Political News- Obama Care- Pelosi shuts out public from healthcare bill unveiling- video- eric cantor

30. October 2009 by admin.

Posted in Obama Blog Archives | No Comments »

Political News- Congress passes temporary spending bill- reuters

30. October 2009 by admin.

From reuters- WASHINGTON - A temporary measure that would keep the U.S. government running through Dec. 18 cleared Congress on Thursday, giving lawmakers more time to work on spending bills for the current fiscal year.

The measure now heads to the White House for President Barack Obama to sign into law, presumably before current government funding runs out on Sunday.

It was attached to a $32.24 billion bill that increases the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget by 26 percent.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33537218/ns/politics-capitol_hill/

Posted in Obama Blog Archives | No Comments »

Political News- the 15 sins of Lieberman- huffington post

30. October 2009 by admin.

Read More: Joe Lieberman, Joe Lieberman Health Care, Joe Lieberman Health Care Bill, Lieberman, Lieberman Health, Lieberman Health Care, Slidepoll, Politics News

On Tuesday, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) announced that he might join a filibuster against health care reform. It’s not the first time he’s betrayed Democrats. Below, a slideshow of the senator’s worst turns. Vote for your favorite!

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/27/top-15-lieberman-betrayal_n_336024.html

Posted in Obama Blog Archives | No Comments »

Ny Congressional District- Doug Hoffman beats third party GOP

29. October 2009 by admin.

A movement is starting called the “DTYVA” movement (Don’t throw your vote away).  Don’t throw your vote away on a 3rd party candidate, like the Republican, vote for the conservative, Doug Hoffman.  Here are the top 3 stories as of this morning October 29th, 2009:
GOP infighting over NY congressional race heats up | Raw Story

20 hours ago by Agence France-Presse   Alisa1027 GOP infighting over NY congressional race heats up NEW YORK — Top-level Republican feuding is transforming an obscure congressional election next week into a referendum on the beleaguered party’s direction ahead of the 2012 … Raw Story - http://rawstory.com/2009/ - References

Athens Runaway: The NY-23 Congressional Race: When The Common …

13 hours ago by Jesse   The NY-23 Congressional Race: When The Common Knowledge Is Wrong. Much ado has been made about the NY-23 House Race, and how it’s the “litmus test” for the future of the Republican Party, how it’s the rank-and-file versus the elite. … Athens Runaway - http://jessehathaway.blogspot.com/

New York congressional race featuring Doug Hoffman may be the …18 hours ago by Gary Shumway  
I posted earlier about the New York congressional race between Hoffman (I), Owens (D), and Scozzafava (R), encouraging your participation. The voting is only.
Red Pills - http://www.redpills.org/

NY Congressional Race- 23rd District- Syracuse local coverage- death of GOP- Gingrich doomed http://bit.ly/1dsEg4 #ny #congressional #race

Posted in Obama Blog Archives | No Comments »

6-18-9 Obama News- Jake Tapper and Matt Jaffe report on Treasury Dept challenging SIGtarp

20. June 2009 by admin.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/06/treasury-department-admits-challenging-independence-of-tarp-inspector-general.html

“ABC News’ Jake Tapper and Matt Jaffe report: Officials of the Treasury Department admitted late Thursday that they have asked the Justice Department to weigh in on how much power they have over the Special Inspector General for the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, known as SIGTARP.”

Posted in Obama Blog Archives | No Comments »

6-18-9 Obama News- Inspector General Firings

20. June 2009 by admin.

 http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/06/treasury-department-challenges-independence-of-tarp-inspector-general.html

“The Obama administration’s disputes with government watchdogs do not end with fired Inspector General Gerald Walpin.  Behind the scenes, the Treasury Department is embroiled in a disagreement with Neil Barofsky, the watchdog for the $700 billion government bailout Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP.”

“The dispute was revealed in a letter that Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, sent on Wednesday to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, first reported by the Los Angeles Times’ Tom Hamburger and Peter Wallsten. “

Posted in Obama Blog Archives | No Comments »

Obama News- Featured News Tweets from our Obama Care Network- 6-6-9

7. June 2009 by admin.

Obama News- Video- #Cairo #Speech  http://bit.ly/AHldn President Obama speaks at Cairo Univiersity http://bit.ly/AHldn #tcot #tlot #p2

Obama News Video - 6-6-9- #Your #Weekly #Address http://bit.ly/EDZOv President Obama on #obama #care

Obama News- Video: #D-Day #Speech-6-6-9 http://bit.ly/18Shqi “sheer improbabiity” #tcot #tlot #p2 #obama #news #obama #care #dday #normandyObama News- Video- The #New #GM #restructuring http://bit.ly/ryjQa Obama outines New GM strategy #obama #care #news #tcot #p2

Obama News- Editorial-Capitalism or Socialism? Concordianism- real social justice not controlled by the state http://bit.ly/Cf3st #tcot #p2

Obama News- Editorial- Living in America’s Ghosts- the death of sovereignty http://bit.ly/WMP2C #topprog #tcot #p2 #tlot #hhrs #sgp #gop

China- the new Capitalist Pigs? (sans the freedom, of course) http://bit.ly/Cg4WA #tcot #tlot #p2 #topprog #sgp #hhrs

paulcollier.tv has nude words! http://paulcolier.tv #paul #collier

Weekly Top 20 Tweeters- r u on the list? http://bit.ly/JnutC debuts on Obama News Radio Monday at 9am ESThttp://blogtalkradio.com/ob...

