- sort of an unfunded aspect to Afghanistan and Pakistan. And there's clearly -- the Pakistanis are nervous that they're not going to get the same amount of aid that they've seen in the past.

MR. GIBBS: Well, a couple different things. Understand that nobody is more impatient in seeing progress on a strategy to deal with Afghanistan and Pakistan than the President of the United States. He has talked about this for several years. These meetings over the course of the next couple of days make good on the promise of being engaged in this region actively. As I said to Helen, there is a shared threat from al Qaeda and its extremist allies, and the best way to confront that threat is through an alliance and cooperation with both of those countries.

Q You say al Qaeda, but then is it the Taliban, or do you call al Qaeda -- the Taliban one of al Qaeda's allies in this case?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I'd say al Qaeda's -- I think I said al Qaeda and its extremist allies. Obviously that denotes al Qaeda, and in specific instances, the Taliban.

Q Who Pakistan is, at one hand, at war with; on the other hand, negotiating with.

MR. GIBBS: I think they can speak to the danger of doing that.

Q Well, I understand it, but I guess, going back to the funding --

MR. GIBBS: Well, let me -- back to your funding, I mean, understand that we organized -- helped organized a donors conference in Japan that brought forward $5 billion worth of assistance to help with this problem in Pakistan. But, Chuck, as I said here yesterday, and I think the President has said on numerous occasions, there shouldn't be and there won't be blank checks; that the President supports the building in of accountability measures to ensure that we're making progress and that if progress isn't made that we'll readjust our strategy. He said that in ordering and conducting the review of our strategy in this region, and in the delivery of that review just a little while ago.

Q Disengagement could be a possibility here? That seems to be what some on Capitol Hill are saying -- hey, if progress can't be seen in a year, then why should we keep throwing more money at it; in fact, we should back off.

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the President has made clear the priority in ensuring that we're addressing this extremist threat. Nobody is more impatient than the President in seeing that succeed as quickly as possible, and if, for whatever reason, parts of, or aspects of the strategy aren't succeeding as well as we'd like, then those will be changed in order to succeed.

But again, Chuck, we have a threat, the Pakistanis and the Afghanis have a threat that has to be addressed and that's what the President intends to do.

Labels: Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, Congress, Pakistan, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, Taliban, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 7:05 PM

Lowering Corporate Taxes By Raising Them - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 5/4/09
— Monday, May 04, 2009 —

3 comments

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.

Labels: Congress, Legislation, Obama Administration, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, Taxes, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 4:46 PM

3 comments

An Impartial or Empathic Judiciary? - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs (Interrupted by President Obama) 5/1/09
— Friday, May 01, 2009 —

Q It's a mutated form of the virus, as the President said for the first time, I believe.

MR. GIBBS: Yes. And --

THE PRESIDENT: Hey. I'm sorry, but Gibbs is screwing this thing up. You know, there's a job to do -- please, everybody, have a seat. There's a job to do, you got to do it yourself. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: See you guys later. Have a good weekend. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: This is kind of cool.

MR. GIBBS: It's way cooler than it seems. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Absolutely.

The reason I'm interrupting Robert is not because he's not doing a good job -- he's doing an unbelievable job. But it's because I just got off the telephone with Justice Souter. And so I would like to say a few words about his decision to retire from the Supreme Court.

Throughout his two decades on the Supreme Court, Justice Souter has shown what it means to be a fair-minded and independent judge. He came to the bench with no particular ideology. He never sought to promote a political agenda. And he consistently defied labels and rejected absolutes, focusing instead on just one task -- reaching a just result in the case that was before him.

He approached judging as he approaches life, with a feverish work ethic and a good sense of humor, with integrity, equanimity and compassion -- the hallmark of not just being a good judge, but of being a good person.

I am incredibly grateful for his dedicated service. I told him as much when we spoke. I spoke on behalf of the American people thanking him for his service. And I wish him safe travels on his journey home to his beloved New Hampshire and on the road ahead.

Now, the process of selecting someone to replace Justice Souter is among my most serious responsibilities as President. So I will seek somebody with a sharp and independent mind and a record of excellence and integrity. I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book; it is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives -- whether they can make a living and care for their families; whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation.

I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles, as an essential ingredient for arriving as just decisions and outcomes. I will seek somebody who is dedicated to the rule of law, who honors our constitutional traditions, who respects the integrity of the judicial process and the appropriate limits of the judicial role. I will seek somebody who shares my respect for constitutional values on which this nation was founded and who brings a thoughtful understanding of how to apply them in our time.

As I make this decision, I intend to consult with members of both parties across the political spectrum. And it is my hope that we can swear in our new Supreme Court Justice in time for him or her to be seated by the first Monday in October when the court's new term begins.

And with that, I would like you to give Robert a tough time again. (Laughter.)

Q Mr. President, when did you learn --

Q -- Supreme Court practices when you were a Senator?

Q On that --

Q Will you --

Q I guess he wasn't in the mess today. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: I have an announcement to make. (Laughter.) I've been notified that Judge Souter is stepping down from the Supreme Court. (Laughter.) I have this from the very highest levels in our government. (Laughter.) Do you see that the guy -- you know, he read the statement and he left the questions to me. Okay, well, where were we?

Q Did you know he was coming?

MR. GIBBS: Did I know he was coming? No, I didn't know he was coming. No, we would have put a fancy seal up and everything.

Q No offense, but you're kind of a let-down now. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: Well, you guys are, too. (Laughter.) So it's -- we're kind of fair. Where were we before we were so rudely interrupted?

Q Robert, the President said, empathy in looking at the way the law intersects with average, ordinary people -- you said it before. There are some critics who say the courts should not be about that; that it should be about interpreting the work of legislatures, whether they be federal or state, and the Constitution; and within that construct, law must be made and that you err if you're a Justice when you try to find this empathetic approach outside of what legislatures, duly elected, have decided or what legal precedents established. What's the response to that line of criticism?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I would have those critics listen quite carefully to the words of the President just a few moments ago. He's looking for somebody who understands and respects constitutional values, who understands and respects the rule of law, as well as somebody who understands and respects the importance of what they're deciding and how that impacts millions of Americans in their daily lives.

Labels: Judiciary, Justice David Souter, President Obama, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, Supreme Court, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 8:10 PM

What He Meant To Say - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 4/30/09

Q And my other question has to do with remarks that Vice President Biden made this morning on television. Representatives of the travel industry have accused the Vice President of coming close to fear-mongering because of his comments, and I'm wondering if you wanted to clarify or correct or apologize for the remarks that he made.

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the -- what the Vice President meant to say was the same thing that, again, many members have said in the last few days, and that is, if you feel sick, if you are exhibiting symptoms, flu-like symptoms -- coughing, sneezing, runny nose -- that you should take precautions, that you should limit your travel. And I think he just -- what he said and what he meant to say.

Q With all due respect, and I sympathize with you trying to explain the Vice President's comments, but that's not even remotely close to what he said. He was asked about --

MR. GIBBS: I understand --

Q -- if a member of his family were going to --

MR. GIBBS: Jake, I understand what he said and I'm telling you what he meant to say -- (laughter) -- which was that if somebody is experiencing symptoms -- and you heard the President say this last night -- if somebody is feeling sick, if somebody is exhibiting symptoms of being sick, then they should take all necessary precaution. Obviously if anybody was unduly alarmed for whatever reason, we would apologize for that and I hope that my remarks and remarks of the people of the CDC and Secretary Napolitano have appropriately cleared up what he meant to say.

Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | Vice-President Biden | White House Press Corps

Labels: Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, Vice President Biden, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 7:55 PM

Obama's 100 Days Presidential Press Conference Coverage
— Wednesday, April 29, 2009 —

4 comments

Labels: Obama Administration, President Obama, Presidential Press Conference, Twitter, Video, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 5:33 PM

4 comments

Thrilled To Have Him - Air Force One Press Gaggle by Robert Gibbs 4/29/09

Sen. Specter switches parties to remain a Democrat

Q Robert, it's fairly unusual for a sitting President to basically endorse a candidate in a party primary. Can we expect President Obama to be doing more of the same in the next election cycle?

MR. GIBBS: I don't think it's at all irregular for a President to endorse an incumbent member of his own party even if it's a new member. I think you can go back and find a lot of examples of that.

The President is, as I said and he said yesterday, happy to have Senator Specter as a member of the Democratic Party, thrilled to have him, support him fully. He's made a decision of how to best represent the people he represents in Pennsylvania and we're happy that he did so.

Q Robert, to follow up on Ed's question, it was -- I think, seven minutes lapsed before the President was on the phone with Senator Specter saying he would support him in the primary --

MR. GIBBS: Seven minutes after he called him, yes.

Q Well, could you on that point say when did he have an inkling before that -- he thought it through? How did he arrive at the decision to offer that support, and did he consider supporting maybe a candidate who had been backed by the unions?

MR. GIBBS: No, he supported a -- he supported the, albeit new, member -- incumbent member of his party. There wasn’t any meeting about it. The President offered his support to Senator Specter and it's a commitment he'll keep.

Q Did he decide in that seven-minute span? I think he said no.

MR. GIBBS: My sense is it probably took him less than about seven seconds, so he might have had some extra time to think about other stuff.

Labels: Air Force One, Democrats, Elections, President Obama, Press Gaggle, Robert Gibbs, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 3:10 PM

Grading On A Curve - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 4/28/09

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.)

Labels: Bipartisanship, Congress, Legislation, President Obama, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 2:58 PM

I Would Contact The White House - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 4/27/09

Q Second question, do you guys feel you owe folks in New York City this morning an apology for this incident having to do with the airplane that looks like Air Force One with two fighter jets? There seemed to be a lot of panic --

MR. GIBBS: I would point you to the FAA or Air Force.

Q Everybody's pointing us to the White House Military Office, so that's why --

MR. GIBBS: Well, then I would contact the White House --

Q Well, the White House Military Office won't tell us anything -- they'll refer us to you. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: Well, then let me go discuss with the White House Military -- I don't -- I have seen some news reports but --

Q What was the photo op for?

MR. GIBBS: I don't know. That's -- I have no information on this other than what I saw --

Q I mean, I understand the way this works. I'm just saying, appearance-wise, it's odd that you guys don't have a response. I mean, this is the President's aircraft or what looks like --

MR. GIBBS: I understand. I was working on other things. You might be surprised to know I don't know of every movement of Air Force One or what happens to it. But I will certainly talk to the Military Office.

Q -- very edgy about it.

Labels: Air Force One, Obama Administration, Open Government, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, White House, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 2:36 PM

Hopeless To Appeal? - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 4/24/09

Q Robert, on the issue of the release of photos of -- photos being released of abuse of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan, two questions. One, can you explain why those are going to be released?

MR. GIBBS: Sure.

Q And secondly -- well, let's start with that.

MR. GIBBS: Sure. The Second Circuit Court ruled in December of 2008 that the photos had to be released. The previous administration lost a court case on that. The Department of Justice decided based on the ruling that it was hopeless to appeal, and a mandate ordering the release of those photos came Monday. And the administration, the Pentagon, and the court entered into an agreement to release those photos.

So this is part of the very same case that OLC memos were derived from. This was a court case based on information that was compelled to be released.

Q So did this administration think that it was out of legal options, it had no more recourse, or did it decide it was time to release those?

MR. GIBBS: I'll double-check. Specifically on the second part of that, I know that the Department of Justice determined specifically based on the ruling that they were not likely to be successful.

Q And more big picture, just one last one. When these are released, are you concerned at all that that's going to be another version of the debate we've had here for the last week of a lot of looking back, looking back to the Bush administration and that time?

MR. GIBBS: Well, again -- again, this was -- this was largely compelled by a court decision than this is -- there are going to be actions that -- many actions that are out of our control. But I think the President believes that -- the President believes that, as I've said throughout this process, that it is important to look forward and not to look backward, and that's the posture that he'll continue to take.

Labels: Department of Justice, Interrogation, Obama Administration, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, War on Terror, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 2:15 PM

Whether To Prosecute - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 4/23/09
— Friday, April 24, 2009 —

MR. GIBBS: Steve.

Q Robert, as you said, it's up to the Justice Department, not the White House, to decide whether there were crimes committed and whether to prosecute. Will the White House --

MR. GIBBS: Let me say -- let me -- I want to rephrase it. I haven’t said that. Well, I have said that, but that's what -- that's the legal system that's set up in this country. I mean, I -- what I said -- I didn't say that in terms of setting this doctrine up, right? Like if you drive 85 miles an hour on your way home, I may think it's against the law, but it's not likely I'm going to be the one providing you a speeding ticket, Steve.

Q Will the White House play any role in that conversation, particularly if the decision is made to charge high-ranking officials like the Vice President or the President with a crime?

MR. GIBBS: I think the President campaigned on, and will continue to keep the promise that he made in that campaign, as he has on many others, to leave legal determinations up to those that make legal determinations, not the President.

