Dec 14, 2009 4:00pm

Today’s Qs for O’s WH – 12/14/2009

TAPPER: A year ago the president said that he thought Wall Street bankers would forego Christmas bonuses.  Largely, they did not. In January, he called those bonuses "shameful."  In March, he met with a bunch of bankers, some of the same ones, and they came out and said some of the same things:  "We were glad to have this discussion. We're going to look at some of the things the president said." Since then, the president has made it very clear that he's not happy with the way things are going, that the loans are not happening. You just said, "We're going to take the bankers at their word." Why would you take them at their word?

GIBBS:  Well, I can only take it, what they said.  What the president's going to do is continue to ensure that we're making progress. I — I think the president would say if you look at what is happening with — again, I don't want to speak broadly for every banker.  But I think if you look at — I think the president would say that when an institution decides to forego a cash bonus in lieu of increased long-term equity in the company that doesn't vest for a four-year period of time, that that was precisely the type of solution that he was talking about earlier this year; that if we take the short-term — the short-term cash out of this system that can be much more closely rigged toward risk and instead say, "Your compensation should be — should be attached to the long-term health and growth of your company, which is good for you and taxpayers," that that represents the type of progress that the president would like to see.

Again, I think the bankers all acknowledged that they have work to do on this issue.  The president reiterated that and discussed again that it wasn't — as I said earlier, it wasn't just the — it's not just the structure.  It is also the amount. I think they all — they all should be cognizant of that.
  
TAPPER:  At what point should the American people hold the president responsible for the fact that the banks are not doing what the president is telling them to do?

GIBBS:  Well again, I want to be clear that the president — the president doesn't want to run a bank.  The president believes that the American people took some extraordinary steps to ensure their financial stability and ultimately the larger economy's financial stability.
  
The president will simply — will hear what he — will listen to what he hears in these meetings.  And he said at the beginning he wanted to listen more than he wanted to talk.  And I think that was largely the case.  He opened the meeting up with about a 15-minutes that I walked you through.
  
I think we'll continue to evaluate the progress that we make, whether it is taking a second look at these loans, whether it's making a specific recommendation to increase by $5 billion loans to small and medium-sized business, to take compensation issues seriously.
  
And, quite frankly, most — maybe most importantly, the House passed on Friday a very important financial reform bill out of the House, which now goes to the Senate.  The president and his team strongly believe that there are aspects that are crucial to ensuring the type of fiasco that we had happen in September of 2008 never happens again. If — if, as the president heard around that table today, they're broadly supportive of financial reform, I think the president was pretty clear with them that that needs to be communicated from their lobbyists to the broader Senate so that we can get something done and to ensure that that never happens again.
  
TAPPER:  Let's take that housing program that the president unveiled in Mesa, Arizona, in February.  He said it was going to help — there's one specific section of it, not the Fannie, Freddie part of it — was going to help 3 million to 4 million homes, and help these mortgage holders renegotiate or refinance. About 760,000 Americans have applied and the banks have given — like, 31,000, roughly, Americans are enrolled in it (on a permanent basis).  Thirty-one thousand when the president had his goal of 3 million to 4 million. Now, we talked to some of the bankers out there and…
  
GIBBS:  Let me get some updated statistics. I'm not entirely sure that those are — that's the number of people taking place in modifications.

TAPPER:  Well, I'm right.  So in any case, moving on, the bankers — I got them (the numbers) from (deputy White House press secretary Jen) Psaki, so…
  
GIBBS:  OK.
  
TAPPER:  The bankers said that the problem with the program is the paperwork.  There's too much paperwork.

GIBBS:  And I — I — that — look, that came up in the meeting. That's why I said that there was an acknowledgement that we would — that president and his team would look at the paperwork requirements in streamlining these — these type of things.  They mentioned specifically both housing modifications and SBA loans. The president — look, the president took notes throughout the meeting.  And I can assure you that he'll discuss with his team — in the event that the housing modification program is being held back because of onerous paperwork requirements that we'll streamline those paperwork requirements.

TAPPER:  Do you think that's what it is and not the fact that the banks don't want to loan?
  
GIBBS:  Well, again, I don't want to speak broadly for all the banks. I know the president's position is it is far more preferable to keep somebody in a house and to figure out the best way for them to ultimately meet through a modification their mortgage and their loan requirements that — that is far preferable in any economic situation. Quite frankly, it's more beneficial for banks to have somebody paying that loan than to have a house that they can't put anybody in. Again, we will work with anybody in terms of streamlining the number — the paperwork requirements if there are those that believe that's the onerous — the onerous part of this program. Again, the president was very clear.  And that's — again, housing was one of the main things that he wanted to discuss. Obviously, there are some banks in there that don't do mortgages, but certainly there were some in there that do.   
 