Obama News Daily, Weekly Reports, top 20 tweeters at http://obamacare.tv #obama #care #news

Obama News 24 Hour Tweet Review http://obamacare.tv/obama_c... #obama #care #obama #news #tweets #tcot #tlot #p2 #sgp #hhrs #gop #obamacare

Posted in Obama Blog Archives | No Comments »

6-6-9 Obama News- Video-Obama D-Day speech- “sheer improbability”

6. June 2009 by admin.

Obama News- Video- D-Day Speech

Posted in Obama Blog Archives | No Comments »

6-6-9 Obama News- 65th Anniversary DD remarks

6. June 2009 by admin.

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary
____________________________________________________
For Immediate Release                        June 5, 2009

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
AT D-DAY 65TH ANNIVERSARY CEREMONY

Normandy American Cemetery and Memorial
Normandy, France

3:53 P.M. (Local)

THE PRESIDENT:  Good afternoon.  Thank you, President Sarkozy, Prime Minister Brown, Prime Minister Harper, and Prince Charles for being here today.  Thank you to our Secretary of Veterans Affairs, General Eric Shinseki, for making the trip out here to join us.  Thanks also to Susan Eisenhower, whose grandfather began this mission 65 years ago with a simple charge: “Ok, let’s go.”  And to a World War II veteran who returned home from this war to serve a proud and distinguished career as a United States Senator and a national leader:  Bob Dole.  (Applause.)

I’m not the first American President to come and mark this anniversary, and I likely will not be the last.  This is an event that has long brought to this coast both heads of state and grateful citizens; veterans and their loved ones; the liberated and their liberators.  It’s been written about and spoken of and depicted in countless books and films and speeches.  And long after our time on this Earth has passed, one word will still bring forth the pride and awe of men and women who will never meet the heroes who sit before us:  D-Day.    

Why is this?  Of all the battles in all the wars across the span of human history, why does this day hold such a revered place in our memory?  What is it about the struggle that took place on the sands a few short steps from here that brings us back to remember year after year after year?

Part of it, I think, is the size of the odds that weighed against success.  For three centuries, no invader had ever been able to cross the English Channel into Normandy.  And it had never been more difficult than in 1944.

That was the year that Hitler ordered his top field marshal to fortify the Atlantic Wall against a seaborne invasion.  From the tip of Norway to southern France, the Nazis lined steep cliffs with machine guns and artillery.  Low-lying areas were flooded to block passage.  Sharpened poles awaited paratroopers.  Mines were laid on the beaches and beneath the water.  And by the time of the invasion, half a million Germans waited for the Allies along the coast between Holland and northern France. 

At dawn on June 6th, the Allies came.  The best chance for victory had been for the British Royal Air Corps to take out the guns on the cliffs while airborne divisions parachuted behind enemy lines.  But all did not go according to plan.  Paratroopers landed miles from their mark, while the fog and clouds prevented Allied planes from destroying the guns on the cliffs.  So when the ships landed here at Omaha, an unimaginable hell rained down on the men inside.  Many never made it out of the boats.  

And yet, despite all of this, one by one, the Allied forces made their way to shore — here, and at Utah and Juno; Gold and Sword.  They were American, British, and Canadian.  Soon, the paratroopers found each other and fought their way back.  The Rangers scaled the cliffs.  And by the end of the day, against all odds, the ground on which we stand was free once more.

The sheer improbability of this victory is part of what makes D-Day so memorable.  It also arises from the clarity of purpose with which this war was waged.  

We live in a world of competing beliefs and claims about what is true.  It’s a world of varied religions and cultures and forms of government.  In such a world, it’s all too rare for a struggle to emerge that speaks to something universal about humanity.  

The Second World War did that.  No man who shed blood or lost a brother would say that war is good.  But all know that this war was essential.  For what we faced in Nazi totalitarianism was not just a battle of competing interests.  It was a competing vision of humanity.  Nazi ideology sought to subjugate and humiliate and exterminate.  It perpetrated murder on a massive scale, fueled by a hatred of those who were deemed different and therefore inferior.  It was evil.

The nations that joined together to defeat Hitler’s Reich were not perfect.  They had made their share of mistakes, had not always agreed with one another on every issue.  But whatever God we prayed to, whatever our differences, we knew that the evil we faced had to be stopped.  Citizens of all faiths and of no faith came to believe that we could not remain as bystanders to the savage perpetration of death and destruction.  And so we joined and sent our sons to fight and often die so that men and women they never met might know what it is to be free. 

In America, it was an endeavor that inspired a nation to action.  A President who asked his country to pray on D-Day also asked its citizens to serve and sacrifice to make the invasion possible.  On farms and in factories, millions of men and women worked three shifts a day, month after month, year after year.  Trucks and tanks came from plants in Michigan and Indiana, New York and Illinois.  Bombers and fighter planes rolled off assembly lines in Ohio and Kansas, where my grandmother did her part as an inspector.  Shipyards on both coasts produced the largest fleet in history, including the landing craft from New Orleans that eventually made it here to Omaha.

But despite all the years of planning and preparation, despite the inspiration of our leaders, the skill of our generals, the strength of our firepower and the unyielding support from our home front, the outcome of the entire struggle would ultimately rest on the success of one day in June.    

Lyndon Johnson once said that there are certain moments when “¼history and fate meet at a single time in a single place to shape a turning point in man’s unending search for freedom.”  

D-Day was such a moment.  One newspaper noted that “we have come to the hour for which we were born.”  Had the Allies failed here, Hitler’s occupation of this continent might have continued indefinitely.  Instead, victory here secured a foothold in France.  It opened a path to Berlin.  It made possible the achievements that followed the liberation of Europe:  the Marshall Plan, the NATO alliance, the shared prosperity and security that flowed from each.   

It was unknowable then, but so much of the progress that would define the 20th century, on both sides of the Atlantic, came down to the battle for a slice of beach only six miles long and two miles wide.

