Home > Politics > Political Punch
Political Punch
Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper

« Previous | Main | Next »

Today's Qs for O's WH - 2/4/09

February 04, 2009 4:03 PM

TAPPER: Robert, two questions, one on the stimulus and one on executive compensation rules. On stimulus, Democratic Congressman Jim Cooper said that the White House wants to keep the Speaker happy and the traditional Democratic leaders, but they've let them know privately that they're not interested in all the pork. Have you guys led --

GIBBS: I'm sorry, repeat that question one more time.

TAPPER: The whole thing?

GIBBS: Yeah.

TAPPER: Okay. Congressman -- Democratic Congressman Jim Cooper of Tennessee --

MR. GIBBS: Right.

TAPPER: -- recently said that the White House wants to keep the Speaker happy and the traditional Democratic leaders, but they've let them know the privately -- the White House has let the Democrats in the House know privately they're not interested in all the pork. Has the White House conveyed to the Democratic leaders in Congress that you're not interested in all the pork? And then I have a follow- up.

GIBBS: Well, I think the president continues to meet with members of both parties to try to get the very strongest bill possible. I think he said yesterday in these interviews that no doubt that this legislation will undergo changes in order to get the strongest bill possible. I'm not going to get into private conversations -- every private conversation the president has, but suffice to say he wants a bill that will get the economy moving again and get the strongest bill possible.

TAPPER: Okay. And about the executive compensation rules. The Merrill Lynch bonuses, the CitiGroup jet, the Wells Fargo retreat, these rules would not prevent any of those from happening.

GIBBS: I think that -- and I will get ultimate clarification on this from Treasury officials, but there are provisions in the rules that ensure that some of the items that you mentioned are disclosed or are transparent. And I think in each one of the instances -- you mentioned jets, you mentioned the --

TAPPER: The retreat -- the Wells Fargo retreat, the Merrill Lynch bonuses.

GIBBS: Right.

TAPPER: The point is, you're saying that the transparency will --

GIBBS: Well, I think -- I have to check on the Merrill Lynch bonuses, but CitiGroup's jet, for a planned jet purchase, and the Wells Fargo retreat at the Wynn, both didn't happen because of the diligent work of many in the reporting of these and the outcry that ensued. You don't have to have a rule or a regulation to ensure that the American people know what to get mad at. You don't need a regulation to have that transparency and accountability put pressure on the actions of companies and executives that change their actions. That's why the president put forward and talked about today a provision that gives shareholders an active voice in the pay and the compensation structure of the companies with which they hold stock. You know, 24 hours ago, we were talking about this retreat at the Wynn for Wells Fargo. The reason we're not actively talking about that today is because that outcry, without a regulation, killed the retreat, that by doing -- by having that accountability and that transparency, by putting those expenditures up on a website, for the news media and for the American public to see, I think, will have a great impact on the behavior of many in business.

-- jpt

February 4, 2009 in Today's Qs for Obama's WH | Permalink | Share | User Comments (8)

User Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Ryan_C and I agree? That's pretty crazy :)

Good job Jake. Your questions remind me of James Earl Jones in the movie Conan, when he has that bow and snake arrow and says "seeeek" when he releases the arrow.

Posted by: KR | Feb 5, 2009 10:37:14 AM

"Great questions - stay on them!"

I really have to agree.

And I appreciate you posting your questions and answers here.

Posted by: Ryan C | Feb 4, 2009 10:24:21 PM

Simply put, he danced around the question.

This is definitely 'change we can believe in'.

Not

Posted by: akcoyote | Feb 4, 2009 7:17:00 PM

Jake,

Great questions - stay on them!

Posted by: Julie | Feb 4, 2009 6:03:52 PM

"The reason we're not actively talking about that today is because that outcry, without a regulation, killed the retreat, that by doing -- by having that accountability and that transparency, by putting those expenditures up on a website, for the news media and for the American public to see, I think, will have a great impact on the behavior of many in business."

This is the same thinking behind Obama's earmarks transparency.

Posted by: Ryan C | Feb 4, 2009 5:38:19 PM

only 12 cents on the dollar is going to stimulate the ecomney..this is a pork bill adn MUST be defeated
Namcy Pelosi does NOT have American interest at heart, she MUST be REMOVED

Posted by: Obama Cabinet of Corruption | Feb 4, 2009 4:35:34 PM

Gibb's response was very clear on transparency superseding government regulation. It's far better to have the American people monitor the allocation and spending online, rather than the feds. I don't blame him for avoiding the bait on Bubba Cooper's claims; no one, no matter their profession, wants to be dragged into the middle of a conflict based on the unsubstantiated.

Posted by: kathy | Feb 4, 2009 4:20:30 PM

"You don't need a regulation to have that transparency and accountability put pressure on the actions of companies and executives that change their actions."

Oh man, is he going to get slapped for that! No regulation to have transparency and accountability? Wow... you mean... market forces are more powerful than... government regulations?

That's just crazy talk. Give me more big government and regulations!

Posted by: KR | Feb 4, 2009 4:08:48 PM

Post a comment





 

POLITICAL VIDEOS