Today’s Q’s for O’s WH – 7/14/2010
EmailTAPPER: There have been complaints from independent marine researchers that NOAA is hoarding information as it relates to the Gulf, the spill in the Gulf, and that it…
GIBBS: Hoarding what types of information?
TAPPER: Data about how bad the spill is, the environmental damage, any other data that NOAA has.
GIBBS: I'd be happy to look at some of these things. I have not — NOAA has been actively involved in subsea testing. They are — obviously have been heavily involved in monitoring the movement of the oil. They monitor — they have monitored currents like the loop current. They have very actively involved in — in our response effort. And I have not seen that type of information.
TAPPER: On a theoretical level, shouldn't they be sharing that information with the public and with independent researchers? Or is it proprietary and only belongs to them?
GIBBS: I don't — again, I'm happy to look at what — what people think that is not being shared that should be. Again, Dr. Lubchenco and others at NOAA have again been very actively involved in this. They're part of and have been an active part of things like the flow rate group. I don't — again, I'm previously unaware that there was concern by some that they weren't getting information.
(CROSSTALK)
TAPPER: … OK, so I understand you're not familiar with these details, but on a theoretical level, shouldn't organizations like NOAA share as much data as they can with the public and with…
(CROSSTALK)
GIBBS: I'm not trying to be obstinate, I just don't — I don't — I'm happy to look at complaints that that's not happening. I'm not under the impression that NOAA's hoarding data.
TAPPER: Do you have any response to the complaint from the Chamber of Commerce today — here's just one excerpt. Tom Donohue said, "Taken collectively, the regulatory activity now under way is so overwhelming and beyond anything we've ever seen that we risk moving this country away from a government of the people to a government of regulators."
GIBBS: I think it is ironic to make a statement like that as companies report, as Intel did today, record sales; when corporate profits are up 65 percent from where they were two years ago. Look, the Chamber of Commerce has a different approach to certain issues, but we have different responsibilities. The president — we have not in any way instituted a regulatory structure that is in danger of doing anything like that. Again, many of the things that they talked about in their letter that they sent were how do you have tax cuts for economic growth; 25 different tax cuts were contained in the Recovery Act.
The notion that they would like to see increased investment in infrastructure is something that the president has talked about for years. So I'm — I don't — I don't think that what — I don't think what they're saying in that letter squares very well with what's going on in — in the business world in this country right now. Is business investment based on the fragility of the economy? Is it governed by that? Of course. But I don't think that that is — it's certainly not a surprising thing.
TAPPER: Last question. Some Republicans in Congress are complaining about the Recovery Act signs They're saying that that's a waste of millions of dollars and should be better spent. Does the White House have any response?
GIBBS: Better spent?
TAPPER: On…
GIBBS: Recovery projects?
TAPPER However you want to better spend it, but they're saying it's wasteful, all this…
GIBBS: I — I — I think — look, I'm glad that Republicans have noticed the — several — the nearly 11,000 road projects that are underway this summer. We have encouraged states to let people know how their tax money is being spent. Some post signs, some don't. I believe that as a matter of spending, those signs account for about 3 cents out of every $100 that is spent on the recovery.
- Jake Tapper
Biden Reflects on Grief, Suicidal Thoughts 
Is Congress Sounding Dumber?
Amazing, isn’t it? Robert Gibbs cannot directly answer a question on policy unless he “checks with someone” or says “I’ll direct you to…” or the ever famous “I’ll get back to you”. YET, when asked about wasteful spending on stimulus signs, he knows EXACTLY how much per $100 of recovery money is being spent on them. Talk about having your script ready for action. It’s a shame we can’t have straight talk on the hard questions.
Posted by: Shoe | July 14, 2010, 3:29 pm 3:29 pm
Outrageous. As an example of a ‘small’ business, Gibbs brings up the largest business of all: Intel. The misdirection is intentional, and inexcusable.
Apparently Gibbs has no decent examples of small business ‘success’ that have not been funded exclusively by the taxpayers and not the private sector. Green jobs at $1 million per job — that everyone else in the US will subsidize with their own hard earned money.
We can only conclude that the stimulus was done for the benefit of the government, not the people. Even worse, it was done for the benefit of big business, in particular the banks.