More particularly, it came down to the men who landed here — those who now rest in this place for eternity, and those who are with us here today.  Perhaps more than any other reason, you, the veterans of that landing, are why we still remember what happened on D-Day.  You’re why we keep coming back.

For you remind us that in the end, human destiny is not determined by forces beyond our control.  You remind us that our future is not shaped by mere chance or circumstance.  Our history has always been the sum total of the choices made and the actions taken by each individual man and woman.  It has always been up to us.   

You could have done what Hitler believed you would do when you arrived here.  In the face of a merciless assault from these cliffs, you could have idled the boats offshore.  Amid a barrage of tracer bullets that lit the night sky, you could have stayed in those planes.  You could have hid in the hedgerows or waited behind the seawall.  You could have done only what was necessary to ensure your own survival. 

But that’s not what you did.  That’s not the story you told on D-Day.  Your story was written by men like Zane Schlemmer of the 82nd Airborne, who parachuted into a dark marsh, far from his objective and his men.  Lost and alone, he still managed to fight his way through the gunfire and help liberate the town in which he landed — a town where a street now bears his name.   

It’s a story written by men like Anthony Ruggiero, an Army Ranger who saw half the men on his landing craft drown when it was hit by shellfire just a thousand yards off this beach.  He spent three hours in freezing water, and was one of only 90 Rangers to survive out of the 225 who were sent to scale the cliffs.

And it’s a story written by so many who are no longer with us, like Carlton Barrett.  Private Barrett was only supposed to serve as a guide for the 1st Infantry Division, but he instead became one of its heroes.  After wading ashore in neck-deep water, he returned to the water again and again and again to save his wounded and drowning comrades.  And under the heaviest possible enemy fire, he carried them to safety.  He carried them in his own arms. 

This is the story of the Allied victory.  It’s the legend of units like Easy Company and the All-American 82nd.  It’s the tale of the British people, whose courage during the Blitz forced Hitler to call off the invasion of England; the Canadians, who came even though they were never attacked; the Russians, who sustained some of the war’s heaviest casualties on the Eastern front; and all those French men and women who would rather have died resisting tyranny than lived within its grasp.   

It is the memories that have been passed on to so many of us about the service or sacrifice of a friend or relative.  For me, it is my grandfather, Stanley Dunham, who arrived on this beach six weeks after D-Day and marched across Europe in Patton’s Army.  And it is my great uncle who was part of the first American division to reach and liberate a Nazi concentration camp.  His name is Charles Payne, and I’m so proud that he’s with us here today.   

I know this trip doesn’t get any easier as the years pass, but for those of you who make it, there’s nothing that could keep you away.  One such veteran, a man named Jim Norene, was a member of the 502nd Parachute Infantry Division of the 101st Airborne.  Last night, after visiting this cemetery for one last time, he passed away in his sleep.  Jim was gravely ill when he left his home, and he knew that he might not return.  But just as he did 65 years ago, he came anyway.  May he now rest in peace with the boys he once bled with, and may his family always find solace in the heroism he showed here. 

In the end, Jim Norene came back to Normandy for the same reason we all come back.  He came for the reason articulated by Howard Huebner, another former paratrooper who is here with us today.  When asked why he made the trip, Howard said, “It’s important that we tell our stories.  It doesn’t have to be something big¼just a little story about what happened — so people don’t forget.”

So people don’t forget.   

Friends and veterans, we cannot forget.  What we must not forget is that D-Day was a time and a place where the bravery and the selflessness of a few was able to change the course of an entire century.  At an hour of maximum danger, amid the bleakest of circumstances, men who thought themselves ordinary found within themselves the ability to do something extraordinary.  They fought for their moms and sweethearts back home, for the fellow warriors they came to know as brothers.  And they fought out of a simple sense of duty — a duty sustained by the same ideals for which their countrymen had once fought and bled for over two centuries.

That is the story of Normandy — but also the story of America; of the Minutemen who gathered on a green in Lexington; of the Union boys from Maine who repelled a charge at Gettysburg; of the men who gave their last full measure of devotion at Inchon and Khe San; of all the young men and women whose valor and goodness still carry forward this legacy of service and sacrifice.  It’s a story that has never come easy, but one that always gives us hope.  For as we face down the hardships and struggles of our time, and arrive at that hour for which we were born, we cannot help but draw strength from those moments in history when the best among us were somehow able to swallow their fears and secure a beachhead on an unforgiving shore.

To those men who achieved that victory 65 years ago, we thank you for your service.  May God bless you, and may God bless the memory of all those who rest here.  (Applause.)

                          END                   4:09 P.M. (Local) 

Posted in Obama Blog Archives | No Comments »

6-6-9 Obama News- Your Weekly Address- The President Addresses HealthCare- ObamaCare unveiled

6. June 2009 by admin.

Find more videos like this on obama

 

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary
________________________________________________________________________________
EMBARGOED UNTIL 6:00 AM ET,                                    SATURDAY, June 6, 2009

WEEKLY ADDRESS: President Obama Outlines Goals for Health Care Reform
WASHINGTON – In his weekly address, President Barack Obama described his goals for fixing our broken health care system.  With skyrocketing costs threatening fiscal collapse, real reform that provides quality, affordable health care for every American is a necessity that cannot wait.  To do this, reform must be built on lowering costs, improving quality, and protecting consumer choice so people who are happy with their coverage can keep it.

The full audio of the address is HERE. The video can be viewed online at www.whitehouse.gov.

Remarks of President Barack Obama
Weekly Address
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Over the past few days, I’ve been traveling through the Middle East and Europe working to renew our alliances, enhance our common security, and propose a new partnership between the United States and the Muslim world.