Q Well, the White House worked with the Justice Department on the determination not to hold accountable the field operatives that are responsible for this behavior.

MR. GIBBS: But that wasn't a political decision, Major. That was a decision based on --

Q I'm just saying it was a cooperative arrangement between this White House and the Justice Department on that decision.

MR. GIBBS: I wouldn't discuss this as an arrangement. I think two people can understand that -- again, this isn't -- this is a fairly time-honored legal tradition, if you follow legal advice rendered in good faith to govern your actions that you're not going to be held accountable or prosecuted for those actions.

All this is to say the best way to determine --

Q That's not what I'm talking about. What I was talking about is the collaborative effort between the White House and Justice Department some places and not elsewhere.

MR. GIBBS: The best way to determine -- the best way to determine who's going to -- the rule of law is to have it determined by lawyers who can determine whether or not somebody knowingly broke the law.

Q We've started talking in the last 24 hours more and more about very high-ranking people -

MR. GIBBS: I haven't talked about --

Q -- Condoleezza Rice, Dick Cheney --

MR. GIBBS: -- you guys have.

Q If in fact it reaches that level, would the President weigh in?

MR. GIBBS: Okay, you guys and Jay Rockefeller. (Laughter.)

I'm sorry, what was --

Q Would the President weigh in --

MR. GIBBS: Now, that we've --

Q -- turn to very high-ranking levels of the government? What does he think, for example, of the fact that Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon? Was that a breach of the presidential duty, or should that have been left to the Attorney General?

MR. GIBBS: I think the President has seen Frost/Nixon, but I do not know whether he's determined the efficacy of such a pardon.

Thanks, guys.

Labels: Department of Justice, Interrogation, Obama Administration, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 5:08 PM

The Non-Clarity of Yesterday - Air Force One Press Gaggle by Robert Gibbs 4/22/09
— Wednesday, April 22, 2009 —

Q Any clarity from yesterday on the President's position on torture memos, and any reaction to Dennis Blair's memo that appeared in papers today?

MR. GIBBS: Well, on the first question, what exactly -- what clarity are you looking for?

Q We're looking -- you said you were going to talk to -- get back to us with clarity on the President's remarks.

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think what -- maybe what I wasn’t clear about yesterday and -- because what was said yesterday was exactly what the President has said for not just the past week, as we've dealt with these OLC memos, but for the past many months. Let's just go through the whole sort of decision in general.

The President, at the beginning of his administration, banned the use of enhanced interrogation techniques because he believed they were -- they opposed our values and, on balance, they made the country less safe. As part of an ongoing legal proceeding, the President released these memos because there was no legal justification for continuing to keep them classified; that a lot of the information that was contained in the memos, that the types of techniques were in the public domain.

So that is part of the backdrop of where we are. The President also believes that the memos and their release should be a moment for us to reflect, but not a moment for retribution. The President, as he said yesterday, has a lot on his plate and he believes that our focus looking forward should be on the crises that we have in the bank industry, in unemployment, the financial sector, and as he and the Attorney General have said, that while no one is above the law, those that worked within the four corners of the legal advice they were given, and those that acted in good faith based on the advice they were provided should not be subject to interrogation.

That's what the President said -- that's what the President has said all along.

Q Should not be subject to what?

MR. GIBBS: Should not be subject to prosecution.

Q The President said yesterday that he wanted to ensure that if there was any kind of investigation, politics were not part of the equation. Given that, would he be supportive at some point appointing a special prosecutor to look into these Bush-era officials?

MR. GIBBS: Well, look, I think this goes into the -- in some ways, the non-clarity of yesterday. Let me use an example. If you go in the back of the plane, Air Force One, and spray-paint the walls and smoke in the bathroom, the President isn’t going to determine whether you broke the law; a legal official is going to determine whether you broke the law. That's the determination that will be made in any instance whereby anybody knowingly breaks the law.

Q But due to the fact that his AG, Eric Holder, is a political appointee, would it not be less political to have a prosecutor to look into these issues?

MR. GIBBS: I think that the lawyers that are involved are plenty capable of determining whether any law has been broken. I want to stress that that determination is not going to be made by the President, or the Vice President, or anybody that works in the White House, because that's why many, many, many, many moons ago we created a Department of Justice.

Q To switch gears, can you tell us a little bit more about this planned summit with Zardari and Karzai? What does the President hope to achieve with this, what I understand is going to be a three-way?

MR. GIBBS: Yes, it will be a trilateral meeting in early May. Look, obviously, without getting into a lot of the technical details, these are -- this is part of the ongoing new policy and process that was put into place at the conclusion of the review of where we are in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Understanding that this is a very important and very dangerous part of the world, the President wants to be personally involved, as he has been throughout his administration, in seeking to find solutions to the problems that are in this region and to protect the United States.

Q He said before that he doesn’t -- that they're not going to have a blank check. Is that something he's going to communicate to them again when he meets them?

MR. GIBBS: Absolutely. And I don't -- the President will reiterate his hopes and his belief of the opportunities, but also the responsibilities that each leader has.

Q There are lots and lots of news reports today saying that what the President did yesterday was open the door, change his policy, make a surprising announcement. Are all of those stories just flat wrong?

MR. GIBBS: Yes. And let me -- again, I'll use the example that I used with Jonathan to you -- I think you were getting a pen or something. If you spray-paint the back of this plane, if you tear up one of the seats, even though it's Air Force One, the President doesn’t make a determination as to who broke the law. That's a legal official. The notion that the President is open to anything is -- I think misses the point.

If somebody knowingly broke the law, that's a determination that will be ultimately made by a legal official, not by the President of the United States, or not by anybody else.

Labels: Air Force One, Interrogation, Obama Administration, Press Gaggle, Robert Gibbs, War on Terror, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 7:34 PM

Whatever Confusion Might Exist - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 4/21/09

Q It sounded as though the President took a somewhat different policy today than his Chief of Staff did on Sunday regarding possible prosecution of those who devised the policies. The President said today, regarding those who'd formulated these legal decisions, that that's more of a decision for the Attorney General. And Rahm Emanuel said on Sunday, for those who devised the policy, he -- being the President -- believes they should not be prosecuted. Is that a shift in position?

MR. GIBBS: Well, let's -- instead of referring to what anybody might have said, I think it's important -- or anything that I might have said -- it's important to refer to what the President said, and what he said over the course of many months, in all honestly, because this dates back to questions that has received in press conferences or even during the transition, and that is, very much as he said -- reiterated today, that he says as a general deal, I think we should be looking forward and not backward.

The President has also said he does not believe that people are above the rule of law. And the President stated accurately that any determination as to whether a law was broken would rightly be made not by the President but by the chief law enforcement officer of the United States.

Q But it did seem like a sound -- at least a difference in tone, if not policy, by particularly saying the Attorney General would be the most likely one to look at those who devise a policy. That sounds different from what he has said in the past, where he always talked about let's just move forward --

MR. GIBBS: Well, again --

Q -- and in fact, Rahm Emanuel --

MR. GIBBS: Well, again, whatever confusion might exist, I think it's important -- again, the President said throughout the campaign that he would leave determinations on science in his administration to scientists; that he would leave determinations about the law to those in the Justice Department. And I think he reiterated that today, that people aren't above the law.

I do think it's important to make a distinguishing -- to distinguish exactly what the President said last week. The President believes and was assured by the Justice Department that those that have acted in good faith on what they believed was legal won't be prosecuted. The President still believes that.

Yes, ma'am.

Q Robert, I just want to follow up on Chuck's question, because it does seem that there is a shift there. Because if you look at what the President said today, he said, with regard to those who formulated the legal decisions, he said that that was a decision for the Attorney General, and he said he didn't want to prejudge that. But Rahm Emanuel on Sunday said that those who devise the policy, he believes that they should -- that they were -- should not be prosecuted either, so --

MR. GIBBS: Well, to clear up any confusion on anything that might have been said, I would point you to what the President said.

Q Did he have a change of heart on this issue over the last few days? Is he --

MR. GIBBS: No, I think the President, as I said, you can date back to the -- I think was asked, at least I recall it being asked in the transition -- and discussed the rule of law, that nobody in the country is above that rule of law.

Q And just on the issue of a further accounting, which he talked about today and which Chuck also asked you about, is he actively considering a 9/11-type of panel? Is he --

MR. GIBBS: No, I think --

Q -- it seemed like he was trying to get at something like that, he said that he would like to see something outside of the hearing process.

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think he was asked, if something were to be set up, how would it be set up. How would --

Q Right. But wouldn't he be the one to set it up?

MR. GIBBS: Not necessarily. I'm reminded that Congress has a pretty big say in something like that, given their ability and their lawmaking power.

Q Is he conferring with people on that?

MR. GIBBS: I will check if it's something that's active. Again, the President's position is to look forward. If there are those that want to look back, I think the President strongly believes that anything has to be done in a way that doesn't, as he said today, doesn't overly politicize and hamper either the ability of anybody involved to carry out the functions of their job or the functions that protect our country.

Yes, sir.

Q Robert, what changed over the last 24 hours, though? Because yesterday you were flat in saying that we're not going there, as Rahm was on Sunday. And in the last 24 hours we've seen groups like moveon.org on the left come out and write a petition to the Attorney General saying they want accountability from the Bush administration. Is this an example of this White House giving in to pressure from the left?

MR. GIBBS: I don't -- I have not, and I doubt the President has been on moveon.org in the last 24 hours, so, no.

Q Okay. But then why was Rahm so firm on Sunday, and you were firm yesterday in this very room; what changed?

MR. GIBBS: Again, to clear up any of the confusion, I would simply say that the President reiterated that there is -- that, as he said, his general posture is to look forward, and that at the same time, nobody is above the law.

Q Why would there be any confusion, as you call it? I don't understand. This is a pretty straightforward topic.

MR. GIBBS: Well, I predicated your question then posited some confusion with acknowledgment.

Q Did you misspeak? Or did Rahm misspeak?

MR. GIBBS: You know, I -- whether or not anybody was confused or misspoke, I would take what the President said as -- I'm informed he got more votes than either of the two of us.

Q Can I follow on -- Vice President Cheney yesterday weighed in on this and said he found it disturbing that the President put these memos out. And he also is charging, if you can answer, that this White House basically selectively declassified some of these torture memos, and that there are other memos somewhere in the CIA that would show that the interrogation actually yielded what the former Vice President would call good intelligence that prevented terror attacks. How do you answer that?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I would suggest that you contact the CIA. You might be --

Q Well, they're not about to turn these over to me or anyone else in this room?

MR. GIBBS: Including me. (Laughter.)

Q But if the President wanted to declassify it, he could. He just declassified it --

MR. GIBBS: Yes, I would --

Q So the question is, are there other memos that you're keeping under wraps?

MR. GIBBS: And I just said, I don't know. Again, that's why I would -- I know sometimes when I ask you to contact the agencies with the wherewithal to answer your questions, you think that I'm not answering your question. But as you just said, they're not going to give them to you, they're coincidentally not going to give them to me. And I think the best place to ask about their existence is the CIA.

Labels: Attorney General, Bush Administration, Interrogation, Obama Administration, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, War on Terror, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 3:08 PM

I'm Being Completely Sincere - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 4/20/09
— Tuesday, April 21, 2009 —

Q Thank you. The $100 million target figure that the President talked about today with the Cabinet, can you explain why it's so small? I know he talked about -- you know, you add up a hundred million, a hundred million, a hundred million and eventually you get somewhere, but it would take an awfully long time to add up hundred millions to make a dent in the deficit. Why not target a bigger number?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think only in Washington, D.C. does $100 million --

Q The deficit is very large. It's not a joke. The deficit is giant; $100 million really is only a dent.

MR. GIBBS: No joke --

Q You can make a joke about it, but it's not funny.

MR. GIBBS: I'm not making a joke about it; I'm being completely sincere. But only in Washington, D.C. is $100 million not a lot of money. It is where I'm from. It is where I grew up. And I think it is for hundreds of millions of Americans.

Q But the point is it's not a very big portion of the deficit.

Q You were talking about an appropriations bill a few weeks ago -- that at $8 billion -- being minuscule; a billion in earmarks. We were talking about that and you said that that --

MR. GIBBS: Well, in terms of --

Q A hundred million is a lot, but $8 billion is small?

MR. GIBBS: What I'm saying is I think it all adds up -- just as the President said, just as Jennifer was good enough to do in her question. If you think we're going to get rid of a $1.3 trillion deficit by eliminating one thing, I'd be and the administration would be innumerably happy for you to let us know what that is.

Q Why not try to get a bigger number so you can get a -- at a bigger share --

MR. GIBBS: Let me explain sort of what has happened. Let's walk through this so that everybody understands this. The President has laid out cuts, large and small, in both the administrative costs and in the program costs of the federal budget.

