Today’s Q for BO’s WH
EmailTAPPER: Robert, you — you spoke earlier about the Journal story and one of the 13 banks that got TARP funds but has not been lending money more so in the fourth quarter than in the third quarter is Citigroup. Citigroup is spending $50 million on a new corporate jet. And I’m wondering if President Obama, the Obama administration has a position on whether or not corporations that are getting tens of billions of dollars — tens of billions of dollars in these funds should be refraining from expenses such as these or corporate executive compensation. And, about the announcements President Obama made today, one of the reasons, of course, why these CAFE standards and emission vehicle standards, one of these actions have been — have not happened yet is because of the concern that it would hurt the ailing auto industry. How can President Obama ensure that these moves will not cost jobs?
GIBBS: Let’s split these questions up and take a few moments. Obviously, the president believes that great care should be used anytime the taxpayers’ money is being used to do something for the greater good, particularly injecting capital into banks so that they can lend money. The president said this during the transition, as it related to the auto companies using private jets; doesn’t believe that’s the best use of money at this point. Instead, that money should be used to lend to consumers to get the economy moving again, to free up capital and credit, and help small businesses create jobs. He said that as it relates to the auto industry, and he believes that as it relates to banks as well.
Let me now address your second question, which is fuel efficiency standards. And understand that the debate on fuel efficiency standards is not one that started last fall. It didn’t even start in the last decade. This is a — you know, 27-year, 30-year-old debate, back and forth, about auto — auto mileage standards. The particular action that the president took today was to take legislation that Congress approved in December of 2007, and President Bush signed, and in January of 2009 implement changed CAFE standards for model year 2011. So, I don’t think it comes as any surprise to automakers or consumers that a change in our fuel mileage standards was on the horizon. In fact, between December of 2007 and October of 2010, which is when manufacturers begin the next model year, we believe — and I’ve seen testimony from the auto companies — that changing those fuel mileage standards is certainly doable. The president wants to work with the auto industry to ensure that the fuel-efficient cars of tomorrow are produced and built here in America for Americans to buy. And I think that working — government working with the auto industry can ensure that we have a sustainable path toward the production of more fuel-efficient autos; that those fuel-efficient autos will be more appealing to American consumers, and that that can be a win-win for both.
The actions that the president took today put us on the path, when we realize a fuel efficiency standard of 35 miles to the gallon — its 27.5 now — 35 miles to the gallon — will constitute a savings of 2 million barrels of oil a day, which is roughly comparable to the amount of oil that we import each day from the Persian Gulf. So the president is taking the actions of Congress, ensuring that we take bold, demonstrative steps toward energy independence and reducing what we are forced to import every day from countries, many of whom don’t like us.
– jpt
CPAC: Romney Struggles to Convince Voters 
Obama Backs Off Birth Control Battle?
Jake,
I have to say you ask great questions.
Posted by: Ryan C | January 26, 2009, 3:25 pm 3:25 pm
jpt writes:
“Citigroup is spending $50 million on a new corporate jet.”
It’ll make Geithner feel better, maybe, if he doesn’t get the Treasury handed to him.
Posted by: Blue Fairy | January 26, 2009, 3:35 pm 3:35 pm
Once again, the question was:
“How can President Obama ensure that these moves will not cost jobs?”
And the answer got nowhere near it.
It doesnt matter if this is a 27 or 30 year old debate. The auto companies wernt within 2 or 3 quarters of declaring bankruptcy back then. Meeting the CAFE means eliminating cars that are profitable for Detroit- thats the net/net.
Posted by: BertieW | January 26, 2009, 3:36 pm 3:36 pm
Notice all He DIDN’T say about mass transit.
Posted by: Belle Fairy | January 26, 2009, 3:40 pm 3:40 pm
The ailing auto industry would bite the dust of it didn’t get up to par with the rest of the world on emission and especially with mileage standards. In the competitive global market for cars, there’s a seeming horse race for lowering mileage and eliminating fossil fuel dependency.
Posted by: kathy | January 26, 2009, 3:52 pm 3:52 pm
He’s not BO. He’s the President. Start referring to him from now on as such. President Obama.
Posted by: Danielle | January 26, 2009, 3:53 pm 3:53 pm
WIND FARMS off cape cod..NOT IN MY BACK YARD OBAMA..I yam FED TENEDY
Posted by: Obama/Biden, hug a terrorist today | January 26, 2009, 3:53 pm 3:53 pm
JPT (to WH Press Sec.): “How can President Obama ensure that these moves will not cost jobs?”
Are you serious?
How can you even pose that question to Mr. Gibbs with a straight face, when Detroit is already lying prone on the national sidewalk, hemorrhaging positions? Clearly, maintenance of the present status quo is neither a realistic or feasible option, as your question as asked might otherwise imply.
Far better that you address this particular issue another way, i.e., how would this change in standards benefit the auto industry and the economy over the long term.