But even as I’m abroad, I’m firmly focused on the other pressing challenges we face – including the urgent need to reform our health care system.  Even as we speak, Congress is preparing to introduce and debate health reform legislation that is the product of many months of effort and deliberation.  And if you’re like any of the Americans I’ve met across this country who know all too well that the soaring costs of health care make our current course unsustainable, I imagine you’ll be watching their progress closely.

I’m talking about the families I’ve met whose spiraling premiums and out-of-pocket expenses are pushing them into bankruptcy or forcing them to go without the check-ups or prescriptions they need.  Business owners who fear they’ll be forced to choose between keeping their doors open or covering their workers.  Americans who rightly worry that the ballooning costs of Medicare and Medicaid could lead to fiscal catastrophe down the road.

Simply put, the status quo is broken.  We cannot continue this way.  If we do nothing, everyone’s health care will be put in jeopardy.  Within a decade, we’ll spend one dollar out of every five we earn on health care – and we’ll keep getting less for our money.

That’s why fixing what’s wrong with our health care system is no longer a luxury we hope to achieve – it’s a necessity we cannot postpone any longer.

The growing consensus around that reality has led an unprecedented coalition to come together for change.  Unlike past attempts at reforming our health care system, everyone is at the table – patient’s advocates and health insurers; business and labor; Democrats and Republicans alike.

A few weeks ago, some of these improbable allies committed to cut national health care spending by two trillion dollars over the next decade.  What makes this so remarkable is that it probably wouldn’t have happened just a few short years ago.  But today, at this historic juncture, even old adversaries are united around the same goal: quality, affordable health care for all Americans.

Now, I know that when you bring together disparate groups with differing views, there will be lively debate.  And that’s a debate I welcome.  But what we can’t welcome is reform that just invests more money in the status quo – reform that throws good money after bad habits.

We must attack the root causes of skyrocketing health care costs.  Some of these costs are the result of unwarranted profiteering that has no place in our health care system, and in too many communities, folks are paying higher costs without receiving better care in return.  And yet we know, for example, that there are places like the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, and other institutions that offer some of the highest quality of care in the nation at some of the lowest costs in the nation.  We should learn from their successes and promote the best practices, not the most expensive ones.  That’s how we’ll achieve reform that fixes what doesn’t work, and builds on what does.

This week, I conveyed to Congress my belief that any health care reform must be built around fundamental reforms that lower costs, improve quality and coverage, and also protect consumer choice.  That means if you like the plan you have, you can keep it.  If you like the doctor you have, you can keep your doctor, too.  The only change you’ll see are falling costs as our reforms take hold.

I also made it very clear to Congress that we must develop a plan that doesn’t add to our budget deficit.  My budget included an historic down payment on reform, and we’ll work with Congress to fully cover the costs through rigorous spending reductions and appropriate additional revenues.  We’ll eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse in our health care system, but we’ll also take on key causes of rising costs – saving billions while providing better care to the American people.

All across America, our families are making hard choices when it comes to health care.  Now, it’s time for Washington to make the right ones.  It’s time to deliver.  And I am absolutely convinced that if we keep working together and living up to our mutual responsibilities; if we place the American people’s interests above the special interests; we will seize this historic opportunity to finally fix what ails our broken health care system, and strengthen our economy and our country now and for decades to come.

Posted in Obama Blog Archives | No Comments »

Sponsor Ad

5. June 2009 by admin.

Posted in Obama Blog Archives | No Comments »

6-3-9 Obama News- Statement by the President on Senator McCain’s speech about a world without nuclear weapons

4. June 2009 by admin.

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary
_______________________________________________________
For Immediate Release                              June 3, 2009

Statement by the President on Senator McCain’s speech about a world without nuclear weapons
I welcome Senator McCain’s important statement on President Reagan’s legacy and the need to move toward a world free of nuclear weapons.  In my speech in Prague, I outlined my agenda for keeping the American people safe from the dangers posed by nuclear weapons, and I am grateful to John McCain for his leadership on these critical issues.  I have outlined an ambitious strategy for promoting arms control and preventing nuclear terrorism and proliferation, which is already bearing fruit.  I look forward to working with Senator McCain and the entire Congress to ensure that we accomplish these goals together for the American people and the security of the entire planet.

Posted in Obama Blog Archives | No Comments »

6-3-9 Obama News- White House Press Briefing- Robert Gibbs- Obama Mideast trip

4. June 2009 by admin.

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary
(Riyadh, Saudi Arabia)

_________________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release                                                         June 3, 2009

PRESS BRIEFING
BY PRESS SECRETARY ROBERT GIBBS,
SPEECHWRITER BEN RHODES,
AND DEPUTY NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR
FOR STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS DENIS McDONOUGH

Marriott Filing Center
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
7:20 P.M (Local)

MR. GIBBS:  Thank you guys for coming.  We’ll do this in a couple of different waves.  First I will have Ben Rhodes come up and walk you guys through a little bit of the structure of the President’s speech tomorrow, with a full understanding that the  President is still working on the text.  Next we’ll have Denis McDonough walk you through a readout of the President’s meeting with King Abdullah today.  And then at the conclusion of that we’ll take some questions.

Ben.

MR. RHODES:  Thanks.  Well, as Robert said, the President is still working on the final text of the speech, so we’ll get that when we have it.  But he tends to work on these things to the wire.

Just to talk a little bit about what the structure of the speech is — the President really sees this as an opportunity to continue a dialogue he’s had since his inauguration — you saw that in his Al Arabiya interview, in his Nowruz message, in his speech in Turkey, among other things — to really start a new chapter of engagement between the United States and Muslim world.

Now, the foundation of that engagement as he sees it is the ability to engage each other on the basis of mutual respect and mutual interests.  And in that light, he feels it’s important to speak very openly and candidly about the very full range of issues that have caused some tensions between the United States and the Muslim world, and then also present a great deal of opportunity for partnership in the future.