Some of the examples that we were -- we provided you all will add up. For instance, the Department of Veterans Affairs either cancels or delays 26 conferences that can be better, or more effectively and more cost-effectively done by video conferencing that saves almost $18 million.

A lot of these administrative things will add up. This is a short-term goal to come back with, over the course of the next few weeks, to identify further administrative savings that secretaries haven't already both identified and eliminated.

The President has also proposed savings on a much larger scale. The President has proposed ending the bank middle man for college loans, saving $94 billion over a 10-year period of time.

The President has attacked, in his budget, the subsidies that we provide insurance companies to provide the same Medicare coverage -- private insurance companies the same type of Medicare coverage that's already being offered at a savings of over $200 billion.

Jennifer, the reason that the President can stand up with the backing of the Congressional Budget Office and talk about cutting the deficit in half over the course of four years time is because there are cuts that are large -- student loans and Medicare Advantage -- as well as small. This is part of the President's promise and proposal to go line by line through the federal budget deficit. Will we enumerate programs that don't work that we're going to eliminate in the future? Yes. Some of those cuts will be large; some of those cuts will be small.

But we are not going to put ourselves back on a path toward fiscal sustainability if we don't look at each and every item in this federal budget and make some of the cuts that are necessary to get us on that path.

Federal Deficit | Obama Administration | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | White House Press Corps

Labels: Federal Deficit, Obama Administration, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 3:47 PM

One-on-One with Mr. Chavez - Mexico City Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 4/16/09
— Friday, April 17, 2009 —

Q This weekend with the Summit of the Americas, number one, are you ruling out a one-on-one meeting with Hugo Chavez? And also I know you guys keep -- keep this secret, I guess -- are you having any one-on-one meetings with any leaders now?

MR. GIBBS: We will get you a list of the highly secret meetings that we're having in Trinidad. How careless of me to -- having included you all on such a secret trip -- (laughter.) We'll get you a list.

There's no one-on-one meeting with Mr. Chavez on the schedule. I believe he is among several leaders that are in a multilateral meeting. We will get you a list tonight of what meetings we're doing. There are a couple of bilateral meetings, but most of them are multilateral meetings.

Q Would he at all -- if Chavez pulled him aside to say, let's have a conversation -- would President Obama --

MR. GIBBS: Every time I pull the President aside to have a conversation we've had that conversation, so I assume he would do the same.

Labels: Hugo Chavez, International Relations, President Obama, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 8:35 PM

Handing Out Tea - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 4/15/09

Q Robert, on taxes, the President can say with justification that he hasn’t raised taxes on anyone making less than $200,000 --

MR. GIBBS: No, the President can say with much justification that he’s cut taxes for the largest number of --

Q Not only not raised them, he’s cut them, okay. Okay.

MR. GIBBS: Let’s not -- I don’t know if you are handing out tea, but I just want to -- (laughter.)

Q My question is that -- is that pledge to not raise taxes on the 95 percent of working families, is that a kind of "read my lips" pledge going forwards? Because the reason I ask this is that the tea party people say it’s no so much they feel that he’s taxing them now, but they’re worried in the future to pay for all these programs he’s simply going to have to raise taxes on the vast majority of people. And even the tax hikes that he sent up on the wealthy to Congress -- to pay for health care, for instance -- had been rejected. So the question is, you know, where else are you going to get the money. I'm wondering if this is a kind of "read my lips" pledge going forward that he will never raise taxes to pay for any program on the 95 percent of working families.

MR. GIBBS: Well, whether this is a "read my lips" or however -- it’s a statement and a promise that the President has made.

Q But not just up until this point, but going forward --

MR. GIBBS: He didn’t say, I make this promise at or until April 15th of 2009. I think you can assure people across the street that that's not the case.

Q Okay, but you're saying that he will not --

MR. GIBBS: I would restate what he said in the campaign, and that is he won’t raise taxes on people that make above $250,000 a year.

Q Below.

MR. GIBBS: I’m sorry, below. See? (Laughter.) You've even confused me. (Laughter.) Now I'm all flummoxed.

Again, I can’t speak to what you said in terms of this notion that people are more concerned about -- they’re not actually concerned about what’s happened now, but they’re concerned about what could happen in the future. Again, I would encourage you to go out there and ask them about the tax cuts that they’ve already gotten.

Q Well, I'm not disputing that. I'm talking about -- and I'm not talking about just the tea party people. But when people see Congress saying, okay, we don’t want to eliminate the tax deductions for the wealthy to pay for health care, the question is where else is this money going to come from.

MR. GIBBS: I don’t know how much polling NPR has done; I've certainly seen it from other organizations that denote even this week healthy support among the American people for those that make above $250,000 a year to pay more in taxes.

Q But that's not my question. I'm talking about is he confident that he can stick to his pledge --

MR. GIBBS: He is.

Q -- and not raise taxes. Okay.

MR. GIBBS: He is.

President Obama | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | Taxes | White House Press Corps

Labels: President Obama, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, Taxes, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 2:29 PM

Making Work Pay Government - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 4/14/09
— Wednesday, April 15, 2009 —

Q Thanks, Robert. Tomorrow is tax day and a number of conservative groups are organizing these so called "tea parties" across the country; there are going to be grassroots uprising revolts against the administration's policies so far. Is the President aware that these are going on and do you have any reaction to this?

MR. GIBBS: I don't know if the President is aware of the events. I think the President will use tomorrow as a day to have an event here at the White House to signal the important steps in the economic recovery and reinvestment plan that cut taxes for 95 percent of working families in America, just as the President proposed doing; cuts in taxes and tax credits for the creation of clean energy jobs.

We'll use tomorrow to highlight individual and instances in families that have seen their taxes cut and I think America can be -- Americans will see more money in their pockets as a direct result of the Making Work Pay tax cut that the President both campaigned on and passed through Congress.

Q Is anyone monitoring these or kind of paying attention to what's coming out?

MR. GIBBS: I've neither monitored them nor spoken with the Spanish about them. (Laughter.)

Labels: Democracy, President Obama, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, Taxes, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 6:46 PM

Ungoverned Spaces - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 4/13/09
— Monday, April 13, 2009 —

MR. GIBBS: Do you have one more follow-up on this?

Q No, I’m thinking about pirates.

MR. GIBBS: All right. Well, thank you.

MR. RESTREPO: Thank you, sir.

Q So, pirates.

MR. GIBBS: Yes, what's next?

Q Well, the President talked, both in his statement yesterday and in his remarks today about addressing the bigger picture here, the increasingly problematic situation off the Horn of Africa. In his briefing over at the Pentagon, the Defense Secretary said, you know, some language, something like we're going to have to figure out what in the world to do, which implies that there really isn't much -- a plan or a strategy yet to figure out how to attack this problem. Can you talk about what's going on here?

MR. GIBBS: When you say that, you mean the -- do you mean specifically maritime or do you mean -- I mean, obviously, you've got -- look, I think you've got a number of problems.

Q Well, I mean, the maritime piracy problem, which I think is what the President was referring to when he said --

MR. GIBBS: Right. Well, I think also -- you know, the President has spoken about this before, and I'm sure will continue to speak about and work on the issue also of ungoverned spaces. And I don't think that can be in any way really minimized here.

That's something that -- that trip when -- when he went to Africa in 2006, we spent some time in this region of the world and --

(Cell phone interruption.)

MR. GIBBS: At least it's a normal ring. (Laughter.)

We spent some time in this region of the world, and you quickly understand some of the challenges that lay before you.

I think some of the things that we can -- that we have done and can continue to do to ensure maritime safety is to work for sustained international cooperation in order to coordinate security.

Q Does that mean more military power on the part of the U.S.?

MR. GIBBS: I think that is certainly -- operationally, I would point you over to the Pentagon, but I know in terms of the increased risk that we had over the past few days, you saw more resources and assets. Obviously this is a -- it's also a very huge expanse of space that has to be patrolled. I think also what has to happen is we do have to evaluate and be prepared to take stronger action interdicting acts of piracy. And I think another thing is to encourage greater efforts to bring individuals and groups suspected of these type of acts, to bring those to justice.

We have seen an increase in this type of violence and I know the President is concerned about the safety and security of men and women that are in that area.

Labels: Africa, Military, President Obama, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 8:41 PM

Did He Bow Or Didn't He - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 4/9/09
— Thursday, April 09, 2009 —

Q And then one unrelated question. When the President met with King Abdullah, there was something that took place that I believe the White House explained as just the President being taller than the King. We took a look at the video, and it does appear that the President actually bowed to King Abdullah. Did he bow or didn't he?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think he bent over with both -- to shake with both hands to shake his hand. So I don't --

Q It appears to show one hand, that he was just --

MR. GIBBS: Well, I --

Q Did he bow or didn't he?

MR. GIBBS: No. But I think this meeting was like a week ago, right?

Q That's right, but this is something that a lot of people are still talking about today.

MR. GIBBS: I can only imagine it is of great cause and concern for many people struggling with the economy. (Laughter.)

Labels: G20, International Relations, President Obama, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, Video, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 9:34 PM

Around Here - Al Faw Palace Press Gaggle by Robert Gibbs 4/7/09
— Wednesday, April 08, 2009 —

Photo by jamesdale10

Q When we went in there, the President said that he'd be meeting in person with both Maliki and Talabani -- I’m just listening to the tape again. You said -- I just want to know what's right.

MR. GIBBS: There are updates on the schedule even as we speak, so I’ll come back out and do that again.

Q Okay.

Q I’m sorry, I couldn’t hear that part.

MR. GIBBS: There are updates to the schedule, and I’ll come out there --

Q So he may have a face-to-face with Talabani?

MR. GIBBS: Yes, yes.

Q But still here? Everything here?

MR. GIBBS: Somewhere in Camp Victory, yes.

Q He’s not going to the Green Zone, right?

MR. GIBBS: Right. It will be somewhere -- I don't --

Q Around here.

MR. GIBBS: It's not likely to be in that office, but it will be nearby.

Labels: International Relations, Iraq, President Obama, Press Gaggle, Robert Gibbs, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 12:20 AM

Trying To Test Him - Prague Press Gaggle by Robert Gibbs 4/5/09
— Tuesday, April 07, 2009 —

Q I didn’t read this, but does it include whether different phases, different stages of the missile worked and others failed?

MR. GIBBS: It says just, "Stage one of the missile fell into the Sea of Japan, the remaining stages, along with the payload itself, landed in the Pacific Ocean."

Q So nothing got into space?

MR. GIBBS: "No object entered orbit and no debris fell on Japan."

Q But it got over Japan and into the Pacific.

MR. GIBBS: Yes.

Q Robert, the broader timing of this, though, even if you don’t think it was necessarily timed for the speech, the broader timing of it is it comes very early in your administration. Do you think the North Koreans are trying to test him? And trying to get his attention?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think that -- I’m trying to be careful -- I think that the North Koreans have disregarded their responsibilities and international resolutions for many, many years now, going back at least to the last two presidencies. So I don’t think this has anything to do with President Obama; I think it has to do with the disregard of the North Koreans, the steps backwards that they are continuing to take and that the President supports the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

Q Will you have any more six-party talks now that this has happened, in good faith?

MR. GIBBS: Let me get a better answer on that.

North Korea | President Obama | Press Gaggle | Robert Gibbs | White House Press Corps

Labels: North Korea, President Obama, Press Gaggle, Robert Gibbs, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 11:48 AM

The Gravest Security Danger - Prague Press Gaggle by Robert Gibbs 4/5/09

This is your wake up call, Mr. President.

Q So the President has not yet been told whether this was in fact a satellite launch, or a missile test, or something in between?

MR. GIBBS: I won't get into that during this briefing. I will say this: The President has -- the launch today was not a surprise by any means. The President has been involved in several meetings about this situation over the course of the past three to four weeks. So this was something that had long been planned for. And had at any moment we determined that this launched posed a threat to the United States of America, we would have taken whatever steps were necessary to ensure the safety and security of the American people.

Q At any time were America's defenses placed on alert?

MR. GIBBS: I think it is safe to say that defenses were monitoring the situation.

Q Has the President reached out yet to -- directly to any allies -- Japan or South Korea?

MR. GIBBS: The President hasn't spoken yet with Aso or with Lee. Not yet.

Q So just to back up, he was woken up?

MR. GIBBS: Yes.

Q Who woke him up?

MR. GIBBS: I did.

Q What was his first reaction?

MR. GIBBS: Again, it wasn't completely unexpected. He asked me for a rundown of the situation. Obviously at that point there wasn't a ton of detail, and not long after we went back and gave him more up-to-date information about what to -- what defense came back with.

Q Did he stay up then to -- get on the phone from that point on?

MR. GIBBS: He was up at that point, yes.