Posted by: Mike, CO | July 14, 2010, 3:47 pm 3:47 pm
and Jake just sits back and takes it as if this radical left wing administration is “normal” so Jake is the one at fault here for letting Gibbs make him look like a kiddo journalist..You notice Jake did not call him out on his lying comments on the NASA outreach program…
Obama VS America
Posted by: Yep I said that | July 14, 2010, 3:54 pm 3:54 pm
This is similar to the video feed issue last month. There were FOIA requests to force the ifnormation out, but it was mainly because NOAA has a set routine for publication of information that it didn’t fall into that the information didn’t get out. Anytime you ask any agency for anything new, its going to take jumping through a bunch of bureaucratic hoops to get the info out.
NOAA has alot of information out along the lines of what Jake asked for, freely available on their website and constantly updated. It won’t have all of the data they collect, but it does have everything they are currently required to publish, and more.
Posted by: Flash Override | July 14, 2010, 3:59 pm 3:59 pm
Mike, CO – since Gibbs DOESN’T refer to Intel or its profits as small business like you claim, I gather you are thinking that the Chamber of Commerce represents small business?
If that is what you think, you are sadly mistaken.
You are the one who brought up small business. On that topic, the reason small business isn’t investing is that the banks are still holding cash to try to clean uptheir balance sheets, thanks to years of little to no regulation.
Posted by: Flash Override | July 14, 2010, 4:06 pm 4:06 pm
The statement:
“Taken collectively, the regulatory activity now under way is so overwhelming and beyond anything …..”
This cannot be CLOSER to the truth. All the business owners I know (about a dozen multimillion $ type) including myself are afraid to invest in anything with the policies being put into place. The next thing that will happen is a new regulation demanding that any company trying to protect itself by hanging onto its cash will be forced to spend it.
The group in DC has no concept of what it means to meet a payroll, have a budget or know how to build anything but debt. November cannot come soon enough.
Posted by: TucsonWilly | July 14, 2010, 4:29 pm 4:29 pm
Flash Override:
Your statement to rebut my post is inaccurate:
“You are the one who brought up small business.”
The Obama administration’s stated priority is to improve conditions for small businesses, so no, I did not bring it up. In his response, there is no question that Gibbs is touting Intel for purely political reasons — to not answer the asked question.
Even you would admit that Obama claims that the stimulus was for small business? When Obama provides examples of success, he has almost always found examples of government subsidized ‘success’. Look it up.
If Gibbs wanted to help the chamber of commerce, and in the interest of progress, he would try to address their comments instead of redirect the question and answer to whatever suits his argument.
Gibbs has always been evasive, but in this case, it is much worse because his answer is purely self-serving.
Posted by: Mike, CO | July 14, 2010, 4:45 pm 4:45 pm
If the independent researchers went to white house dot gov.. they would find the transparency.. that you don’t have underneath the gulf..
Posted by: Dontget818 | July 14, 2010, 4:50 pm 4:50 pm
I deffinately the signs are only worth 3 cents per hundred and the sign for a washington runway extension hiring 17 people cost over ten thousand dollars, one sign! meaning WE must be paying for the war in Afganistan out of the cost of that project.
I have a stem-U-Lust sign for you right here
Posted by: BillSaidIt | July 14, 2010, 4:58 pm 4:58 pm
Trade policy, lending practices and the resulting collateralized securitization started well before Bush.. but in the Democrats’ defense.. the eight years were like addding accelerant to the fire.
Posted by: Dontget818 | July 14, 2010, 5:07 pm 5:07 pm
$192 million spent on Recovery Act signs to promote himself.
A prime example of Obama’s arrogance and total disregard for the hard-earned money of taxpayers.
The economy is in the ditch, people are afraid to spend the money they have, it is a scary time for us “small people”.
And Obama thinks it’s OK to blow $192M on signs! Wasteful and pathetic.
Posted by: kyle | July 14, 2010, 5:09 pm 5:09 pm
Posted by: Charlie | Jul 14, 2010 4:44:10 PM
I can’t argue with that – the 4% to 5% unemployment during the “neo-con” years proves the your implied improvement to 10% unemployment is because of the confidence business has in this administration and congress.
The Dems have been in charge since 2006 except for the White House in 2006 to 2008. Look at what has happened since they gained control.
Since you must be a Clinton fan also, can you explain why there was growth when he was in office when the Reps had control of both Houses from 1995 to 2005 except for the Senate in 2001? The quick answer was he worked with the Reps because he had to and knew he could only get passed what they would approve.
But then again when you have all of the power you blame the other party. When you have the White House and not the Houses you take credit for a robust economy. I really suggest you look at the last 10 years or so before making statements.
Posted by: TucsonWilly | July 14, 2010, 5:13 pm 5:13 pm
I guess making signs .. provides employment ..
Posted by: Dontget818 | July 14, 2010, 5:13 pm 5:13 pm
Nice to see that Obama is using the ex-presidents.