Posted by: Donald from Hawaii | January 26, 2009, 3:58 pm 3:58 pm
“WIND FARMS off cape cod..NOT IN MY BACK YARD OBAMA …”
Oh, please, spare us the hysterics over something that’s obviously not going to happen, especially when everyone already knows that your front lawn is the better site.
Posted by: Donald from Hawaii | January 26, 2009, 4:02 pm 4:02 pm
Your question points out the lose-lose situation the president is in.
On the one hand you’re angry there’s no oversight in the way financial institutions are NOT handing out the money and frivolously spending it in the first bailout package.
Shouldn’t we have a REGULATION Mr. President?
Then the president hands down a regulation (which by industry standards is do-able and decades old) to cries of “Don’t regulate us.”
The “we can regulate/police ourselves” folks are down a point today.
Posted by: Mavsreader | January 26, 2009, 4:05 pm 4:05 pm
“He’s not BO. He’s the President. Start referring to him from now on as such. President Obama.”
Or just call him The Pup, since He’s a puppet. Or Brock, since He’s a wannbe uber-WASP. Or The CHANGEling, for obvious reasons.
If “Ike” was good enough for Eisenhower, and JFK good enough for John F. Kennedy, I’d expect calling this mob-friendly corporate figure-head by His initials is ALSO perfectly okay.
Posted by: Blue Fairy | January 26, 2009, 4:09 pm 4:09 pm
“He’s not BO. He’s the President. Start referring to him from now on as such. President Obama.”
… or just “Scary Barry”.
Posted by: Blue Fairy | January 26, 2009, 4:13 pm 4:13 pm
“He’s not BO. He’s the President. Start referring to him from now on as such. President Obama.”
Besides, He lied on his job application … which makes Him just another Lying Politician. Maybe we could call Him LP.
Posted by: Blue Fairy | January 26, 2009, 4:21 pm 4:21 pm
My guess is he’ll use the increased mileage requirements as an excuse to give the automakers more bailout money.
As for the jet- Citigroup ordered it 2 years ago. While the financial company CEOs live too luxe a lifestyle for taxpayers to support, it wouldn’t seem right for the company that made the jet to have to absorb the lost money if the order is canceled now.
But if government can’t afford private jets, why does Nancy Pelosi get to use one (the AirForce equivalent of one, at least)? She should be flying commercial.
Posted by: MayBee | January 26, 2009, 4:22 pm 4:22 pm
Is it too soon for Obama to think about replacing Gibbs? Or is it just the nature of this administration to carry over at least Bush’s secrecy and vague notions of policy?
Posted by: matt | January 26, 2009, 4:23 pm 4:23 pm
“As for the jet- Citigroup ordered it 2 years ago. While the financial company CEOs live too luxe a lifestyle for taxpayers to support, it wouldn’t seem right for the company that made the jet to have to absorb the lost money if the order is canceled now.”
I would think right wingers would be frothing at the mouth over this company that made the jet is French
Even though the bank’s stock is as cheap as a gallon of gas and it’s burning through a $45 billion taxpayer-funded rescue, the airhead execs pushed through the purchase of a new Dassault Falcon 7X, according to a source familiar with the deal. The French-made luxury jet seats up to 12 in a plush interior with leather seats, sofas and a customizable entertainment center, according to Dassault’s sales literature. It can cruise 5,950 miles before refueling and has a top speed of 559 mph. There are just nine of these top-of-the-line models in the United States, with Dassault’s European factory churning out three to four 7Xs a month. Citigroup decided to get its new wings two years ago, when the financial-services giant was flush with cash, but it still intends to take possession of the jet this year despite its current woes, the source said.
Posted by: Ryan C | January 26, 2009, 4:30 pm 4:30 pm
Somehow reading the statistic that moving the mpg standard up to 35 will save us 2 million barrels a day should make anyone pause in their criticism. And the fact that 2 million barrels a day is about what we import from the Persian Gulf should solidify that this is a terrific idea.
Even if you don’t believe in global climate change, (despite earlier springs and longer falls, years long droughts in unusual places, shrinking mountain ice and glaciers previous limits yearly) surely the idea of importing less oil from countries where some of our worst enemies train and receive aid should appeal to the patriots among us.
Posted by: Lydia | January 26, 2009, 4:45 pm 4:45 pm
Ryan C:I would think right wingers would be frothing at the mouth over this company that made the jet is French
Posted by: MayBee | January 26, 2009, 4:49 pm 4:49 pm
Lydia:Somehow reading the statistic that moving the mpg standard up to 35 will save us 2 million barrels a day should make anyone pause in their criticism.
========
Moving the mpg standard up to 70 mpg would save even more. We should set the standard to 70 mpg. Maybe even to 140 mpg. We need to set those standards high enough to make a super big difference.