Q Obviously this makes a big impact on the speech, it ties into the speech, but it overshadows it in some ways. What is he going to say --

MR. GIBBS: I don't think -- I don't think it overshadows it, because I don't think -- I think it makes even more urgent, as the President said, the agenda and the policies that he'll lay out today: The spread of this technology, the spread of weapons of mass destruction, and the threat of -- the threat that those weapons pose are the most -- are the gravest security danger our country faces. And I think what the President will outline today is a robust agenda to deal with the problems and the security threats that they pose.

North Korea | President Obama | Press Gaggle | Robert Gibbs | White House Press Corps

Labels: North Korea, President Obama, Press Gaggle, Robert Gibbs, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 9:35 AM

Shirking Responsibility - Air Force One Press Gaggle by Robert Gibbs 4/3/09
— Saturday, April 04, 2009 —

Q Does the President think -- General – excuse me, Secretary Gates said something about this over the weekend -- does the President think that leaders of NATO countries need to do more to convince their publics to contribute more troops? And how will he be communicating that?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think you’ll hear some of this, quite frankly, in his speech today in Strasbourg because, as I outlined earlier, I think he will talk about a strong partnership with Europe, but in that partnership, there have to be mutual responsibilities.

Q This is the town hall event?

MR. GIBBS: Yes. That we have -- in those mutual responsibilities that we have to understand there are real threats out there in this world. You’ll hear the President obviously outline those -- Afghanistan and Pakistan make real the threats that we have -- and that in understanding that this is more than just the concern of the United States but rather the concern of the world, that, yes, the responsibility is there for Europe to step up.

Q So we should read that language in the speech today as an effort to motivate and convince the governments to do more?

MR. GIBBS: Yes, I mean, I don't -- and I guess I'd phrase it partly this way -- you know, the criticism of the United States for the past few years was a go-it-alone diplomacy, but if you --

Q And you guys made that criticism during the campaign. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: I may have read that in a few of your publications or seen it on a couple of your news channels, but I appreciate your simply regurgitating what I say on such an easy basis. But with -- with a partnership, again, there have to be those shared responsibilities and you can't just have -- you can't have just one person bearing the entire load or responsibility in a partnership.

Q Does that mean that the United States --

MR. GIBBS: And I think that's the importance, quite frankly, of NATO. I think we've seen that over -- you know, tomorrow we celebrate the 60th anniversary of NATO. The whole idea of that was shared responsibility.

Q But does that assume then that the United States' position is that to date the other countries have been shirking that responsibility?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I don't think that will be the tone. I think, again, we've only -- the strategy that we've outlined is only a little less than a week old. And, again, I think our process is to build an agreement on that strategy and then to meet that strategy with the appropriate resources, focusing, as I said, on -- partly on trading and partly on security around these elections.

Labels: Afghanistan, Air Force One, NATO, Pakistan, Press Gaggle, Robert Gibbs, War on Terror, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 4:30 PM

The State Dictating Salaries - London Press Conference by the President 4/2/09
— Thursday, April 02, 2009 —

PRESIDENT OBAMA: All right, let me sprinkle in another -- it's got to be an international person. All right, this young lady right there.

Q Mr. President, Emma Alberici from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. At the moment, in the U.S., the U.K., and in Australia, executive salaries and bonuses are decided in the boardrooms of major publicly listed companies. Who will be making those decisions on salaries and bonuses as a result of the agreement you've made here today? And if it is still the boards, will they be guided by principles or legislation?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: The principles that we outlined I think put in place or move us in the direction of what I consider to be best practices, which is that there is some accountability with respect to executive compensation.

Now, theoretically, that should be the shareholders. But the way that too many corporations have operated for too long is that you have a CEO who basically selects his board; the board, in a fairly cozy relationship oftentimes with the executive, hires a executive compensation firm, which, surprisingly, tends to think that it's necessary to retain the best talent to pay people $20 or $30 million a year; and we get into the kinds of habits and practices that I think have not been -- have not served shareholders well, I think ultimately distort the decision-making of many CEOs.

When I was in the United States Senate, I actually worked on a piece of legislation that would -- made the simple proposition that executive compensation should be subject to a shareholder vote, even if it was nonbinding, so that there was transparency and accountability and perhaps a shame function that would take place. And that principle, I think, is reflected in these guidelines.

What it says is, is that if you get shareholders involved and those shareholders are given a set of principles and best practices by which they can judge executive compensation, then you can still have outsized rewards and success for successful business people, but it will be based on not short-term performance, not three-month performance, not your ability to flip quick profits off products like derivatives that don't turn out to be particularly productive to the company, but based on sustained, effective growth. And that's what's embodied in these documents, and I think that you're going to see a lot of countries try to encourage that kind of transparency and accountability.

It doesn't mean the state micromanaging -- ( sneezes) -- excuse me -- I've been fighting this all week -- it doesn't mean that we want the state dictating salaries; we don't. We -- I strongly believe in a free-market system, and as I -- as I think people understand in America, at least, people don't resent the rich; they want to be rich. And that's good. But we want to make sure that there's mechanisms in place that holds people accountable and produces results. Okay?

Labels: Economy, G20, International Relations, President Obama, Presidential Press Conference, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 9:01 PM

Toning Down The Expectations - Air Force One Press Gaggle by Robert Gibbs 3/31/09
— Tuesday, March 31, 2009 —

Q Can I ask about -- can I sort of put the Russia and China meetings together? Both of those nations have been pretty aggressive in the way they've talked about the U.S., particularly on the currency issue, and are kind of looking to boost their own image and stature in the world by talking that way. How big a part do you think those kinds of issues will play in the meetings tomorrow?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I -- look, I can't speak for what those countries will bring up. I think it's been -- we've been quite clear that the reserve currency of the world is now and will continue to be the U.S. dollar, the strength and the breadth of our economy is unmatched.

I do think the President looks forward to each of these meetings as a way, again, of speaking of issues that are of mutual concern. Obviously there are -- there's a lot to deal with on the world stage and this is an opportunity for him to get a chance to talk to these two leaders on a very personal level tomorrow.

Q Both of these nations are trying to sort of use this moment to more assertively challenge the U.S. So how does the President go into those meetings, sort of knowing that they occur in that context?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I don't think it -- look, I think the President will have the issues that he wants to discuss and bring them up with each of those two countries. I don't think that changes what the President does at all.

Q Robert, there seems to have been a -- everything seems to be toning down the expectations, trying to tamp down expectations for everything on this trip. What are the fair measuring sticks? April 7th, flying back, measuring sticks out of G20, out of NATO, out of the EU -- is it -- what are they?

MR. GIBBS: Well, look, let's take the G20, for example. I think it's likely that we will come out of the G20 with very broad agreement on measures that have to be taken to address the global recession. We've already gotten -- despite what a lot has been written about -- at the financial ministerial level just a couple of weeks ago the commitment to continue to evaluate what has to be done to spur the global economy along.

Q What does that mean? "Commitment to evaluate" -- I mean, that sounds like -- do you worry you get so much to a broad consensus --

MR. GIBBS: Let me be more specific, because this also hasn't been reported -- so I'll give you a chance to enumerate my evaluation.

As we said last Saturday on the phone call in preparation for this, if you total up what the G20 nations have pledged to address the economic downturn, it represents 1.8 percent of GDP for the G20 nations. That is a significant commitment to addressing the downturn in GDP around the world. The pledge is to evaluate whether or not more steps will be needed in the future to address the breadth and severity of the crisis.

I think secondly there will be broad consensus about far stronger financial regulations to ensure that what we're dealing with now never happens again, that we have different rules of the road for the 21st century. And I think that the United States and the Obama administration last week demonstrated its commitment to leadership in this endeavor by rolling out as strong a set of financial regulations as any country has proposed -- as well as a commitment to get them through Congress this year. So that we will not simply propose new rules of the road, but have them instituted by the end of the year, which will make progress in the sense of we won't just be speaking about this stuff, we'll be acting on it.

We'll address hedge funds and derivatives as part of regulation. There are tougher capital requirements. There are tools to ensure greater security and safety in our financial system. And finally, as both the President and the Secretary of Treasury have spoken about, they give any administration unique tools and necessary tools to deal with systemic risks like resolution authority, which is something we lack in dealing with something the size of AIG.

Q NATO?

MR. GIBBS: You know, NATO, I think we will have an opportunity to discuss and review what the President has proposed. As I said, the Secretary of State heard some -- was pleased with what she heard in public and in private. So I think we want -- I think we're making progress and we'll see progress that demonstrates that the concern, as I said a minute ago, about Afghanistan and Pakistan are not simply the concern of one country or one --

Q -- measureable, though? Is it troop commitments?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I don't want to get ahead of where we are. I think if we can demonstrate that there's broad international concern and that people are working together to address it, I think that'll be a success.

Q What specifically pleased the Secretary of State the most, that she heard?

MR. GIBBS: Well, again, I think it was an understanding that -- well, first of all, bringing together neighbors in the region to address in a larger way the problems that we face in Afghanistan and Pakistan. As you know, the President committed at the beginning of his administration to reviewing our policy -- not simply as one that relates to Afghanistan or one that relates to Pakistan, but one that relates to the region as the whole. That was important. Demonstrating -- understanding and demonstrating that commitment I think is important. And she was pleased with what she heard, as I said, in public and in private.

Look, I think it's a helpful development if they're willing to continue their involvement to have Iran, a neighbor of Afghanistan, who can and should be concerned about drug trafficking into their country. If they are willing to accept the responsibility of playing a constructive role in that region, I think that's an important development. We'll see as we move forward how that goes.

Q What parts of the G20 agenda are still in flux or still being negotiated? Or is it pretty much set right now, in terms of what the outcome will be?

MR. GIBBS: I can go ask those guys in terms of what, in terms of the communiqué. I think the call that he had with Prime Minister Brown demonstrated that they made progress on a number of issues.

One last thing I forgot to mention at G20 is obviously -- and this is largely agreed upon -- is a far greater commitment to international institutions in order to help emerging economies as we see this massive slowdown in global trade.

Q -- contribution?

MR. GIBBS: Yes.

Q And do you think -- is that on the China agenda? When he meets with Hu, is that about getting them to kick in on this?

MR. GIBBS: I will double check on that. But I know, again, that that is -- you know, greater exports from our country into emerging economies means jobs back home, so that's important.

Q You talked about his consultations going into the G20, you know, all the conversations he's had with leaders in person and on the phone. Could you quantify that? I mean, pull together how many conversations and meetings he's had?

MR. GIBBS: I can go back and try to -- you mean with leaders, not --

Q Yes.

MR. GIBBS: Okay. Again, I know that -- like I said, in the past 10 days he's had --

Q We know, but when the President announced -- it seems like he's had a couple different conversations with some leaders, that once --

MR. GIBBS: Let me go back and try to pull together all of it. Again, I know -- you know I think about most of them. As I said, conversations in the past 10 days or so -- teleconferences with Sarkozy and Merkel; conversations with Brown, and visits by Rudd and Lula to the Oval Office. I should mention he talked with Prime Minister Harper in within the last, I think, 48 hours.

Q Was it about cars?

MR. GIBBS: I think partly to talk about that, but also to talk about G20.

Labels: Air Force One, Economy, G20, International Relations, Obama Administration, Press Gaggle, Robert Gibbs, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 10:33 PM

General And Somewhat Nonspecific - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 3/30/09
— Monday, March 30, 2009 —

Q Thank you. I'd just like to follow up on some of the -- that has been out there here. You've been asked a couple times whether the actions regarding these auto companies should be viewed as something that the banks should pay attention to because a similar approach may come their way. And you said, no, we should look at these as individual cases. So are you essentially --

MR. GIBBS: I guess what I'm trying to do is, I'm just trying to -- again, the example I just used with Chuck, I mean, the pathway for two auto companies is, based on the President's decision today, different. So I think to take any series of other entities and put them on that same scale, those paths may also be different. That's all I'm --

Q There's certain principles that underlie all of these decisions, though, obviously, and there is a certain willingness or unwillingness of the administration to dictate certain terms as a condition of receiving federal money. And so are you saying, by saying these are individual cases, are you trying to communicate that these banks really -- don't worry about this, this isn't coming your way?

MR. GIBBS: No, I --

Q I think it's a fair question.

MR. GIBBS: It is. It's a little general -- general and somewhat nonspecific. And again, what I'm -- I guess what I'm asking is, instead of looking at every entity as the same entity, I think that's -- I don't think that's hypothetically productive.

Q Well, do you want me to ask the question that way by inserting all the names of all the banks that have received aid and ask if it would apply to that? I mean, would that be more helpful?

MR. GIBBS: Well, again, understanding that some of the circumstances are different.

Q But why Rick Wagoner and not Ken Lewis?

MR. GIBBS: Again, some of these things are -- I don't have anything specific on Bank of America. But again, I just don't want to be generalistic across the board.

Q So, in other words, you really don't want people reading anything more into this?