Obama blames all of his problems on one, and whenever he gets into a panic he calls in another.
And to think Obama didn’t choose Hillary for VP because he didn’t want Bill in the White House.
Look who Obama turns to for help.
Posted by: ollie | July 14, 2010, 5:16 pm 5:16 pm
Posted by: bob | Jul 14, 2010 5:18:55 PM
Except for the following I guess you are right:
President Bush issued 17 warnings alone in 2008 about the financial problems that America can expect
from unstable federal housing programs.
In 2001, the Administration warned that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac “is a potential problem”
because “financial trouble of a large GSE (government-sponsored enterprise) could cause strong
repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity.”
In 2003, Treasury Secretary John Snow testified before the House Financial Services Committee that
Congress enact legislation to create a new federal agency that will regulate and supervise the financial
activities of federal housing related enterprises – and to set minimum capital adequacy requirements.
In 2004, the Bush Adminstration warned that GSE’s were under regulated and could pose a risk to our
economy.
In 2007, President Bush called upon Congress to pass legislation to reform Freddie and Fannie.
In March 2008, Bush again called on Congress to reform Freddie and Fannie. He issued another warning
in May: “Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. Yet
Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing
Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to
ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to
refinance sub-prime loans.” (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08)
“Far from being asleep at the wheel or being a bad manager as Speaker Pelosi suggests,” said TVC
Executive Director Andrea Lafferty, “It appears that President Bush has been warning Congress for eight
years that it had a responsibility to reform government-sponsored enterprises such as Freddie and Fannie.
To blame Bush for this current crisis is thoroughly dishonest.”
Posted by: TucsonWilly | July 14, 2010, 5:38 pm 5:38 pm
I believe that as a matter of spending, those signs account for about 3 cents out of every $100 that is spent on the recovery….Well the so called “stimulus Bill was for $787 Billion, Therefor 3 cents on every hundred dollars equals,.$236,099.999.00!!So, two hundred forty million on propaganda signage.How about putting it toward unemployment?
Posted by: pauldia | July 14, 2010, 5:55 pm 5:55 pm
Art, Gibbs said 3cents out of every hundred dollars spent on the recovery. Well the oxymoronic named recovery act was $787 billion and a simple math of .03% is correct.
Posted by: pauldia | July 14, 2010, 6:11 pm 6:11 pm
Posted by: Ben | Jul 14, 2010 5:47:35 PM
OK then its all Bush’s fault. I guess good old Barney, Nancy, Dodd, Reid and the rest of the Dems jumped right in there during the 110th Congress and tried to fix all of those mistakes, correct?
I suggest you look back as far as Carter and blame all of the idiots in DC.
Posted by: TucsonWilly | July 14, 2010, 6:25 pm 6:25 pm
Posted by: pauldia | Jul 14, 2010 5:55:44 PM
Oh, Ben if you read my entire post you will see Bush warned about Freddie and Fannie back on 2001. Yes, there was a Rep Congress but did the Dems complain at what you think is a premeditated crime? Now the Reps are the minority now they can at least try to stop what they don’t believe in. I hear complaints all the time how the minority is stopping “progress”. When the Dems stood by even as a minority back then they gave approval by their silence.
Don’t be a victim of the “terrible” Reps when the Dems are just as bad. You are a victim to both until you don’t count on them supporting you with their social programs.
Posted by: TucsonWilly | July 14, 2010, 6:38 pm 6:38 pm
It’s great that Gibbs picked up on Intel’s quarterly report, but if he would have paid attention to the survey put out yesterday by the National Federation of Independent Businesses he would see that most of us are not experiencing record growth. In fact, a lot of us are still hurting.
If Gibbs thinks its appropriate to use Intel as a barometer of American business, why not also use Warren Buffett as a proxy for the typical American. Using that benchmark, the economy and the American consumer are moving along quite swimmingly.
Posted by: Virtus2021 | July 14, 2010, 10:03 pm 10:03 pm
The state of the economy has a much closer correlation to who controls Congress than who controls the White House. Things looked up under Mr. Clinton when the Republicans took over in 1995. Things when to heck in a hand basket under Mr. Bush when the Democrats took charge in 2007.
Our only hope is for a Republican control in 2011,
Posted by: Quo Warranto? | July 14, 2010, 10:30 pm 10:30 pm
Weird that signs are suddenly an issue when they’ve been around here for~15 mos. Guess pols in DC never saw any.
Posted by: Elle | July 14, 2010, 10:57 pm 10:57 pm