To begin with, I think he’ll take on directly some of the misperceptions that may have emerged as well as some of the differences that have emerged.  I think he’ll acknowledge the need for us to get to know each other better.  As he has said, he’ll, for instance, discuss the relationship between Islam and America within America, particularly in light of the contributions of American Muslims.

But then what he will do is really go through in a very thorough way a broad range of issues that have been at the forefront of the agenda:  violent extremism and the threat that it poses, and what America has done in response; the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan and Pakistan and what we’re doing there, and what we hope to do in the future in partnership with Afghans and Pakistanis.  He’ll discuss Iraq, both what we have done there and what we are doing in the future, again, to transition to Iraqi responsibility for Iraq.  He’ll discuss of course the Israeli-Palestinian issue and the broader Arab-Israeli issue, and acknowledging the fact that this has been a very important source of tension and passion for people of all faiths within this region and around the world, and he will discuss in some detail his view of the conflict and what needs to be done to resolve it. He will discuss both what that means in terms of Israelis and Palestinians and the United States and the Arab states, as well.

Then there’s a broader set of issues that have also been — or presented both causes for tension in the past but partnership in the future that have to do with areas such as democracy, human rights, and related issues to that.  And so I think you’ll see a forthright discussion in those areas.

And finally, though, the President is very committed to the positive partnerships that can be developed not just on the issues that I just discussed, where he thinks there’s actually a very broader convergence of interests than has often been acknowledged or is often reflected in the debate, but also on issues that really matter in people’s lives, in terms of economic development, in terms of education, in terms of health, in terms of science and technology; and the fact that as he said in Turkey, this can’t just be what we’re against; it has to be what we’re for and what we can do together.  And I think you’ll see some concrete steps towards developing partnerships in these areas so that we can deepen engagement between the United States and Muslim communities, and point towards opportunity for all of our people.

And so that’s really the broad framework of the speech.  There’s obviously a lot more that will be contained within that. There’s a lot — I don’t want to preview the details of what he’ll say on some of these more pressing challenges.  I’ll obviously leave that to him; he’s far more equipped to do it.  But that gives you a sense of it.

And there’s been some interest in the process of the speech. The President has obviously been focused on the speech for a long time, dating back to the campaign.  I will again, though, highlight that he’s been focused on it as a part of an engagement, not an engagement in and of itself.  So this is one step, not the final step.  There will be further communication to come, just as we’ve already done a number of things.

But in terms of this speech, what he was very clear with us was to cast a wide net both within the U.S. government and outside of the U.S. government.  So we talked to a broad range of experts in the government, but also in Washington and beyond.  He was very adamant that that include Muslim Americans; there’s a great number of Muslims who work in very important positions in the U.S. government on some of these issues.  And he got engaged in this at a very early point and has basically provided all of the vision for what should be in the speech and a lot of the content.  And for the last week he’s really just been frequently holed up with his draft and editing it very heavily.

So we’ve benefitted from a broad range of views; we know the interest that is in the speech and we believe that we’ve reached out and tried to hear from and understand a lot of the views that are out there.  But at the end of the day, the President has personally also been very invested in this, and I think you’ll see that in the speech he gives tomorrow.

Thanks.

MR. GIBBS:  Let me just bring Denis back in here to give you a readout of the meetings thus far.

MR. McDONOUGH:  Thanks, Robert.  And thank you, Ben.

The President and the delegation arrived in Saudi Arabia this afternoon at the airport and were greeted by a full official welcoming ceremony.  From that we went to a series of delegation meetings, one at the airport very briefly, and then another at His Majesty’s Farm.  The meetings there consisted of a delegation meeting followed by a working lunch, including the entire delegation; then another short delegation meeting that was covered by the pool that I think you all saw.  And then after a short break, the President and His Majesty went into a meeting, one on one, which I just confirmed is still going.

So obviously, as Robert suggested over the course of the last couple of days, the purpose of the visit is to stop in and see a very strategic and critical ally of the United States, to discuss a range of issues as it relates to energy, as it relates to Middle East peace, as it relates to Iran and other matters, and as much as anything, to underscore our shared interests in the region, as well, as Ben just talked about, the continuing effort the President has been undertaking here since the inauguration to reenergize a dialogue with the Muslim world.

The one thing I can report — I’ll be able to report more I think after we have a readout once the meeting finished, but it did start at about 5:00 p.m. and I think now it’s 7:30 p.m. or so local, so it still continues, and we’ll give you a further readout on that when it finishes up.

MR. RHODES:  I should just add one more thing.  As I went through the checklist in my head — and it’s really tough when Denis comes up here and I realize how short I must be at this podium — but Iran, he’ll also discuss the issues of nuclear proliferation and our ongoing efforts to engage the Islamic Republic of Iran on those issues.

MR. GIBBS:  So with that we’ll take a few questions.  Yes, ma’am.

Q    I have one for Ben and one for Denis, if that’s okay.

MR. GIBBS:  Sure.

Q    Ben, when you talked about how the President is going to talk in some detail about what each of the parties should do in Mideast peace, does that mean that he’s going to talk specifically about settlements with respect to Israel and the Arab states, giving more money to the Palestinians, and get down in the weeds like that?

MR. RHODES:  I mean, what I’d say is, without, again, preempting the speech, the key issue is that the fundamental issues that have been at the core of the conflict are ones that he will address.  You know, he’s addressed settlements in recent days; he’s addressed the question of the role of the Arab states; the obligations, frankly, of all sides.  So what you’ll see is a robust discussion of how to make progress and how to finally break this stalemate.

And with that, I’ll let his words tomorrow speak for themselves.  He’s not, as we said, presenting any detailed plan, but he is addressing, again, in a very robust way, what he thinks needs to be done on all sides, and also, frankly, just how he personally views the conflict.  So with that, I think I’ll leave the rest for tomorrow.