MR. GIBBS: I hope people read into it exactly what I said rather than reading into it what they want to read into it.

Q It's our job to help people -- to explain to people what it is that you're saying, and so I'm trying to make sure I understand it.

MR. GIBBS: Okay. (Laughter.)

Q It sounds like what you're saying is, no, you don't want us to interpret this as a sign of things to come for others --

MR. GIBBS: My hesitancy --

Q -- and if that's the case, why don't you just say --

MR. GIBBS: My hesitancy -- no, no, my hesitancy is just to look at every entity the same way, because, again, the circumstances by which any entity is at any certain point may well be different, even though it's the same type of entity, right? Again, I want to go back to GM and Chrysler. On the face, both are auto companies, right? Both have found themselves at a point where they're seeking additional government assistance, adding in to the additional loans that they got to put them on a path toward viability. But again, the examples by which we're using -- or that the President has made a determination about which direction they're going to go is different even though they're both auto industry.

Q Of course, and I'm not suggesting the exact same remedy would apply to any one of these things, but, again, if you look at the general case, you have, say, generically, contracts that at AIG were unbreakable because they're legal contracts but for the UAW, those are contracts that you fully expect them to modify if they're going to get federal assistance.

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think this -- I think many people have made -- I think many people have made sacrifices, but, again, without looking through the individual instances of other entities, it's hard to make that generalization.

Labels: Automobile Industry, Banking, Economy, President Obama, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, Treasury Department, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 9:32 PM

Why No Timeline? - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 03/27/09
— Friday, March 27, 2009 —

Q The President really had the focus, in terms of the threat, on Pakistan. And we see the buildup, the troop buildup, for Afghanistan. But what is the U.S. planning to do to go after this threat? If the terrorists are hiding out and currently planning to strike us, what is being done to cut that off?

MR. GIBBS: In Pakistan?

Q In Pakistan.

MR. GIBBS: Well, I'm not going to get into operational details --

Q Is there something being done?

MR. GIBBS: Is there something being done --

Q To go after the threat in Pakistan? Because there's $5 billion a year in humanitarian, but nothing -- we haven't heard anything at all about some active engagement to go after that threat if we know the threat is there.

MR. GIBBS: I think it would be wise for us not to lay out in front of the world the plan -- that plan of attack.

Q Well, I'm not looking for the plans. Is there something that is ongoing to go after that threat? Because he stated the threat is there; they're planning to attack us.

MR. GIBBS: I think you can be very assured that we're taking the steps necessary to address the threat and to protect the American people.

Q In terms of the timeline, no timeline to extract troops out of Afghanistan. The President I believe in the past has talked about wanting to have a timeline. Why no timeline? Why not sort of set some sort of mark and say, we need to be out by this time?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the President did state quite clearly that the policy would be reviewed and evaluated as we go. Obviously if you add in the increase in the number of troops that were added in -- before the President took office, in addition to the 17,000 that the President ordered previously, and the 4,000 trainers today, you're looking at an expansion of roughly 30,000 American troops.

So we have important elections coming up in Afghanistan in a deteriorating security situation, and I think -- first of all, I think the President wants to evaluate what -- and the security team want to evaluate what that increase means for the situation in the region. Obviously the announcement today is to build the capacity of the Afghan army to ensure that ultimately that responsibility of rooting out extremism and protecting the democratically elected government can be done by the Afghans. And also the President will look to evaluate the policy as we move forward as we increase our diplomacy, as we increase the number of civilians that are there to do what the President talked about in terms of the delivery of services without corruption, and for developmental aid.

And so I think that the President will have said and set forward -- and I think you guys heard last night about a flexible strategy that allows the team to evaluate whether the goals are being met and whether the benchmarks are being met, so that we can determine the progress toward making that region of the world safe and stable.

Labels: Afghanistan, Obama Administration, Pakistan, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, War on Terror, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 6:51 PM

Dammit, You Guys - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 3/26/09
— Thursday, March 26, 2009 —

Blunt Obama: Not a sound economic policy.

MR. GIBBS: Mark.

Q Robert, in the online town meeting, when the President said he doesn't think legalizing marijuana would give the economy a boost, was he giving a political answer or an economic answer? Does he have economic numbers to back that up?

MR. GIBBS: I'm unaware of a CEA analysis -- (laughter) -- regarding that. I think the --

Q Will you let us know if there is one? (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: I think you've heard the President talk about getting us on a path toward sustained economic growth. I don't think he believes that that is a part of that plan.

Q What about medicinal marijuana?

MR. GIBBS: I think the -- I'd point you to the Justice Department on developments on that.

The President asked people to ask their questions. Obviously interests aligned with certain viewpoints did so, and the President wanted to answer the question that, no, it was not -- he did not think a good economic strategy.

Q Did that question get the most votes of any?

MR. GIBBS: I will ask Macon and those guys. It is interesting when -- I think several of those topics were in things like financial stability or --

Q Green jobs.

MR. GIBBS: Green jobs, right. (Laughter.) It's unclear what leap of faith one has to make to ask that question in some of the -- some of those -- right, some of those -- some of those topics.

Q Why did he even bring it up? Why did he even bring it up? I mean, no one asked it online and no one asked it --

MR. GIBBS: No, people -- people asked it online –

Q I mean, no, I know they voted for it, they voted for it. But he brought it up on his own. This is what I'm saying. Why did he even bring --

MR. GIBBS: April, the concept of the virtual town hall meeting was to have people --

Q Transparency?

MR. GIBBS: No, no, let me -- you can ask and I'll answer -- (laughter) -- that the President asked people to go to the web site, ask questions of the administration, vote on which questions they wanted to have the President answer, and that he would do so. And as I said and as Ann said and -- maybe we should have said "clean-energy jobs" -- that would have --

Q You said "green."

MR. GIBBS: Yes, I know. That in some topics -- you know, this is not the first time that an interest group gets on a web site and votes many times for their question to be answered, and the President thought he should answer it and I think he did.

Q But, Robert, he didn't take on the serious issue. He made a joke out of it. I mean, there were a lot of questions about legalization of marijuana, not as a job creation program, but just as a serious policy issue. And with what's happening in Mexico --

MR. GIBBS: It poses the legal -- I'll do this for the President -- I didn't -- I neither emailed my question in, nor voted for it, but the President opposes the legalization of marijuana, and I'd -- I'll say I did that without even the slightest hint of laughter.

Q Can you say why?

Q Robert, while you're on this same subject can we follow up?

MR. GIBBS: Hold on one sec. Hold on.

Q What did the President learn in this? A lot of the questions were things he talks about all the time.

Q Annie, there was a question pending on why -- why he feels that way about legalizing marijuana.

MR. GIBBS: He does not think that that is -- he opposes it. He doesn't think that's the right plan for America.

Q But a follow-up on the process, on the --

MR. GIBBS: Hold on, let me -- I've lost control. (Laughter.) Hold on, what are you -- dammit, you guys don't get to Google this stuff and send in your questions. Hold on, hold on, hold on, let me --

Labels: Democracy, Economy, Open Government, President Obama, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, War on Drugs, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 7:50 PM

Looking Beyond Our Self-Interest - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 3/25/09

MR. GIBBS: Sheryl.

Q Robert, the President talked last night about urging Americans to look beyond their self-interest. Tonight he's going to two political fundraisers, one of them $30,000 a couple. Is that an example of looking beyond our self-interest? And are you worried about the tone that that sets in a time when Americans are struggling?

MR. GIBBS: No, I think you -- I think when you -- though I hope he's not placid and unsmiling -- I think you'll see in the remarks he makes tonight and I think you can be rest assured in the remarks he's made yesterday that he fully understands the hardships and the troubles that the American people are undergoing in their lives each day. But I think it's also safe to assume that the President wants to see a strong party system in this country. And I would mention that in that, the -- we haven't seen politics by either party stop in this period, though I think the President fully understands the situation the American people face.

Q Will he urge some of those donors to contribute to charity or use his remarks in some other way to --

MR. GIBBS: Well, I -- look, I --

Q note the broader situation as --

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the -- I think the situation will -- I think the remarks will denote the situation. I think the remarks will denote the actions that he's taking to change the situation in this country. I think the President has been focused every day on how to make the situation for average Americans better. He always encourages people to get involved, to knock on doors, to give to charity, and to do whatever they can to help out their neighbors.

Labels: Charity, DNC, Political Campaigns, President Obama, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 3:33 PM

Charity Begins With Higher Taxes - Press Conference by the President 3/24/09
— Wednesday, March 25, 2009 —

THE PRESIDENT: Mike Allen, Politico. Hi, Mike.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Are you reconsidering your plan to cut the interest rate deduction for mortgages and for charities? And do you regret having proposed that in the first place?

THE PRESIDENT: No, I think it's -- I think it's the right thing to do, where we've got to make some difficult choices. Here's what we did with respect to tax policy. What we said was, that over the last decade, the average worker, the average family have seen their wages and incomes flat. Even at times where supposedly we were in the middle of an economic boom, as a practical matter, their incomes didn't go up. And so what we said, let's give them a tax cut, let's give them some relief, some help -- 95 percent of American families.

Now, for the top 5 percent, they're the ones who typically saw huge gains in their income. I fall in that category. And what we've said is for those folks, let's not renew the Bush tax cuts, so let's go back to the rates that existed back in -- during the Clinton era when wealthy people were still wealthy and doing just fine; and let's look at the level in which people can itemize their deductions. And what we've said is let's go back to the rate that existed under Ronald Reagan.

People are still going to be able to make charitable contributions. It just means, if you give $100 and you're in this tax bracket, at a certain point, instead of being able write off 36 or 39 percent, you're writing off 28 percent. Now, if it's really a charitable contribution, I'm assuming that that shouldn't be a determining factor as to whether you're given that $100 to the homeless shelter down the street.

And so this provision would affect about 1 percent of the American people. They would still get deductions. It's just that they wouldn't be able to write off 39 percent. In that sense, what it would do is it would equalize -- when I give $100, I'd get the same amount of deduction as when some -- a bus driver, who's making $50,000 a year, or $40,000 a year gives that same $100. Right now he gets 28 percent -- he gets to write off 28 percent; I get to write off 39 percent. I don't think that's fair.

So I think this was a good idea. I think it is a realistic way for us to raise some revenue from people who benefited enormously over the last several years. It's not going to cripple them; they'll still be well-to-do. And ultimately, if we're going to tackle the serious problems that we've got, then in some cases those who are more fortunate are going to have to pay a little bit more.

Q But it's not the well-to-do people, it's the charities. Given what you just said, are you confident the charities are wrong when they contend that this would discourage giving?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I am. I mean, if you look at the evidence, there's very little evidence that this has a significant impact on charitable giving.

I'll tell you what has a significant impact on charitable giving, is a financial crisis in an economy that's contracting. And so the most important thing that I can do for charitable giving is to fix the economy; to get banks lending again, to get businesses opening their doors again, and to get people back to work again. Then I think charities will do just fine.

Charity | President Obama | Presidential Press Conference | Taxes | White House Press Corps

Labels: Charity, President Obama, Presidential Press Conference, Taxes, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 1:21 PM

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.)

Labels: Banking, Economy, Obama Administration, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, TARP, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 2:54 PM

Geithner Time Loop Theory - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 3/20/09
— Saturday, March 21, 2009 —

Secretary Geithner at work in the Treasury Department

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):

Labels: AIG, Obama Administration, Open Government, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, TARP, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 3:32 PM

Geithner's Bank Plan - Air Force One Press Gaggle by Bill Burton 03/19/09
— Friday, March 20, 2009 —

MR. BURTON: Good afternoon. The President made an offhand remark making fun of his own bowling that was in no way intended to disparage the Special Olympics. He thinks that the Special Olympics are a wonderful program that gives an opportunity to shine to people with disabilities from around the world.

All right. Do you guys need anything? You've got the guidance, you've got --

Q Do you when we're going to get Geithner's bank plan out -- any plan on the banks?

MR. BURTON: Soon, but I don't have a date for you?

Q Soon? Like a week soon, or next week soon?

MR. BURTON: Soon, but I don't have a date. I'll keep you posted, though. You'll be the first person I tell.

Labels: Air Force One, Bill Burton, President Obama, Press Gaggle, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 3:00 PM

Taking Responsibility - Air Force One Press Gaggle by Bill Burton 03/18/09

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.

Labels: AIG, Air Force One, Bill Burton, Legislation, President Obama, Press Gaggle, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 2:17 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.

Labels: AIG, Economy, Legislation, President Obama, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, TARP, Treasury Department, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 7:43 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.

Labels: Economy, Obama Administration, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, TARP, Treasury Department, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, Wall Street, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 12:20 AM

You Should Be Working on the Economy - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 3/13/09
— Friday, March 13, 2009 —

MR. GIBBS: Jake.