TAPPER: I guess I just wonder if there are — if there are citizens watching this, and they see the president for the last year say he's going to give stern talk, going to give tough talk to   bankers;   meanwhile, taxpayers are giving them hundreds of billions of dollars and nothing changes. This — the housing modification program is only helping 31,000 Americans, not the 3 to 4 million.  What do you say to  Americans who say this just seems like Kabuki theater?  This is just –
 
GIBBS:  Well, I would say that the — that the president didn't have this meeting on accident.  The president is as frustrated as the American people are.  Think you heard — I don't know if you guys use video from other networks; I think the tone and the tenor of  his remarks in the interview that we taped last week and that was broadcast yesterday night — last evening — was pretty clear.  I don't think the president minced words. I think the president is serious and frustrated on behalf of the   American people that — as we have all said, that taxpayers ensured the financial stability of many of the people that were in that room and that we should expect that those banks do the same in being part of a positive economic recovery that helps people stay in their homes, which loosens credit for medium and small businesses, which addresses egregious executive-comp issues.  And again, maybe the most pressing legislative issue doesn't stand in the way of very important financial regulatory reform. Again, they all said that.  The president was clear.  If that's what you believe, it should be communicated from those that represent your  interest on Capitol Hill.

-jpt

User Comments

Try being proactive with your lender about your underwater loan. The only way you qualify is if you’re already in trouble and then you’re a bad risk. Why would a bank want to work with you – even with the govt pushing you to do it. The banks are dragging their feet hoping it all goes away.

Posted by: Live! From DC! It's Sat Night! | December 14, 2009, 4:12 pm 4:12 pm

Okay, the White House crashers and the Tiger Woods thing is getting old so what can the Obama “team” come up with to divert attention from his socialist health plan?Hey,let’s wheel out the “fat cat” bankers because everybody hates them and besides it worked like a charm earlier this year.Kabuki theatre indeed.

Posted by: bobmac | December 14, 2009, 4:18 pm 4:18 pm

“What do you say to Americans who say this just seems like Kabuki theater? ”
Gibbs: believe what we say, not what we do.

Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | December 14, 2009, 4:19 pm 4:19 pm

Gibbs to Tapper (translation) Sit down and shut up

Posted by: welcome to Obamaville, fastest growing homeless community | December 14, 2009, 4:21 pm 4:21 pm

Dear President Obama:
I am undwerwater about 30 grand. If you send me 30 grand, I promise to use a realtor to sell my home and buy a bigger home. I promise to fill it up with all sorts of durable goods. Whoever buys my home promises to do the same.
All of this will help create jobs. I’m guessing that 30 grand will create 10 jobs. Pretty cheap if you ask me.
let me know what you think.
Sincerely,
Drowning…

Posted by: Live! From DC! It's Sat Night! | December 14, 2009, 4:27 pm 4:27 pm

“The bankers said that the problem with the program is the paperwork. ”
Because lord knows if there is one thing multi-billion dollar banks are just wide-eyed baffled by it is doing paperwork! Next the government is going to assume they have an accounting department too!
And all Obama has is the bully pulpit – this isn’t the Soviet Union, and despite the paranoid ravings of the Right Obama is far from any sort of Marxist dictator.

Posted by: jhw539 | December 14, 2009, 4:40 pm 4:40 pm

jhw539–
you’re right; Obama is not a socialist. More like a statist. He doesn’t want to run banks, as Gibbs stated, he just wants to pressure them. This is the problem: we should either let the markets work all this out OR we should all sign up for Marxism 101 and become socialists. The “public-private partnerships” that Obama has been so enamored with either become jokes (no one listens, ie, the banks) OR they become tools of the state to “influence” policies that are “for the greater good” (as the government defines it).

Posted by: kelli | December 14, 2009, 4:51 pm 4:51 pm

Gibbs is such a jerk. He didn’t want to use your statistics. Then he finds out they are his statistics.
It’s like he didn’t like the numbers and wanted to change those numbers to better suit him. It is so obvious that is what he meant.

Posted by: Kate | December 14, 2009, 4:53 pm 4:53 pm

Is it me or is Gibbs COMPLETELY unable to answer these questions?? He SHOULD be well versed and prepared with the answers and the stats Mr. Tapper presented.