Q    How is that not a plan, though?  I mean, what’s the distinction in his mind between talking specifically about what each side should do and talking about a plan for peace?

MR. RHODES:  Well, again, without getting into too much, some of these things are things that have already been agreed to; they’re things that are responsibilities that — under the road map, for instance.  So that’s how I would draw that distinction. I mean, in a sense that these responsibilities will lead to peace, he will be addressing how to achieve peace.  In the sense that he’s going to revise dramatically those responsibilities, that’s what I’d put aside.

Q    And then quickly for Denis.  Did the President make any progress or raise with the King the issue of working on Taliban extremism in Pakistan and the issue of the Yemenis at Guantanamo?

MR. McDONOUGH:  Again, I don’t want to prejudge.  We haven’t had a chance to debrief with the President since the meeting is still going on, but those were certainly among the issues that he was intending to address.

The bottom line I think — and this goes to Ben’s question  — and the speech — is, just your question, Jennifer, underscore — your questions underscore that this is a very broad dialogue that the President is going to continue to engage in in the speech in Cairo tomorrow; that it started with his first televised interview being with Al Arabiya.  It continued obviously with outreach around the Nowruz message; the speech and the student discussion in Ankara and Istanbul.

So this is a very robust and wide-ranging discussion that’s been going on now for some time.  Obviously your question about  — Israeli-Palestinian question and issues is a part of it but it’s not all of it.  And so I think what Ben and the President are working on together is a very robust set of issues that continues a very broad dialogue.  And I think he’s looking very much forward to it.

Q    Does the administration have any reaction to the bin Laden tape and the timing of it?  What does it say about whether al Qaeda has been squeezed by the President’s outreach?  And in Turkey the President said he would present some specific programs on health care, education, and trade for the Muslim community.  Can we expect that in the speech tomorrow?

MR. GIBBS:  Let me handle the first part, and then I’ll turn the second part over to someone else.  Obviously we’ve seen news reports of the message but not had an opportunity to review it in its entirety.  I think the reports we’ve seen are consistent with messages that we’ve seen in the past from al Qaeda, threatening the U.S. and other countries that are involved in counterterrorism efforts.

But I don’t think it’s surprising that al Qaeda would want to shift attention away from the President’s historic efforts and continued efforts to reach out and have an open dialogue with the Muslim world.

MR. RHODES:  Just to your second point, he will be addressing some specific initiatives in areas like health and education and development, and he’ll be doing so from the standpoint, again, of so much of the discussion, when it comes to the set of issues we’ve talked about here today already, sometimes overlooks the kind of tangible issues that matter in people’s lives.  When you discuss mutual interests between the United States and the Muslim world, as the President has, that of course pertains to issues of peace and security, but it also pertains to opportunity and innovation and the ability for people to pursue a better life.

And I think he’s committed to exploring ways to not present — I mean, committed to exploring partnerships; that are initiatives that won’t just be the United States doing something, it will be opportunities for the United States to partner with Muslim communities, Muslim-majority countries,    to make progress on issues like health, education, economic development.  So it’s really a sense of concrete partnerships that can be undertaken to make a difference and to also both increase opportunity for people, but also that’s a key part of building bridges and broadening the engagement so that there’s engagement at a broad level of society and people, and not simply, again, the very important other issues but also the additional things that really matter in people’s lives.

MR. GIBBS:  Before I take another question, there’s one thing I meant to outline in the beginning that I want to just go through for people — I was asked this I believe either yesterday or the day before — but just some of the efforts that our government was undertaking to ensure as many people around the world were exposed to what the President’s remarks tomorrow.  So let me go through a couple of different efforts.

Out of the State Department, callers worldwide can register to receive free text messages of the speech in Arabic, Persian, Urdu, and English on www.america.gov/sms/html.

Q    Can you repeat the languages again?

MR. GIBBS:  Yes, and I’ve got — it’s Arabic, Persian, Urdu, and English.  Callers will receive text messages during the speech and have the option to reply and give feedback to the State Department.  The State Department will collect and post feedback on the Web site that I just gave you.  Obviously this speech will be Webcast on whitehouse.gov.  There will be links to fully translated transcripts of the speech in 13 different languages, which we’ll give you in a second.

In addition to that, I mentioned this — sort of the aspect of social networking — the full speech, the speech excerpts and videos with translations, where applicable, will be pushed not only on the White House’s YouTube site, but on Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter accounts.  And just to give you a sense of the impact that something like Facebook can have, Facebook is the largest social network in Muslim countries, reaching close to 20 million users.  For instance, there’s 10 million in Turkey, 4 million in Indonesia, 1.2 million in Egypt.  We will create a special event page where subscribers can receive text messages and do live chatting during the speech and watch the video online.  And Facebook is doing a promotion of the event in Muslim countries.

And that is obviously in addition to — I know networks in a number of countries around the world are going to show the speech, or plan to show the speech live with real-time translation.

Ed.

Q    Robert, there’s a report in an Israeli newspaper suggesting that the President stopped into meeting with the Israeli Defense Minister at the White House yesterday — I think he was meeting with General Jones.  Can you talk about what he said?  Because this paper is claiming that the President suggested there was some sort of ultimatum that within four to six weeks he wanted the Prime Minister to come forward with new positions on two-state solution as well as settlements.  And there’s a perception that you’re pressuring the Israelis right now, so can you talk about that?

MR. GIBBS:  Yes, let me have Denis –

MR. McDONOUGH:  Thanks, Robert.  Thanks, Ed.  I haven’t seen the report but it doesn’t sound exceedingly accurate.  The President did stop by a meeting in General Jones’ office yesterday for about 12 minutes, discussed a range of issues — I think we sent a readout on that yesterday — that include obviously the Israeli-Palestinian issues, larger Arab-Israeli peace efforts, the role that Senator Mitchell is playing, concerns about proliferation of technology — nuclear technology — and other matters.