Q The White House has been critical in the last day or so of -- President Obama yesterday, and Larry Summers today -- of trends of bubble and bust, bubble and bust. When do you guys see this having started? Did this start with the dot.com bubble in the '90s?

MR. GIBBS: I think, obviously, the tech bubble would certainly be part of that -- would be part of that model. But I think if you look more recently, with both housing and credit cards, what you saw was statistical economic growth. You saw big growth in the stock market, but at the same time the broad number -- a broad swath of the American public, their incomes actually decreased for the very first time in history during a "economic expansion." That's why the President believes that it's important to make investments in health care, energy independence and education in order to provide a foundation to grow our economy long term in a stable -- with a stable foundation, in a way that doesn't depend on the boom and the bust.

Q Just as a quick follow-up, you guys have obviously started a campaign of trying to build more confidence in the economy and in the decisions that you guys have made. Can you just walk us through a little bit how this decision was made -- for the President's new language and Larry Summers' new language, talking about the economy and the investments you guys are making?

MR. GIBBS: I think it's important -- the President wanted to, as he I think has done in the beginning of his tenure here and certainly in the campaign, to explain to the American people the choices that we have and the decisions that are being made, where we've started, the challenges that we've gone through to get to the point we're at now, the very complicated and tough decisions that we have to make in order to create jobs, stabilize our financial system, prevent further erosion in the housing market and spread of the home foreclosure crisis.

Q Right, but only in the last days has he said things aren't as bad -- things weren't as good as we thought they were a few years ago, and they're not as bad now as we think they are -- you know, which is kind of a change in tone from when he was warning of an economic catastrophe if the stimulus bill didn't pass.

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think we've seen some glimmers of hope in terms, as I spoke yesterday, of retail sales. And I think Dr. Summers spoke of the notion that through the recovery we might see progress in terms of consumer spending -- the Recovery Act, I'm sorry. Look, as you note, the President is a -- is a very optimistic person by nature.

Q I don't think I noted that. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: Well, I will note in your absence -- (laughter) -- that he's a very optimistic person. I think he would tell you that there are many situations that probably -- where things might not always be as bad as they seem or not as good as they may seem. But I think that's why he's decided to make tough decisions, and that's why the argument that he's made over the last few days and Dr. Summers made -- the importance of making these investments.

Many people have asked, you know, well, why are you dealing with health care and energy when you should be working on the economy? And I think the President, through this argument, can very clearly demonstrate for people how dealing with many of these problems, including getting us back on that path toward fiscal sustainability, are important not just in the short-term recovery, but laying that foundation for long-term growth.

Economy | President Obama | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | White House Press Corps

Labels: Economy, President Obama, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 7:45 PM

Outlawing Bubbles - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 3/12/09
— Thursday, March 12, 2009 —

Photo by fdecomite

Q Yes, Robert, can I come back to what you said about bubbles? And actually, sort of the way the President phrases it in the excerpts that you've given us.

MR. GIBBS: He's far more eloquent than I am, so if you're --

Q He phrased it rather interestingly, saying, "We cannot go back to endless cycles of bubble and bust." Does he think the business cycle can be repealed? I mean, I just -- you know, bubbles are one thing, but --

MR. GIBBS: Well, read me the phrase again.

Q "We cannot go back to endless cycles of bubbles and bust." Surely there are going to be ups and downs in an economy.

MR. GIBBS: Well, right. But again, there -- certainly there are ups and downs. There are ups and down in lots of facets of life. But are those ups and downs controlled by a sustained economic idea that creates jobs of the future, invests in the education in order to produce people to do those jobs of the future, take into account some fiscal restraint and fiscal responsible to ensure that government lending isn't crowding out private investment?

But the President will I think take on quite clearly that if -- you know, if -- he does not believe the theory of economic growth through an overheated housing market makes a whole lot of sense. I would posit to you that I've gotten God knows how many questions from up here about the danger of toxic assets that were leveraged by factors of 30 and 40 to 1, surrounding many of the mortgages that -- or some of the mortgages that were contained in an overheated and over-speculated housing market.

I don't think there's any doubt about that. Or whether we've seen through any number of statistics -- the President doesn't believe that economic growth is having six credit cards maxed out at $25,000 to $50,000; that that may produce in economic statistics great increases in retail sales or consumer spending, but I don't think any of us here would argue that that is a case for long-term sustained economic growth.

I don't think the President is -- I'm not even sure where one would go to repeal the business cycle.

Q It's not like they're going to outlaw irrational exuberance or investors making --

MR. GIBBS: No, I don't think it outlaws -- I mean, I don't think we're going to outlaw irrational exuberance. I do believe, though, the President believes that we must make tough choices now in order to put ourselves on a path that presents for the American people the opportunity to grow their economy not on something that will bust in three years, you know; not on something that will see stock prices go through the roof only to have stock prices collapse through the floor in a matter of months.

I mean, you know, let's -- the high point of the market recently was October of 2007, right -- 14,000 and some change. Exactly two months before, economists now believe what I think in the end might well be one of the biggest and deepest recessions in our country's history started. I think there's an -- I'm not an economist, but I'm pretty sure it all didn't go to pot in that November.

Labels: Economy, President Obama, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, Wall Street, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 9:45 PM

The Odd Characters of the White House Press Corps by WaPo - 3/12/09

The Good, the Bad and the Odd of the White House Press Corps.

Also, a WHPC seating chart by FiveThirtyEight.com.

Bill Burton | Goyal | Helen | James S. Brady Press Briefing Room | White House Press Corps

Labels: Bill Burton, Goyal, Helen, James S. Brady Press Briefing Room, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 6:09 PM

A Billion Dollars An Hour - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 3/11/09

Why must I be surrounded by frickin' idiots?

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.

Labels: Congress, Legislation, Obama Administration, Pork, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, TARP, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 2:50 PM

Let Them Eat Pork - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 3/10/09
— Tuesday, March 10, 2009 —

When I'm president I'll go line by line to make sure we're not spending money unwisely. -- Presidential Candidate Obama

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.

Labels: Congress, Legislation, Pork, President Obama, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 10:50 PM

Six Weeks and Six Days - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 3/9/09
— Monday, March 09, 2009 —

Q Back to Warren Buffett for a second. Understanding what you said and what he said about part of the confusion that people feel is the function of 535 members in Congress, and so on. He did say the President has the most authoritative voice. Does the President bear any responsibility for what Warren Buffett described as confusion and fear --

MR. GIBBS: Well, look, I think that Mr. Buffett, and again I -- I think Mr. Buffett is talking about a period of time that has spanned now two administrations, that has watched different policy proposals to deal with different things. But I think Mr. Buffett would agree that -- and in fact, said in not so many words -- but that this problem isn't going to be fixed overnight. We didn't get here -- we didn't get here overnight; the problems that we dealt with starting in sort of early to mid-September of last year didn't start last summer. Many of those problems started years ago. Many of the systemic problems that were rooted in what ultimately failed took place a while ago.

Q In terms of communicating a solution or even a sense that we have it well in hand, can you -- any room for improvement there?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think obviously the President would always say there's room for improvement; that the President believes that we have to continue to give people a realistic sense of where this economy is, but also talk about, as he did at the speech to Congress, that we've got to make sure people understand that brighter days are ahead. But I think there's a sense from certain people that -- of either chagrin or surprise -- that in one day less than seven weeks all of the problems that took many years to take hold haven't necessarily been solved.

I think if you look -- if you realistically look at what this administration has done in that six weeks and six days, you'll see putting in place a recovery and reinvestment plan that we think will create jobs, put money in taxpayers' pockets, and get money directly out to the states to deal with crushing budget cuts that will impact those that can least afford it; a home foreclosure plan that will begin to address millions of people that have played by the rules, but should they get into further economic trouble, might have problems making their mortgage payment and watch a home foreclosure crisis spread; put in place the building blocks of a financial stability plan through a capital investment program, business and lending initiative that the Secretary announced just last week. And obviously we've started and will continue in Congress and through the G20 to ensure that a regulatory structure is in place to ensure these types of problems never happen again.

We've made tremendous progress in getting the pillars, as the President said last week, in place to deal with our economic problems. The recovery will take quite some time, as it's taken quite some time to get into these problems. But the President remains focused each and every day in ensuring that we take the steps to make those decisions and get the economy moving again.

Labels: Economy, Obama Administration, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, Wall Street, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 11:20 PM

Are You Better Off Now Than You Were Four Months Ago? - Air Force One Press Gaggle by Robert Gibbs 3/6/09
— Friday, March 06, 2009 —

Q Can I ask you about the trip today, and then a question about the FDIC? In terms of the trip today, you're going to highlight 25 jobs saved -- and we've lost 651,000, I believe, last month. So, I mean, do you think this makes even a dent in the psyche of the American people?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I mean, you know, let's -- I think if -- I think on that scale, you'd never even undertake -- you'd never even undertake any action to seek cuts in wasteful spending unless you saved trillions of dollars with the stroke of one pen.

I mean, I think it's a -- you know, I'm sure it's one viewpoint. I think it's a bit cynical to think that the only jobs created or saved today will be the 25 or 27 that the President is going to see in Columbus. I think it demonstrates for the American people that the President has a plan to get the economy moving again, that we're seeing results from that plan, and that the American people -- because they understand this -- know it's going to take us a while to get out of this hole, but that there are brighter days ahead.

I'm always amazed -- you know, a week ago we were talking down the economy. This week we're not talking the economy up to the heights of which we -- you know, I mean, there's -- it's a moving set of hurdles.

Labels: Air Force One, Economy, Obama Administration, Press Gaggle, Robert Gibbs, Unemployment, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 10:52 PM

The Daily Show Visits The White House Press Corps 3/5/09

John Oliver of The Daily Show learns that the relationship between the White House and the press is now stronger than ever.

Robert Gibbs | The Daily Show | Video | White House Press Corps | White House Press Secretary

Labels: Robert Gibbs, The Daily Show, Video, White House Press Corps, White House Press Secretary

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 8:37 PM

Willing To Listen But Not Reconsider - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 3/5/09

MR. GIBBS: Jake.

Q Senator Baucus, who obviously will play an important role in the formulation of health care policy, said that he has concerns, it's an issue, the tax increase that you guys are proposing when it comes to itemized deductions. You've said everything is on the table when it comes to health care. Are you willing to consider a different revenue stream than that tax increase to fund health care?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I do think all issues are on the table. Obviously that was a major -- a major part of the event today, and the ideas that we hope will be gathered from it. Let's, though, just discuss the -- I assume you're talking about the charitable contribution --

Q The itemized deductions for mortgage and --

MR. GIBBS: I mean, a middle-class family donates a dollar to charity, they get 15 cents off their income tax; Bill Gates donates a dollar to charity, he takes 35 cents off his income tax. The proposal that the White House has would simply reduce those levels to the same levels that we saw during the Reagan administration.

So I think certainly that's important to understand. But the broader issue of whether all ideas are on the table I think is one that the President brought to this and wanted to hear -- wants to hear from all of those involved as to what their ideas are.

I think it's going to be important to have that free flow and that exchange of ideas, to have this debate in an open and transparent way.

Q So you're willing to reconsider --

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the President is correct in saying that he's listening to all the ideas that people bring to the table.

Labels: Charity, Health Care, President Obama, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, Taxes, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 5:48 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 —

Photo by barcoder96

MR. GIBBS: Jake.

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.

Labels: Congress, Economy, Legislation, Obama Administration, Pork, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 2:50 PM

Of Course We Have A Plan; We Just Don't Know What It Is - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 3/3/09
— Wednesday, March 04, 2009 —

Q February 10th, Secretary Geithner came out with his plan to deal with the banks, and there was obviously some negative reaction to that. And at the time we were told, well, this was a broad outline; details are going to be filled in. It's three weeks later, and a lot of analysts on Wall Street continue to say, we don't know where the bottom is because we don't know how many toxic assets are out there. So when are you coming out with more details?

MR. GIBBS: Well, but let's complicate the question a little bit. Let's -- because I think you may have seemingly vastly oversimplified that the market on 20-some days ago acted on one piece of information and has followed Jake's trend for the better part of those three weeks in order to get us to where we are yesterday.

Q There was a lot of negative reaction to the plan. We could agree on that.

MR. GIBBS: We could, and we could also agree on that -- in watching your network I've seen any number of reports about the earnings of different companies. I've seen bank problems in Europe. I've seen bank problems in Eastern Europe. We've seen regulatory failings both here and overseas.

I think the larger message of what the President was trying to convey today is that it's also overly simplistic to look at any one piece of information or one group of information that's driving the market in any particular direction. I'd --

Q Okay, so people could agree --

MR. GIBBS: Hold on, let me finish. I think the broad scope of data and information that we're getting denotes the fact that the economy is suffering severe problems. I think that's probably what has driven, in the short term, the market to where it is. And I don't think that's necessarily surprising given the data that we see. I don't -- I think the market is looking at what Mr. Buffett said over the weekend. I think the market is probably looking at the notion that the growth rate in the 4th quarter was vastly different than what we presupposed because we ended December -- we now understand that goods were sitting in warehouses, but not leaving stores.

