Today’s Qs for O’s WH – 3/16/2009
EmailTAPPER: You guys first found about these bonuses last week?
GIBBS: I think that’s true, based on what I read in the newspaper.
TAPPER: But you gave money to AIG two or three weeks ago?
GIBBS: Um-hmm.
TAPPER: How could you not know that they have these millions — hundreds of millions dollars…
GIBBS: Well, again, there’s — there’s — according to the news reports, there’s existing contracts, some of which the — or 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 — 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.
TAPPER: Why didn’t you attach it to the $30 billion you gave a couple weeks ago?
GIBBS: Again, Jake, the…
TAPPER: You’re looking to retroactively attached it to the new $30 billion.
GIBBS: Well, they’re looking through contracts to see what can be done to wrest these bonuses from their recipients.
TAPPER: I’m sorry, just — I don’t understand, so maybe I’m just not understanding, but President Obama said in early February, right when he gave his 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.
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.
TAPPER: But why didn’t he do that before?
GIBBS: Well, again, the excessive compensation rules that you’d 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.
TAPPER: No, but since — and I’m sorry to belabor this point — but since President Obama gave the speech, you guys gave more money to AIG. Why wasn’t it attached…
GIBBS: Again, this is…
TAPPER: … to the new money?
GIBBS: Because it’s, again, it’s part of the…
TAPPER: Part of the old contracts.
GIBBS: Right. It’s part of…
TAPPER: But you’re looking to now retroactively see if you can attach something to that old money.
GIBBS: That’s what we’re looking at.
TAPPER: But why didn’t you do it at the time, if you’re looking to retroactively do it.
GIBBS: The administration is taking the steps today to go back and see what can be done…to claw those bonuses back.
– jpt
Sen. DeMint: GOP Race Could Go Until Convention 
Obama Avoids Questions on Contraception Rule
well again Gibbs is a dope! Another lie by the obama admin. Whats new?
Posted by: notafan | March 16, 2009, 4:10 pm 4:10 pm
JPT, you’re good!
Posted by: Brian | March 16, 2009, 4:10 pm 4:10 pm
Good God, the stumblebums are in charge, and racing ahead full throttle.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | March 16, 2009, 4:12 pm 4:12 pm
GOOD JOB JAKE!!! I wondered why they hadn’t attached these kinds of conditions to the last money.
I also wonder when these shenanigans reach the level of committing FRAUD with tax payor’s money.
Posted by: Teri B. | March 16, 2009, 4:13 pm 4:13 pm
details details, he can’t be bothered. We got what we elected – big on hope, light on policy.
Posted by: cordelia525 | March 16, 2009, 4:17 pm 4:17 pm
Good work Jake!
I only wish Obama(and his teleprompter)was the one being asked tough questions.
How could Obama not know how the AIG money would be spent?
And if he didn’t know-how incompetent is it to blindly give AIG more bailout money to spend as they please?
More false outrage from the great pretender.
Posted by: tyler | March 16, 2009, 4:17 pm 4:17 pm
Hahahahahahaha, that Gibbs is a hoot. An excellent tap-dancer! Fred Astaire! Since Geitner was one of the main architects of the orginal TARP, why doesn’t he get quizzed on this as well? Methinks he’s not the genius he’s been promoted to be…
Posted by: Doug B | March 16, 2009, 4:17 pm 4:17 pm
Good going Mr. Tapper…this guy just seems slimier as you try to get a grip on him.
Posted by: DontGet818OnMeNow | March 16, 2009, 4:19 pm 4:19 pm
Obama probably didn’t care how AIG spent our money.
He was probably counting on the media ignoring this like they usually do.
He probably wasn’t counting on a backlash from the public.
Guess the “I inherited it” excuse can only go so far
Posted by: sammy | March 16, 2009, 4:23 pm 4:23 pm
jim, how can you say that? many times jake is very pro Obama. Not every reporter has to be in the tank for Obama 100 % of the time to be good at their job but I guess thats the only kind of reporter you want to hear from. It should be apparent to you from Gibbs answers they (the O admin) say one thing and do another. He was having a hard time answering Jakes questions because he couldn’t figure out how to make obama look good with this one. Good job Jake!
Posted by: notafan | March 16, 2009, 4:25 pm 4:25 pm
jake, you should ask gibbs why big business and wall street are getting bail outs while small buisness gets loans. Should be the other way around if it has to be any way at all.