Posted by: Denbo68 | December 14, 2009, 5:05 pm 5:05 pm

we should either let the markets work all this out OR we should all sign up for Marxism 101 and become socialists.
kelli | Dec 14, 2009 4:51:59 PM
If we had “let the markets work all this out,” the banks would have failed (over 1,000 of them), the FDIC would have taken them over per current law and we would have had a fully nationalized banking system. Then Obama would have a say with the banks.
The market failed. It is somewhat insulting to our intelligence when people insist it just needs to work itself out (oh, and more tax cuts and regulation cuts – as if we’re too stupid to see how where the last 8 years of that left us).

Posted by: jhw539 | December 14, 2009, 5:07 pm 5:07 pm

Witch-burning parties for bankers does not conceal the fact that bonfires are just as justified (more so, even) for members of Congress and their political supporters who conspired to ram thru destructive subprime loan policies.
Jake, wish you’d sometime ask Gibberish Gibbs to let us all know whether Obama intends to “invite” ACORN, SEIU, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and all the other non-bank suspects in the financial crisis over to the WH for a royal roasting.
And ask Gibbs if that session will be preceded with a public announcement by Omama about the need to “call out” the weasels on his side of the political divide who looted hundreds of billions from taxpayers, and brought ruin to our economy, to finance radical programs.
These questions are the elephant in the room that Obama hopes everyone ignores.
And MSM aids and abets the deception by refusing to question hypocrites in the White House about their selective rage.

Posted by: TParty4USA | December 14, 2009, 5:16 pm 5:16 pm

I have figured out a couple of things about Robert Gibbs. One, he’s a doofus. Two, he’s a smart. Three, he has a love affair with the words “again” and “obviously”. Got news for you, there is NOTHING obvious for the American taxpayers except the fact we are being used and thrown out like yesterday’s news.
If you’d like to really have your blood boiling, go over to Drudge Report and read the article about Federal employees owing the IRS $3 BILLION dollars in unpaid taxes. That’s right, folks, FEDERAL employees NOT PAYING taxes. And they aren’t in jail because…..

Posted by: Shoe | December 14, 2009, 5:34 pm 5:34 pm

And they aren’t in jail because…..
Posted by: Shoe |
… of Bush.

Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | December 14, 2009, 5:52 pm 5:52 pm

Excellent questions Jake.
Too bad Obama doesn’t have to publically explain why his foreclosure plan was a total flop.
Stimulus a flop, Clunkers a flop, Housing Plan a flop.
So lets turn over our health care to Obama. When anything fails Obama simply blames someone/anyone else.

Posted by: mick | December 14, 2009, 5:55 pm 5:55 pm

“Stimulus a flop,”
Not according to the CBO.
“Clunkers a flop”
Yeah darn program selling so many cars it ran out of money.
Darn program resulting in a marked improvement in mpg.

Posted by: Ryan C | December 14, 2009, 6:00 pm 6:00 pm

About Obama’s crutch to blame others: I heard a commentator today say “it’s easier for Obama to create villains than come up with his own solutions”.
Senator Obama did nothing to help reign in Fannie/Freddie years ago.
President Obama while he is pointing fingers at who is to blame never will dare mention ACORN/SEIU pressuring banks to hand out loans to just about anybody.

Posted by: larry | December 14, 2009, 6:04 pm 6:04 pm

The new budget contains increases of 10% and more for just about all government agencies.
But we’re going to punish the private sector for bonuses.
How stupid. How hypocritical.

Posted by: drjohn | December 14, 2009, 6:05 pm 6:05 pm

“President Obama while he is pointing fingers at who is to blame never will dare mention ACORN/SEIU pressuring banks to hand out loans to just about anybody.”
I see right wingers are still blaming minorities for the economic crisis caused by their favorite free market policies.

Posted by: Ryan C | December 14, 2009, 6:07 pm 6:07 pm

never will dare mention ACORN/SEIU pressuring banks to hand out loans to just about anybody.
larry | Dec 14, 2009 6:04:48 PM
Poor naive banks, powerless against the pressure from ACORN! And of the 25 largest subprime loan originators I’m sure it was the one single one subjected to government equal rights lending regulations who caused all the trouble!
(On a related subject, Obama never will dare mention the Easter Bunny or the decreasing size of Cadbury Cream Eggs as a cause of the banking meltdown either.)

Posted by: jhw539 | December 14, 2009, 6:07 pm 6:07 pm

The new budget contains increases of 10% and more for just about all government agencies.”
Except it does not.
Anyone interested WaPo has put up a useful database call Budget Blueprint: Agency by Agency
Of the 17 agencies listed, only 5 have increases greater than 6%.
The lesson as always? Right wingers lie.