So I think a lot of things are priced into the market.

Q We can agree the President can't control all this economic data, especially around the world and other countries. But he does have some control over what his administration is going to do about failing U.S. banks, toxic assets that these banks have on their books. And this administration said at the beginning they were going to deal with that problem. So the question is, putting aside all the other data, what is the administration doing to deal with U.S. banks?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I've been asked in recent days about Citi. I was asked yesterday about AIG. As you know, Treasury and others are beginning the process of trying to find out exactly the health of banks given different economic scenarios. The President and his team have developed and passed through Congress a comprehensive recovery plan that is beginning. Tax cuts will start showing up in people's pay checks in April.

Again, if you want to take just your time line of three weeks or three and a half weeks, I don't think the American -- I think the American people understand we didn't get into this problem in the beginning of February. So we're not likely to get out of this problem by the end of March.

We've got many steps to take, and the administration and the President particularly have taken those steps: a home foreclosure plan that for the very first time deals with people that have played by the rules, but if the economy changes and gets even worse, they may find their selves the next on their block with a home foreclosure sign. So let's take steps to reduce that and make sure that the crisis in home foreclosures doesn't spread.

The budget obviously doesn't just look in the short term, but lays out a long-term plan for economic growth. And I would be happy for any number of reasons if this were a three to six week problem. But I think the American people understand that.

Q Does it take longer the longer it is for you to come up with a plan, is really my question, because if you keep three weeks, three weeks, then --

MR. GIBBS: Well, I guess our -- we're passing in the night largely because despite my enumeration of the many things that we're doing, you at least have priced into the market with the acceptance of --

Q But you came back to housing and other things, and I understand they're all part of the broader issue.

MR. GIBBS: Right. They're all part of the broader issue because, again, as I've said many times from up here, there isn't just one thing that we have to do. There isn't just -- if just passing an $800 billion recovery plan would get the economy going again, I'm sure that would be received quite well here. We'd have more time, probably, on the weekend.

But again, there's -- the economy faces many challenges, and the President and the administration are working day and night to address the many challenges that have gotten us to this point, and the many steps that we have to take over the course of the next many months to turn the economy around.

And look, let me -- let me look ahead. We have unemployment numbers coming out on Friday. I don't anticipate that they're going to be good. I don't know anything, I'm just surmising. But I don't think that's -- I don't think that speaks to the implementation of the recovery plan. But I do believe and understand, and the President believes that we have taken and are continuing to take the steps that we need to get the economy back on track.

Labels: Economy, Obama Administration, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, Treasury Secretary, Unemployment, Wall Street, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 5:21 PM

Pork for All My Friends - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 3/2/09

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.

Labels: Congress, Legislation, Pork, President Obama, Press Briefing, Rahm Emanuel, Robert Gibbs, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 1:51 AM

Surge of Doubletalk - White House Press Gaggle by Robert Gibbs 2/27/09
— Monday, March 02, 2009 —

Q The former NSC spokesman, Gordon Johndroe, today said that this only was possible -- this plan laid out today was only possible because of the surge, and that in fact this plan is in keeping with basically the rough outlines of what the Bush administration had thought of doing itself. How would you characterize that? And does the President believe the surge was necessary to get to this point?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think as the President said in the campaign, that the security situation has gotten better in the -- over the past couple years in Iraq; the political situation hasn't always followed as quickly. And insofar as the Status of Forces Agreement dictated an end to our involvement in Iraq, there may be certainly some consistency with the SOFA, but I think what the President laid out was something that was -- today was consistent with what he pledged to do in the campaign, to do so in a way that was responsible, do so in a way that was in keeping with his commitment to protect our troops and to speak with commanders on the ground and at the Pentagon in order to make it happen.

Obviously we've got a long way to go in Iraq. And I think the President enumerated that a military drawdown is but one of many functions that have to continue to take place in order to have the, as I think the President said, the hard opportunity the Iraqis now have to take their country and govern and protect it effectively.

Obviously the President outlined a series of strategies, including renewed diplomatic efforts in the region in order to bring Iraq into sort of the community in the region, but also to ensure that there's continued political improvement with the election scheduled this year, and still some hard decisions that have to be made on things like an oil law.

Q Did he call any other ex-Presidents to tell them what was going on?

MR. GIBBS: I don't believe he called any ex-Presidents. I know that members of the team -- of our national security team were reaching out to many of their counterparts.

Q Why did he call Bush and not Clinton or the senior Bush? What informed this --

MR. GIBBS: Well, again, I think obviously this was something that was a pretty big issue for the most previous President, and because of that, felt it important to call and let him know.

Q I'm sorry, but I didn't hear an answer to Anne's specific question of whether President Obama thinks the surge worked. I heard him talk about improved security and I heard him thank the military. But what about the strategy?

MR. GIBBS: Well, but remember that -- go back and read the very beginning, the stories of what the surge outlined. The surge was quite clearly an effort to add more troops that would ultimately bring about a change in the political reconciliation and dynamic in the country. And while the security situation did show improvement, we still -- there still lacks some political reconciliation and certainly facets of what would ultimately be the agreements necessary for the country to prosper in the long term.

So I think that, again, while the security situation improved, there still is some political improvement that can and must take place in order for Iraq to be stable.

Q Just to give it one more try. Does the President think that if were it not for the surge -- does the President think that the surge allowed him to make the decision he did today, made it more likely that it will end successfully?

MR. GIBBS: Again, I think the President believed that the surge -- (laughter) -- I mean --

Q Believed that the surge --

MR. GIBBS: Again, the surge helped improve the security situation, as he said, but I think, remember, again -- and again, please go back and read, the goal of the surge was to change the security situation so that a political reconciliation could be brought about.

But let me pivot a little bit by saying, and the President said this after the speech in an interview later on, which is, you know, the situation in Iraq and in the region is it's far less important for us to turn back and look backwards -- we could debate about whether we should have been there; the President was on one side and some people were on another; we could debate about how long we stayed; we could debate about the surge; we could debate about recommendations from the Baker-Hamilton commission.

But all of that is somewhat moot given the situation of where we are today and what has to happen and what the President believes should happen between now and the end of August of 2010, and ultimately the end of December in 2011.

Labels: Iraq, President Bush, President Obama, Press Gaggle, Robert Gibbs, War on Terror, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 5:54 PM

How Many Jobs Did Robin Hood Create - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 2/26/09
— Friday, February 27, 2009 —

Sorry, but a toll is a toll, and a roll is a roll, and if we don't get no tolls, then we don't eat no rolls.

Q On jobs, which is the big complaint up on Capitol Hill right now from Republicans, that this plan is a job killer, I mean, the $787 billion plan was all about jobs more than anything else, and now you've got a plan in place that -- how can you possibly tax people making over $250,000 something like $667 billion over the next 10 years and not have a downward effect on jobs?

MR. GIBBS: Well, Chip, how did it work in 1994 and 1995 and 1996 and 1997?

Q I guess their argument would be, imagine if they didn't have those -- those taxes, how much better it would have been?

MR. GIBBS: Isn't it interesting that there's always some little slip? Again, you know -- again, I don't do this by happenstance. There isn't a member of Congress, if they were to file a single taxpayer form, that makes above $200,000 a year.

Q Well, Congress.

MR. GIBBS: Well –-

Q There's a lot of millionaires up there.

MR. GIBBS: Well, that's true. But it's on their income. I mean, I think it's interesting, as people listen to those complaining about some aspects of the budget, I think it's just interesting to note -- I think the President was pretty clear on Tuesday -- we're talking about people that earn in excess of a quarter of a million dollars a year.

Q And a huge percentage of those people are small business owners.

MR. GIBBS: Some of them are, sure. Some of them are big business owners. Some of them are home-run hitters in major league baseball. Some of them run kickoffs back for a living. Some of them are the President of the United States.

Q But a lot of them create jobs.

MR. GIBBS: Some of them -- certainly, some of them, that's what their job is. But I would reject this overall premise that when we're asking for tax fairness from the American people, that we're -- that this is going to kill jobs. I guess if I follow the logic of the Republicans on Capitol Hill, how do you explain last month's unemployment figures? Current tax rates, 550,000 jobs -- what happened?

Q This is a unique moment. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: Apparently, it always is. The President believes that he's put forth a budget and a Reinvestment and Recovery Plan that will save and create 3.5 million jobs, get our economy back on track, make the necessary and needed investments for sustained long-term growth in things like health care, education and energy, and do so in a way that's most fair for the American people.

And again, I go back to my first thing -- the President ran specifically on the promises that are contained in what he believes is a blueprint and a vision for our future. And that's what the American people -- that's the result they rendered in November.

Labels: Economy, Obama Administration, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, Taxes, Unemployment, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 3:31 PM

Charity Begins With Government - White House Press Briefing by OMB Director Peter Orszag 2/26/09
— Thursday, February 26, 2009 —

I'm from the Government. I'm here to help.

Q Peter, for those who are making more than $250,000, I understand that they're going to be limited in terms of the itemized deductions for their -- filing their taxes, including charitable contributions. Considering that at least one-third of charitable organizations last year took a real nosedive, and you have some big names -- the Salvation Army, Goodwill, American Red Cross -- how do you stop the bleeding when it comes to those charitable groups, considering that you're now taking away an incentive to actually contribute?

DIRECTOR ORSZAG: Well, let me be very clear. In the recovery act, the President supported -- and contained in the recovery act, there's $100 million to support non-profits and charities as we get through this period of economic difficulty.

In addition, the recovery itself will provide a strong boost not only to charities, but to the overall economy and to the people who contribute to charities. But I think the real question as you look out over time is the following: When a middle-income family makes a $1,000 contribution to a charity, they save $150 in their taxes. When Bill Gates makes that same contribution to that same charity, he saves $3,500 in his taxes. All we're saying is we think Bill Gates should get a $2,800 tax break -- still a lot larger than a middle-income family -- rather than the $3,500 one.

Q And to the larger point, is there a concern that you have people -- that the wealthier folks who are providing the jobs, who are spending the money, and also contributing to charitable organizations -- that in some ways they are going to start saving, that they’re not going to give, and that they're going to undermine the success or the progress that you're making?

DIRECTOR ORSZAG: I really don't think so. I think what drives charitable contributions is overall economic growth, is other motivations. It's -- typically, again, it's not done for a tax incentive, but rather out of benevolence or some other related desire.

And furthermore, if you really wanted to get wonky, if you look at all the provisions in the budget, even from a narrow economic perspective, I think you'll see that there's roughly a wash in terms of the financial incentives for giving to charitable contributions -- to charities.

Labels: Charity, Economy, Obama Administration, Office of Management and Budget, Peter Orszag, Press Briefing, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 7:44 PM

Lessons from Alexander the Great - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 2/25/09
— Wednesday, February 25, 2009 —

How great are the dangers I face to win a good name in Athens.

Q Has the President learned any lessons from the past? What makes him think he can prevail in Afghanistan after Russians, the British, Alexander the Great could not?

MR. GIBBS: Good question. (Laughter.) You had me -- I had you up until you said Alexander the Great. (Laughter.)

Q Genghis Khan -- Genghis Khan.

MR. GIBBS: -- Alexander the Great -- (laughter.) No, I --

Q It's under -- (inaudible.)

MR. GIBBS: Unfortunately, it's not. No, I'm kidding. (Laughter.) No, the President -- again, the administration is undergoing a review as it relates to our policy there. The President's decision in the interim to send additional forces in the spring and in the summer related to a sharp deterioration that we've all seen in the security situation; that General McKiernan had long requested additional troops --

Q Why are we there?

MR. GIBBS: Why are we there? Because that's the part of our planet that is exceedingly dangerous, and saw on September 11th the root cause of attacks that resulted in the death of more than 3,000 Americans -- the deadliest attack on American soul. The President has, I think, stated clearly and forcefully last evening --

Q Were they all Afghans on 9/11?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I don't know what their citizenship were. I know where they were when they planned the attacks. I think the American people do, too. But the President said clearly and forcefully last night that, under his watch, we're not going to have safe havens in the country of Afghanistan that are planning a next series of attacks on our citizens.

Labels: Afghanistan, President Obama, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, War on Terror, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 9:38 PM

Tax Fairness He Can Believe In - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 2/23/09
— Monday, February 23, 2009 —

I got idea man / You take me for a walk / Under the sycamore trees

MR. GIBBS: Jake.

Q Without getting ahead of the President, he has made it clear that -- (laughter) --

MR. GIBBS: I'm going to bring him and put him right here, so that I can stand at least two steps behind him. (Laughter.) He, when we do that, won't be taking any questions. So just FYI.