Posted by: notafan | March 16, 2009, 4:28 pm 4:28 pm
I sincerely hope people wake up to these thugs in the office and the change they are providing. Nice market close—is he still taking credit like Biden said..the Obama Factor? Wake up to the lovely bi-partisanship change! Where is an honest Indi. candidate? P.S. I’m NOT a Republican but I hope this administration’s agenda fails miserably and any of the politicians who vote yes by being pressured by his ‘Grassroot’ thugs just know that w/ out Independents, they’ll never be in office again and we vote NO! Tapper, tell this pug Gibbs to go crawl back under his rock that he crawled out of! Disgusting! Can u imagine what they would have done to Tony Snow if he talked this way! I’m so disgusted by this slimy administration!
Posted by: Hope | March 16, 2009, 4:30 pm 4:30 pm
P.S. I’m NOT a Republican but I hope this administration’s agenda fails miserably and any of the politicians who vote yes by being pressured by his ‘Grassroot’ thugs just know that w/ out Independents, they’ll never be in office again and we vote NO!
==============================
most Independents ,like the above poster ,are just disgruntled republicans who cant stand the democrats OR the republicans .
hey independent ,you ever voted for nader ?
Posted by: davis | March 16, 2009, 4:35 pm 4:35 pm
Good Work Jake!!
Wasn’t former Gov Spitzer (NY) behind ousting the former CEO of AIG a number of years ago when things were running pretty smoothly, and didn’t he support bringing in LIDDY? I think Spitzer was the Attorney General at the time. If this is true, there may be a little bit more blame to go around!! Surely, Geithner knew more than he is letting on given his geographical location, and if he didn’t know what was going on in AIG, what does that say about his competence??
A thought — which: rather than sending a tea bag to your congressman (BOTH PARTIES), get a mini petition signed by like minded folks and send it to them suggesting that you will be ‘voting in November 2010, and you do not care to see anymore bailouts or pork passed in YOUR NAME’! Can attest to the fact that it works — and you will get a reply!!
Posted by: GrannyCares | March 16, 2009, 4:45 pm 4:45 pm
Gibbs: Jake leave me the heck alone, I’m trying to lie the best i can, just like my boss O-DUMB-AH
Posted by: Obama-LIVE FROM THE WAFFLE HOUSE | March 16, 2009, 4:47 pm 4:47 pm
the reason there were no strings attached is because there COULD NOT BE!
————————————–
If that is true, why the talk of outrage by the president and promises to pursue legal avenues for clawback?
Posted by: mad | March 16, 2009, 4:48 pm 4:48 pm
Gibbs: ARREST those 5000 protesters in Ohio that are making fun of my boss.. who started this “tea party” stuff anyway?
Posted by: Obama-LIVE FROM THE WAFFLE HOUSE | March 16, 2009, 4:48 pm 4:48 pm
If someone had told me in November that I would change the channel when Obama came on the tube, I would have probably told them they were racist in their attitude. I am so very weary of his excuses; his shifting blame; his sophomoric approach to our greatest ally; his inability to select the right people for critical positions; his seemingly endless personal desire for attention; and his apparent lack of ability to govern!
As a colleague of a different political persuasion mentioned two days ago, “How long will it take you to wish for the good old days of George Bush?” Sadly, it may not take very long!
After CITI’s CEO gave him a lesson in leadership last week, he sure has changed his tune on the economy!!
Posted by: GrannyCares | March 16, 2009, 4:49 pm 4:49 pm
Well, again, there’s — there’s — according to the news reports, there’s existing contracts, some of which the — or of which the president has asked the secretary to examine going forward.
===============
On Marc 2, 2009, Gibbs told Jake Tapper the administration was confident they knew how AIG was spending its money.
I can’t imagine how the administration thought they knew how AIG was spending its money if they didn’t know what the employment contracts entailed.
Posted by: MayBee | March 16, 2009, 4:53 pm 4:53 pm
Thanks for asking the obvious questions! Why weren’t preconditions attached to the handout?
Posted by: Lisa | March 16, 2009, 4:55 pm 4:55 pm
Thank you for pressing him on this subject.
The Obama spends so much time justifying their lack of action or inadequate actions by blaming everything on the past administration, but when things come up that they should have handled differently, but they bungle it, there is an excuse or non-excuse that they think makes it okay.
Total failure and now the stock market will start its fall again.
Posted by: Sally J | March 16, 2009, 5:06 pm 5:06 pm
PB0 has been just a little be overwhelmed by his newfound power, or shall we say, he was in just a bit over his head.
He has a Treasury Sectary sitting in his office by himself just a few days ago. He cannot check everything, or knew what to check, can he?
Sorry, but experience matters.
Pity, it’s too late even for buyer’s remorse.