But the idea that there was some kind of ultimatum given is not accurate.  The fact is that I think what the President is trying to do is create some space for commitments that have already been made in the road map and elsewhere to be fulfilled. He was very clear on that during the visit of President Abbas last week.  I think those of you who work where we work every day heard that, as it relates to incitement, as it relates to security, as it relates to governance.

And so the President, in that same vein, I think was also clear with Prime Minister Netanyahu on his visit, and in the short meeting yesterday with the Defense Minister Barak, underscored our interest in a range of issues.  But, again, the idea of an ultimatum of that sort is not accurate from the meeting, but not also accurate from what the President is trying to accomplish.

MR. GIBBS:  Jake.

Q    I have a couple questions, Robert.  One, what do you hope the average man on the street in a Muslim country will take away from the President’s speech tomorrow?

And then for Mr. Rhodes.  Does the President plan on mentioning at all his father’s Muslim roots in the speech tomorrow?

MR. GIBBS:  Let me let Denis do the first one, I think, just in terms of the man on the street.

MR. McDONOUGH:  I think you’ve heard the President talk about in the course of the last couple of days that he wants the Arab and Muslim worlds to get to know a little bit more about America, wants America to get to know a little bit more about the Arab and Muslim worlds.  I think the takeaway will be in the best circumstances an audience that recognizes that we, the United States, and they have mutual interests in a range of issues as it stems from extremists who have killed thousands of Muslims — innocent Muslims, just as they did thousands of Americans, including on one day in September when all they wanted to do was go to work; will underscore our shared interest in the dignity of all people, the opportunities that they have as it relates to health and education.

But the bottom line is I think what they’ll hear is, as Ben suggested, a good deal of truth-telling about our range of issues and concerns, as well as our common and mutual interests across the board.

MR. RHODES:  And all I’d say on the other question is simply that the President will be making a broader point that, in some sense — and this relates to what Denis said — in some sense, we’ve let differences drive a lot of relationships instead of the things we hold in common.  And we’ve also let artificial categories emerge — divisions — and Islam in America, for instance, can’t be divided by definition because Islam is a part of the American story through American Muslims.

And of course, the President’s family demonstrates that there are many Americans, as he said in Ankara, who are either Muslim or have Muslims in their families or can trace their lineage to Islam.  So that is a part of a broader point that, again, there’s more convergence of experience and interest than has been acknowledged in the past at times, and that we need to build off of that common ground in order to make progress on this set of issues.

Q    Robert, one question for you, and then one for Denis.  In terms of the outreach that you’ve done to make sure that people hear the speech, obviously this White House has done a lot of that at a number of events.  Would you describe what you’ve done in this case to be extraordinary and above what you’ve done for previous efforts?

And for Denis, could you tell us a little bit just about what the President’s message was on energy and anything you can about the early feedback from the first meetings on that subject?

MR. GIBBS:  On the outreach question, I mean, obviously I think we have a fairly sophisticated, in general, outreach program that uses some of these tools.  But I think it’s very — I would very much characterize the efforts that are being undertaken here as far broader; again, through either setting up special links on these social networking pages to draw — to not just draw people into see the speech, but also to discuss it.  Obviously throughout the world embassies are reaching out to the media in their countries to assure them that translations will be available.  Obviously in I think in bigger countries in the world you’ll see the speech actually broadcast live.

So there’s a tremendous amount of outreach.  I think I would — at this point, too, I think this would be a good place also to caution — and I did a little of this in the last couple of days — and that is, both the President, the entire foreign policy team, and everybody that’s been involved in this speech — I think obviously the speech of tomorrow is important, but it’s also important to realize that this is one of many events in a continuing dialogue that the President believes not only should happen but, in all honesty, must happen to continue to make progress on many of the issues that Ben outlined that the President will discuss tomorrow.

This is not a one-time event.  Obviously, as Ben outlined, there have been points throughout his first few months in office that have noted his outreach.  This is obviously a bit more high profile, but it is part of that continued dialogue that has to take place.  All our problems and all of our outreach efforts are not going to either be solved or culminated in one speech.  And I think that’s the way the President certainly looks at it.

Denis, do you want to do the –

MR. McDONOUGH:  Sure.  I would just — I’ll just piggyback a minute on Robert’s point, I mean, both as it relates to traditional media.  I think what we’ve been struck by is the extent to which there is a demand at our embassies to get access to the speech.  So, for example, as we’ve worked on languages into which we ought to have this translated, there’s been a lot of demand from embassies throughout the Arab and Muslim/Islamic world, which really stretches from Morocco to Indonesia, to have it translated into languages in those countries.

And so there’s a lot interest in it, for the fact that this is a very broad set of issues that people are interested in, but also because it’s been an ongoing process, as Robert underscores. We’ve also learned by doing a little bit here, so we’re identifying new social networking sites like Orkut, for example, which is a networking site that’s particularly popular and accessed in South Asia.  So we’re learning kind of as we go along here.

As it relates to the readout of the meeting, I’m just not going to get into any particular specifics until we have a better sense of how the one-on-one meeting went.

MR. GIBBS:  Chip.

Q    Back on bin Laden, you said that this is largely consistent with past messages, but some of the analysts have said that the language of this that is directed at the American people, threatens the American people, is a step beyond what he has done before, since President Obama has been in office.  How would you — what would you say to the average American who sees or reads these words, and given his history, finds them chilling if not frightening?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, Chip, again, I haven’t had — we haven’t had a chance to analyze the full message.  But I think Americans have seen these types of threats before.  I don’t — from the reports we’ve seen, these seem very consistent with what has happened in the past.  And again, I would reiterate I think this is much more of an effort to upstage and to try to become a part of a story seeking a different way.