Posted by: Ryan C | December 14, 2009, 6:12 pm 6:12 pm

The new budget contains increases of 10% and more for just about all government agencies.
But we’re going to punish the private sector for bonuses.
How stupid. How hypocritical.
drjohn | Dec 14, 2009 6:05:29 PM
I missed something there – how is an increase in expenditures due to a recession creating a heavy demand on the social safety net like multi-million dollar bonuses to bankers? Seriously – is hiring extra people to cover the increased food stamp applications equivalent to a banker getting a $10 million bonus to Republicans? Is that extra money for extra counseling services for returning equivalent to a $500k bonus to an AIG broker?

Posted by: jhw539 | December 14, 2009, 6:14 pm 6:14 pm

(oops, dropped a word.)
…Is that extra money for extra counseling services for returning veterans equivalent to a $500k bonus to an AIG broker?

Posted by: jhw539 | December 14, 2009, 6:14 pm 6:14 pm

“…Is that extra money for extra counseling services for returning veterans equivalent to a $500k bonus to an AIG broker”
Apparently.
At least to some right wingers.

Posted by: Ryan C | December 14, 2009, 6:16 pm 6:16 pm

I heard a commentator today say “it’s easier for Obama to create villains than come up with his own solutions”.
Posted by: larry
WELL…… I heard that:
GW Bush consults invisible beings late at night
Palin hangs around with witchdoctors
Republicans got the biggest earmarks in the new spending bill
wait…. that’s all true

Posted by: OMG | December 14, 2009, 6:24 pm 6:24 pm

jhw:Because lord knows if there is one thing multi-billion dollar banks are just wide-eyed baffled by it is doing paperwork!
=======
I don’t think the whole paperwork problem is paperwork required from the banks.
According to NPR, the consumers are required to produce a lot of paperwork and financial records, and oftentimes they have a hard time doing so.

Posted by: MayBee | December 14, 2009, 6:48 pm 6:48 pm

I haven’t yet seen anybody explain how the government somehow forced the banks to create the stated income verified assets (SIVA), the no income verified assets (NIVA), the
no income no assets (NINA), the
interest-only adjustable-rate mortgage (ARM) or any other higher risk loans; or how the government ‘forced’ over half of borrowers at times who qualified for conventional prime loans to opt for subprime ones.

Posted by: Skip | December 14, 2009, 6:49 pm 6:49 pm

“TAPPER: Well, I’m right. So in any case, moving on…”
Well done, Jake. I wish there were more reporters who would take on this arrogant punk Robert Gibbs.
“This — the housing modification program is only helping 31,000 Americans, not the 3 to 4 million. What do you say to Americans who say this just seems like Kabuki theater?”
The Obama Administration IS Kabuki theater!!!
Another unmet commitment by our inexperienced “leader”.

Posted by: tjp612 | December 14, 2009, 7:37 pm 7:37 pm

jwh539, i suggest you see thomas sowell’s work, housing boom and bust. he lays out all the bad actors in the housing crisis (gov.t, banks, etc). the markets could have sorted this out or avoided this if the community reinvestment act had not happened. and then if greed had not overtaken the parties (bankers, loanees, etc). and it would have righted itself if politicians seeking political power and prestige had not stepped up the pressure to loan, a la acorn. and…on it goes. it’s not as simple as you suggest. and yes, the market WOULD have righted this because given market factors a high percentage of the risky loans that were made never would have gone on the books in the first place.
PS thanks for not calling me names. I see that you tend to do that sometimes about conservatives. appreciate the civility.

Posted by: kelli | December 14, 2009, 9:38 pm 9:38 pm

amazing how Acorn forced the banks to come up with guaranteeing and ‘insuring’ worthless assets and knowingly not enough money to cover the ‘insurance’

Posted by: Trip | December 14, 2009, 10:36 pm 10:36 pm

this arrogant punk Robert Gibbs
Posted by: tjp612
rightwingers are very talented at name calling, but they are a demonstrated failure as a political party

Posted by: IOU nothing | December 14, 2009, 10:39 pm 10:39 pm

Kelli, it is very hard right now to not start calling you names, when you make ignorant comments like “the markets could have sorted this out or avoided this if the community reinvestment act had not happened”.
It is well known that very little of the questionable lending had to do with the CRA. In fact, only one of the top 25 subprime lenders was covered by the CRA.

Posted by: Flash Override | December 14, 2009, 11:57 pm 11:57 pm

flash override, i recommend thomas sowell’s housing boom and bust. it’s a thorough treatment of the case for how we got here.

Posted by: kelli | December 15, 2009, 5:26 am 5:26 am

Leave a Reply

Do you have more information about this topic? If so, please click here to contact the editors of ABC News.