Posted by: two cats | March 16, 2009, 5:12 pm 5:12 pm
Obama is a one term fool if he doesn’t get the money back from those crooks he gave it to.
And I pity his stupidity if he does another TARP. That stuff if DONE.
Posted by: kravitz | March 16, 2009, 5:19 pm 5:19 pm
Obama’s “outrage” is just phony baloney.
Posted by: Michelle | March 16, 2009, 5:26 pm 5:26 pm
Actually that isn’t true. Geithner taled to Liddy about the bonuses on Wednesday March 11 asking to re-negotiate the bonuses. Liddy responded back on Saturday March 14th saying that he couldn’t do it.
It actually wasn’t weeks ago.
Posted by: Sara | March 16, 2009, 5:36 pm 5:36 pm
Thanks for asking the obvious questions! Why weren’t preconditions attached to the handout?
Posted by: Lisa | Mar 16, 2009 4:55:51 PM
——–
They were certain, remember? They knew, kind of, what they were doing. So, why do they need preconditions?
Betya, if this was a transaction that PB0 were buying his house, I 100% guarantee you he won’t make this kind of mistake.
You can argue it was a small transaction so PB0 could count number, or maybe this bailout was just not his own money.
Posted by: kat | March 16, 2009, 5:51 pm 5:51 pm
JT: Ari, why don’t you let the UN inspectors do their job? They repeatedly have told us that their are no WMD…..
JT: Scott, the Geneva Convention clearly prohibits waterboarding……..
JT: Ari, why is Halliburton receiving no-bid contracts in the billions of dollars? Isn’t there a clear conflict of interest with the VP being their former CEO? And why are those contracts being reviewed by the Office of the VP?..
(Oh yeah, these questions were never asked…….nice to see you’ve found your voice now, Jake)
Posted by: dollared | March 16, 2009, 5:57 pm 5:57 pm
“So, let’s try to hae a freaking clue — and Jake, you might find it interesting to ask Gibbs how Obama plans to get away with violating the Constitution in changing these contracts.”
You are correct. So as the President railed against CEO bonuses, were you saying “oh pooh President Obama, get a freaking clue, tell me how you plan on violating the Consitution and changing these contracts. I’m guessing you were saying “You go Obama, take it to these guys!”
I had people rail on me cause I tried to explain that these CEO’s were under contracts, no different than big sports stars. Big contracts with big payouts because they wanted to lure the best and brightest to come run their company. Also, since this problem has been bubbling for years and spans administrations, these CEO’s are no more to blame, they walked into the mess just like everyone claims Obama did. Nice, prickly mess eh?
No politician has the answers and no politician can fix this. Maybe people will start to realize this and take their faith out of big government.
Posted by: KR | March 16, 2009, 6:47 pm 6:47 pm
dollared, given that Mr. Tapper was not a White House correspondent during the Bush administration, I fail to see how he was supposed to pose these questions. Take it up with Martha Radditz.
Posted by: moderate | March 16, 2009, 6:53 pm 6:53 pm
1) I didn’t hear any of the right wing defending the contracts of the GM and Ford workers.
2) These bonuses are small potatoes. They measure in the millions. Meanwhile billions are being stolen to cover AIGs unregulated credit default swaps to foreign institutions (thanks Phil Gramm!)
We should have forced them into bankruptcy when we would have come out ahead. These ‘contracts’ would then be a non-issue.
I understand people are upset about giving bonuses to people who run a company into the ground, but get some perspective, please.
Posted by: Flash Override | March 16, 2009, 8:00 pm 8:00 pm
Flash, I have to admit that you and I are on the same page for a change. While the bonuses are maddening, they are legal and some perspective would be nice.
I am still delighted to see Mr. Tapper pressing the point with Gibbs, because I am troubled by the president joining the “we need to get that money back” chorus. And Chris Dodd’s suggestion that we create a special targeted tax to get the money back is just amazingly wrong-headed.
And I am agnostic about the Ford and GM contracts, btw. (Of course, I’m not a right winger, so I guess your zinger wasn’t aimed at me anyway.) I do think that they should be renegotiated going forward (the labor contracts with union automobile workers) but would never say that we should suddenly stop paying the workers what they are owed under the current contract because we have decided they are paid too much. The same holds true for the AIG guys.
Posted by: moderate | March 16, 2009, 8:26 pm 8:26 pm
“After CITI’s CEO gave him a lesson in leadership last week, he sure has changed his tune on the economy!!”