Q But he'll just be ahead of you.

MR. GIBBS: Slightly. (Laughter.)

Q Without doing that, he's made it very clear that at the very least, letting the Bush tax cuts expire is in the game plan. I'm just wondering, there have been other ideas floated out there in terms of tax cuts, whether -- or tax increases, rather, on people who make more than a quarter million dollars a year.

If it doesn't make sense to raise taxes this year because of the recession, might it also be problematic for the economy to recover if taxes are raised next year? Would that principle not still apply?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I guess it -- some of that depends maybe where we are on the economy. Let's understand where we are in terms of the fiscal -- I'm sorry, in terms of the economic recovery plan. You have one of, if not the largest, tax cut ever enacted in a two-year period, as the President stated this weekend, going into people's paychecks beginning April 1.

The President campaigned on a promise to ensure that money would get into people's pockets that had seen their wages decline over the past few years. And he made good on that promise through the recovery plan, and believes that will have a stimulative effect on the economy.

The President has also talked about in some form or another letting the tax cuts for the top 1 or so percent either be repealed or expire, because the President believes that after many years of having a tax code that favored the few over the many, that a combination of both the recovery plan and what may or may not be in the budget for future years begins to right the tables a bit on who this tax code is written for and the people that deserve to be part of the benefit now.

Q Because -- if I could just follow up -- to be more precise in my question, isn't it true that the people who we're talking about raising their taxes, people who make more than a quarter million dollars a year, whether it's going from 35 to 39.6, or the hedge fund managers going from 15 to 35 or 39.6, or capital gains taxes going from 15 to 20 -- that these are the people who will invest to create the new jobs, and at a time of recession, taking their money and giving it to the government or giving it to other people actually could impede the cause of job growth?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the President talked about this extensively on the campaign --

Q But that was before the recession became as big as we now see it.

MR. GIBBS: I think I would posit that the recession was big at the end of the campaign. Again, I think there's an element first of tax fairness. And I think that -- I think this President understands that there have been many benefits for the few at the expense of a few benefits for the many; that through the recovery plan and in the coming years, the President believes it's important that those that have not seen much in the way of an increase in their paycheck have more money in their pockets. That may require those that shared in great benefits, huge benefits in the tax cuts from 2001 and 2003 -- again, importantly, for those making more than $250,000 a year, I think the top 1 percent of all wage earners in this country -- is fairness that the President believes is important.

Labels: Economy, President Obama, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, Taxes, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 9:46 PM

Weekend Roundabout Briefs - Gibberish - 2/22/09
— Sunday, February 22, 2009 —

Obama Administration Robert Gibbs Roundabout Briefs White House Press Corps White House Press Secretary

TIME on the rapid pivot of Robert Gibbs.

Leaving the press out of the loop.

Fleischer, Thomas, Donaldson, Perino and Rather offer advice on the handling of Presidential Press Conferences.

Transparency is hard work.

Hiding behind a paper statement to announce an increase of troops to Afghanistan.

Dana Perino on email's impact on the White House Press Office.

A few weeks out of date, but an interesting analysis of the early stumbles of the White House Press Office.

Fairness Doctrine Feature of the Week

Karl Denninger's response to Mr. Gibbs' statements
regarding criticism of President Obama's anti-foreclosure plan:

Labels: Obama Administration, Robert Gibbs, Roundabout Briefs, White House Press Corps, White House Press Secretary

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 6:49 PM

This Time, It's Personal (Video) - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 2/20/09
— Friday, February 20, 2009 —

2 comments

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.

Labels: Economy, Legislation, Press Briefing, Rick Santelli, Robert Gibbs, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 4:56 PM

2 comments

Prejudging the Deteriorating Situation - Joint Press Conference by President Obama and Prime Minister Harper of Canada 2/19/09
— Thursday, February 19, 2009 —

Q Thank you, Mr. President, Mr. Prime Minister. I have Afghanistan questions for you both. Mr. President, General McKiernan requested 30,000 extra troops; your new order calls for 17,000. How likely is it that you will make up that difference after the review you've mentioned? And more importantly, how long can we expect all U.S. combat troops to be in Afghanistan?

And, Mr. Prime Minister, based on your discussions today, are you reconsidering the 2011 deadline for troop withdrawal, and are you also thinking about increasing economic aid to Afghanistan?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, David, the precise reason that we're doing a review is because I think that over the last several years we took our eye off the ball, and there is a consensus of a deteriorating -- that there is a deteriorating situation in Afghanistan. I don't want to prejudge that review. I ordered the additional troops because I felt it was necessary to stabilize the situation there in advance of the elections that are coming up. But we have 60 days of work to do. They -- that review, which will be wide-ranging, will then result in a report that's presented to me. And from -- at that point, we will be able to, I think, provide you with some clearer direction in terms of how we -- how we intend to approach Afghanistan.

In terms of length, how long we might be there, obviously that's going to be contingent on the strategy we develop out of this review. And I'm not prejudging that, as well.

I should mention, just to preempt, or to anticipate Prime Minister Harper's -- the question directed at him, that I certainly did not press the Prime Minister on any additional commitments beyond the ones that have already been made. All I did was to compliment Canada on not only the troops that are there, the 108 that have fallen as a consequence of engagement in Afghanistan, but also the fact that Canada's largest foreign aid recipient is Afghanistan. There has been extraordinary effort there, and we just wanted to make sure that we were saying thank you.

PRIME MINISTER HARPER: Just very quickly, as you probably know, it was just last year that we were able to get through Parliament a bipartisan resolution extending our military engagement in Afghanistan for an additional close to four years at that point. As we move forward, we anticipate an even greater engagement on economic development. That was part of the strategy that we adopted.

I would just say this -- you know, obviously we're operating within a parliamentary resolution -- I would just say this in terms of the United States looking at its own future engagement. We are highly appreciative of the fact the United States is going to be a partner with us on the ground in Kandahar. The goal of our military engagement, its principal goal right now, beyond day-to-day security, is the training of the Afghan army so the Afghans themselves can become responsible for their day-to-day security in that country.

I'm strongly of the view, having led -- you know, as a government leader, having been responsible now for a military mission in Kandahar province, that we are not, in the long term through our own efforts, going to establish peace and security in Afghanistan; that that job ultimately can be done only by the Afghans themselves. So I would hope that all strategies that come forward have the idea of an end date, of a transition to Afghan responsibility for security, and to greater Western partnership for economic development.

Labels: Afghanistan, Canada, President Obama, Presidential Press Conference, War on Terror, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 10:46 PM

"Let's be clear:" Just Kill Me Now - White House Press Briefing with HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan and FDIC Sheila Chairman Bair 2/18/09

Q You suggested that there would be help for people with non-conforming loans. I thought that there was not.

SECRETARY DONOVAN: To be clear, the modification program that is being announced today will allow any servicer who -- whether that loan is a conforming loan with the GSEs, or it is held by a private label security -- any type of loan as long as the servicer and the investor are willing to step up, they have some skin in the game, so to speak, they're willing to bring the payments down to 38 percent what we call DTI -- debt to income ratio -- we will provide incentives. We will split 50/50 the reduction of those payments down from 38 percent to 31 percent.

So any loan, whether it's a GSE loan or not, can participate in that program. And those homeowners who are underwater and also can't afford to pay their mortgages can participate.

Q -- respect to the lender?

SECRETARY DONOVAN: Just to be clear, we do have guidance -- as Secretary Geithner said earlier, we have guidance as part of TARP, that anyone receiving TARP funding must participate in this program. And we have a range of incentives that will make sure that servicers who have not been able to participate before can do so.

Let's be clear: One of the problems is these securities that hold many of these loans are so complex -- they've been sliced and diced into so many pieces -- that they are lots of problems for servicers that have a financial incentive to modify, but they haven't been able to do that. So we're going to provide standardized guidance across all the mortgage market that defines what a reasonable modification is. That will provide a lot of comfort to these servicers who have been concerned about lawsuits. That's first of all.

Second of all, we're going to provide the incentives that I talked about before, so there's a financial incentive to participate. And third, a program which really Sheila Bair has been a leader on -- we're going to provide this insurance pool -- the $10 billion insurance pool -- to make sure that future price declines aren't a reason for servicers to not participate. Right now, many are afraid if they modify and home prices fall further, that they're going to lose from that. We're going to help ensure against that so we get greater participation, as well.

We think the combination of the carrots and the sticks will be effective in getting much greater participation.

Sheila, do you want to add on this?

MS. BAIR: Yes, I just need to clarify, there's a difference between a conforming loan and a loan under the conforming limit. So the loans, the modification, "do they have to be below the conforming limit?" That doesn't mean they have to be conforming loans. A lot of them are not. A lot of the high-risk mortgages are in these private label securitizations.

And I guess to go back also to an earlier question about, well, why pay them for doing something that makes economic sense already. And I can assure you, our hands-on experience when we became conservator of IndyMac and we're dealing with the investors to try to get those loans modified in the servicing portfolio of IndyMac, and there were two key problems. One, is that investors have different interests. If you reduce the interest rate on these loans, some investors get hurt by that, some get help. If you foreclose, some get hurt, some get help. So the economic incentives are misaligned. The servicer has no skin in the game at all, right? So there's inertia there to begin with. The investors are pushing different ways, perhaps threatening lawsuits.

So I think what we're trying to do is align economic incentives by saying, if you come this far for us, 38 percent, then we'll help with the interest deduction between 38 and 31. We'll also give you some protection. We know home prices are going down. We know that some of these loans will redefault -- may redefault later and you will have to take a loss because the foreclosure value will be less. So we're going to give you some additional insurance, guarantee against that.

Those are the two huge issues that we've heard from investors over and over again. And we think -- it would be nice if it happened voluntarily. We tried voluntary. It didn't work. And we are woefully behind the curve. So I think this program is necessary. I think it does have the right incentives that should get the job done.

These modifications, though, absolutely make business sense. At IndyMac, we -- even assuming a 40 percent redefault rate, which is very high, higher than we think -- we're still making $50,000 on average for every loan we modify, just because the value of a performing loan is so much higher than that of a foreclosed home.

So this is -- this makes economic sense. It will help the economy. It will help stabilize home prices and prevent us from overshooting, which I think we are in a distinct danger of doing right now.

Q It's my understanding that this only applies to first mortgages, so that if you had a second -- a first mortgage and you're not technically underwater with it, but you are with your first and second combined, you're not eligible for assistance, correct? And why not?

SECRETARY DONOVAN: That's not correct, actually. We do have one element of the program that says if your total debt, including second lien but also credit card and other debt, is more -- your payments on all that debt is more than 55 percent of your income, then we think you're very unlikely to succeed. And therefore, we're going to require those families to go into counseling to try and reduce their other debts, and then they could become eligible for the program.

Q (Inaudible.)

SECRETARY DONOVAN: If they want to benefit from the program, we're going to have to do something to reduce their overall debt. What we don't want is to provide a modification that's set up for failure. We want to make sure that we're setting people up to succeed. So if their overall household debt is too high, that's going to be a requirement to be able to participate in the program, if they want to get the -- but on second liens, you are eligible to participate. And what we have generally seen is that the second liens on modifications are not a problem to participation, because no payments are made to the second liens whatsoever under this program.

We're going to focus on getting affordability. Their payments have to get down to the 31 percent level. And we will not be making payments to those second liens, because, frankly, they're not -- they don't have a value in this case if the homeowner can't even afford to pay the first mortgage. So no payments will be made. We've been in extensive discussions with the servicing community; we don't believe that's going to be an issue for the program and they will be able to participate.

Economy | FDIC | UUD | Press Briefing | White House Press Corps

Labels: Economy, FDIC, HUD, Press Briefing, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 4:31 PM

Any Particular Concerns - Air Force One Press Gaggle by Robert Gibbs 2/16/09

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 several days. This transcript was only released at about 8pm on 2/18/08, even though the timestamp on the document misleadingly claims "February 16th, 2009 at 1:51 pm". "For Immediate Release" seems to be a relativistic term on these documents and should not be taken seriously.

What? Me worry...?

Q And what about Wall Street worries? Are there any plans -- are there any worries about what Wall Street might do after these reports are given to the administration tomorrow?

MR. GIBBS: You know, I don't know of any particular concerns that Wall Street might have over these. Obviously, I think Wall Street and Main Street continue to be concerned about where we are economically. But, again -- I'll paraphrase part of your question, which was to put our economy back on a path toward sustained, long-term economic growth is likely going to require us looking beyond one day's market reaction to anything, in order to get us on that pathway.

Air Force One | Economy | Press Gaggle | Robert Gibbs | White House Press Corps

Labels: Air Force One, Economy, Press Gaggle, Robert Gibbs, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 12:03 AM

Because Democrats and Republicans Worked Together (Laughter) - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 2/13/09
— Wednesday, February 18, 2009 —