(ps. opening up more US ares for drilling would add jobs immediately and would save us from importing oil. I don’t believe anybody who preaches for a reduction in importing oil unless they believe drilling here is a valid option)
Posted by: MayBee | January 26, 2009, 4:54 pm 4:54 pm
Thanks, Jake.
Please keep asking pertinent questions. You and John Kass are my media go-to’s.
Posted by: TapTapFan | January 26, 2009, 4:59 pm 4:59 pm
“Why? Do you think conservatives don’t believe in international trade among private companies?”
While I know right wingers like to forget the embarrassing kneejerk things that they do (especially ones that look incredibly) foolish in hindsight but freedom fries and freedom toast ring any bells?
Or perhaps some words from one of your mouthpieces?
So I am again calling for all responsible people not to buy French products, not to travel to France, and to contact the French embassy in Washington, and let them know Chirac’s conduct is unacceptable.
Posted by: Ryan C | January 26, 2009, 5:24 pm 5:24 pm
Ryan C- you know Chirac is no longer in office, right?
Posted by: MayBee | January 26, 2009, 5:26 pm 5:26 pm
@ MayBee 4:54
Great post.
“The actions that the president took today put us on the path, when we realize a fuel efficiency standard of 35 miles to the gallon — its 27.5 now — 35 miles to the gallon — will constitute a savings of 2 million barrels of oil a day, which is roughly comparable to the amount of oil that we import each day from the Persian Gulf. So the president is taking the actions of Congress, ensuring that we take bold, demonstrative steps toward energy independence and reducing what we are forced to import every day from countries, many of whom don’t like us.”
I’m very curious to understand what assumptions were used to reach conclusion of “2 million barrels per day” would be saved by 2011 simplying by mandating it so. I wonder if he (BO) understands the corner into which he is painting the Big 3 (i.e., mandating production of vehicles the public isn’t interested in buying…throw in states being able to self legislate emission standards and the problems for the U.S. auto industry are compounded tremendously).
Posted by: tjp612 | January 26, 2009, 7:16 pm 7:16 pm
“I’m very curious to understand what assumptions were used to reach conclusion of “2 million barrels per day” would be saved by 2011 simplying by mandating it so.”
The date isnt 2011. I think it might be 2020. The spokesdude set “put us on the path”.
Obviously there is no way you are going to see an significant turn over of the fleet by 2011, so even if the car makers magically met the mandates, it wont result in that much of a savings by 2011.
Posted by: BertieW | January 26, 2009, 11:42 pm 11:42 pm
Maybee, I am confused about the source of your anxiety over raising the mpg.
Certainly most Americans realize how easily our wallets and economy can be affected negatively by foreign countries raising oil prices after what we’ve all been through this past year.
To not give credit to some of our economic problems directly to that stretch of high oil and gas prices is to not understand the effect it had on the middle and lower class. Just in my family we figured out we spent at least an extra $5000 in one year on heating oil and gasoline and higher electric bills. That is a big enough chunk of our income, (We put off major applicance purchases, limited our clothing purchases to essentials, etc.) that reduced our share of goods purchased. Now mulitiply that by all the other millions of families that had to cut back their budget somewhere to be able to buy gas to go to work, oil to heat their house and to pay the electric bill.
So that is why the majority of Americans would like our cars to get more mpg. Unless you own oil stock or have your head in the sand.
As to the subject of drilling more here, if you check our government’s Energy Information Administration, the fact is that the U.S. only has 3 % of the world’s petroleum reserves under its land. That’s it, a measly 3% while we use 24% of the world’s oil directly.
Conservation of oil will keep the prices down on the world market to reasonable levels while we find alternatives.
So remember, we’ve only got 3% of the world’s oil and most Americans want their cars to get more mpg. (Just look at Honda and Toyota sales figures for the last 10 years to prove that. We would have bought American if we could have found the same quality with the terrific mpg our Honda has.)
Posted by: Lydia | January 27, 2009, 10:19 am 10:19 am
Maybee, I am confused about the source of your anxiety over raising the mpg.
=========
My anxiety is that it puts additional pressures on the car companies to produce something they don’t yet have, at a time when they can’t pay their bills. The design, engineering, and re-tooling will cost them money they don’t have.
Really, the government can mandate all kinds of nice things that would be very helpful to our environment, our health, and our nation. They could mandate everyone install solar panels, or be able to run a marathon. That doesn’t make it so everyone can afford solar panels or can get fit enough to run marathons. What happens to the people (companies) that can’t do it? What burden does it place on people or companies to meet the mandates?
Posted by: MayBee | January 27, 2009, 10:51 am 10:51 am
Go Barack ! Long overdue… about 30 years.
Of course the knuckle dragging Appalachian party will have ill words for any good proposal – it’s their job to block progress…
but then again – all we have to do is look at their record to see how well their ideas work out.
Posted by: PulSamsara | January 27, 2009, 12:38 pm 12:38 pm