Are you referring to Citi showing a profit? You are aware we bailed them out to the tune of 45 Billion dollars right? LMAO
Posted by: Ranger | March 16, 2009, 8:38 pm 8:38 pm
Jake: Keep up the great work. And could you please extend a warm thank you to the reporter who tried to get a straight answer from Gimbo on the difference between “sound” and “strong”.
Posted by: JAZ | March 16, 2009, 9:24 pm 9:24 pm
I have lost all faith in Obama. He’s had to many flubs so far.
Posted by: Jane | March 16, 2009, 9:39 pm 9:39 pm
Jake:
your attempt to ask questions and get answer was brilliant.
Posted by: ganesh shrestha | March 16, 2009, 10:42 pm 10:42 pm
What’s the fuss here??? I’m sure AIG execs will ‘admonish’ those receiving bonuses to ‘spend the bonuses wisely.’
And what are the derivative traders that receive the bonus money going to do with the dough, burn it? Stick it in a mattress? If they save it in a deposit account, they promote liquidity. If they invest it, they promote business formation. If they spend it at Home Depot and WalMart, they stimulizate the economy. All those are good things. And the derivative traders are going to do all those good things with only $165 million — they don’t need $787 billion.
We should be giving AIG more money, obviously. And just as obvious, we should be amending the constitution now to allow President Obama to serve more than two terms.
So get over it — AIG bonuses, like Rohm Emmanuel pointed out with earmarks, are ‘last year’s business.’
Posted by: dom youngross | March 17, 2009, 12:05 am 12:05 am
I hate to say it (again) but The Brother Gibbs won’t be around the press room much longer…he just cannot cut the muster in those trenches.
Posted by: DontGet818OnMeNow | March 17, 2009, 7:59 am 7:59 am
“we should be amending the constitution now to allow President Obama to serve more than two terms.”
Hugo Chavez is trying the same thing. Amazing simularities between Obama and Chavez, they seem to be on the same game plan. Maybe Obama will nationalize American oil companies too while he is at it.
I would bet you we’ll run into civil war before that ever happens, just a hunch.
Posted by: KR | March 17, 2009, 8:52 am 8:52 am
“While the Senate constructed the $787 billion stimulus last month, Dodd unexpectedly added an executive-compensation restriction to the bill. That amendment provides an “exception for contractually obligated bonuses agreed on before Feb. 11, 2009,” which exempts the very AIG bonuses Dodd and others are seeking to tax. The amendment is in the final version and is law.”
—————————————
The stimulus bill protects the AIG bonuses.
Lawmakers voted for the protection of the AIG bonuses and the president signed the bill.
Sources say the bonuses have been known for months.
Posted by: mad | March 17, 2009, 12:21 pm 12:21 pm
Jake, thank you for doing your job. May you serve as an example for the rest of your colleagues in the MSM!!!
Posted by: Obama, the second coming | March 17, 2009, 1:03 pm 1:03 pm
I believe the stimulus bill was set up specifically saying past agreement has to be honored. Think I saw in the bill when posted on Huffington Post, but not positive. I did see some clauses were amended to still request past bonuses/salary agreements be restricted – were they passed? I am still upset!!
I NOW ASK TO SEE THE AIG-GOVERNEMNT LOAN AGREEMENT SIGNED WHEN AIG GOT BAILOUT MONEY!!! OUR GOVERNMENT KNEW OF THIS SALARY/RETENTION BONUS PAYMENT AGREEMENTS LONG AGO.
SINCE TAXPAYERS OWN 80% OF AIG WE SHOULD BE ENTITLED LEGALLY TO ANALYZE/REVIEW THIS LOAN AGREEMENT. VOTERS PLEASE PUSH TO HAVE THIS AGREEMENT PUT ON GOVERENMENT WEBSITE
Posted by: Sharon | March 17, 2009, 1:22 pm 1:22 pm
Gibbs: Because we always speak forcefully to play on weak minds for the TV viewers and do the opposite in reality. This is no different Haven’t you been paying attention to Obama and his advisers over these past 2 years?
You know, like when he gaves those speeches to troops or about troops. Like his made up story about an Uncle freeing Auschwitz and returning to his attic where he remained after leaving military service.
He told that story to bring home the point that he wants to take care and service the medical needs of our troops.
But, you are learning that we are going to force them to buy private insurance to pay for their medical care so we don’t have to honor their service and take care of them as he campaigned on.
See, we’re consistent.
Say one thing, do the opposite. Maybe now you have learned what the Obama administration is all about. And you’ll know when he makes a promise, expect the opposite.
Thank you Jake for asking this question.
Posted by: Linda | March 18, 2009, 12:09 pm 12:09 pm