Q    Can you give an assurance to Americans that there’s nothing to fear here?

MR. GIBBS:  I can give the American people every assurance that everything is being done to protect them and to protect our homeland, as we’ve done since we took office.

Yes.

Q    There are reports that the U.S. has urged Cairo University to invite members of the Muslim Brotherhood and other human rights groups.  Can you talk a little bit about –

MR. GIBBS:  Yes, Denis can talk a little bit about it.

MR. McDONOUGH:  Thanks for the question.  Thanks, Robert.  The fact is, I think as we talked to many of you last Friday night, that we wanted to make sure that the speech — that the President in his speech had an opportunity to speak to the full range of political representation in Egypt and really across the Muslim world.  So the process by which invitations are made is that we from the States had folks that we were interested in making sure were invited; the embassy obviously in Cairo played a leading role in identifying people to invite; I think the Egyptian government had people that they would like to see — wanted to see invited.

And so it’s hard for me to disaggregate who was — who invited which specific group of people.  I got an email earlier today from somebody asking if we had pressed for the inclusion of a particular group.  I think the bottom line is that the President wants to have an opportunity to speak to the broad range of political representation in Egypt, but really across the region.

Q    — (inaudible) — toward Israel for the countries in the Middle East and the neighbors of Israel?  And what does he specifically expect from them to move the peace process forward? For Denis.

MR. McDONOUGH:  You know, I just want to underscore again that this is one piece of a much broader picture that the President will be addressing tomorrow; albeit an important one, but just one.  But I think you heard it in the President’s meeting with President Abbas and obviously from day one when the — the first day the President reported for duty in the Oval Office, he picked up the call and called the leaders of this region to discuss with them the range of issues that are at play in the peace process.

So specifics, I’m not going to get into many of those, but I think there are some things that certainly make sense, including obviously support for the Palestinian Authority and its ability to extend its writ of governance, support for opportunity for Palestinians and so forth.

So we’ll hear some more about that tomorrow, but we’ll also hear more about that from Senator Mitchell in his efforts, and certainly Secretary Clinton has been leading the charge on this, as well.

Q    Do you foresee the President inviting Muslim leaders, political leaders specifically from Arab countries to America in the coming months or the next year or so as part of his effort to –

MR. GIBBS:  Well, I think that — we’ve already begun to do some of it.  Obviously he’s spoken to leaders on the phone throughout his time, and I do believe — I believe this will be  — this is something that the President will continue to do throughout his time in office.  Again, the speech shouldn’t be seen as a one-time event.  Just as you go from the Al Arabiya interview and now, I think it is very safe to assume that moving forward, the President will want to strongly build on the foundation that has been laid, but to understand that one speech is not enough; that we’ve got much more outreach to do and many more meetings to do.  And I think that will be a focus of his administration.

Let me go to Chuck and I’ll come back.

Q    Robert, back to — it seemed as if you were sort of intimating that you guys think it’s an empty threat.  I mean, how seriously think this threat –

MR. GIBBS:  Well, again, I haven’t seen the whole thing.  I don’t think the rhetoric on the tape seems markedly different from what I’ve seen in the reports, and I don’t think the motives and the timing are all that surprising.

Q    So you’re not being dismissive of it?  I mean, it just seems like –

MR. GIBBS:  I’ll let you characterize what I just said, but it wasn’t a long quote.  I’d prefer just to go ahead and use that.

Yes, ma’am.

END           8:14 P.M. (Local)

Posted in Obama Blog Archives | No Comments »

6-2-9 Obama News- White House Press Briefing- Robert Gibbs- Obama Mideast Trip- Sotomayor

4. June 2009 by admin.

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary

______________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release                                         June 2, 2009

PRESS BRIEFING
BY
PRESS SECRETARY ROBERT GIBBS

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
12:29 P.M. EDT

MR. GIBBS:  Good afternoon, everyone.  Take us away, Mr. Feller.

Q    Thanks, Robert.  Starting with the Mideast trip, specifically the Cairo speech, the President obviously has talked about the importance of improving relations with the Muslim world.  I’m wondering, for starters, how much does the President think he can accomplish with one speech?

MR. GIBBS:  Look, Ben, I think it is important to understand that this is — the President has always looked at this as a process, not as a single point in time.  And I think if you look at the efforts that the administration has undertaken thus far in terms of outreach — whether it’s in interviews, whether it’s speeches, the speech in Turkey — this is about resetting our relationship with the Muslim world.  It’s not about, as I said and I think you’ll hear the President say, we don’t expect that everything will change after one speech.  I think it will take a sustained effort and that’s what the President is in for.

Q    And how do you — how does the White House measure success in something as important but broad as that, this process you’re describing?  How do you know that you’re seeing improved relations in the way that affects the lives of everyday Americans?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, I think you can see — I mean, you certainly — we see public polling that measures the perception of the country throughout the world, and particularly in the Muslim world.  Look, I think there will be a great effort on our part to distribute this through different means, social networking sites, in order to get this in front of as many eyes throughout the world as we can.

Q    I’m sorry, one other quick topic.  With Judge Sotomayor on the Hill today, I’m wondering what your early read is on the types of comments you’re seeing, particularly from Republican senators?  Is the White House confident that she’s going to get a fair shake?

MR. GIBBS:  I think if you look at — I don’t know what in particular, in terms of comments, you want me to respond to –

Q    There’s been both a range about, obviously, the senators wanted to take a rigorous look at her record.  And also particularly Republican senators feeling that they want to do so on their own time table and not be rushed.

MR. GIBBS:  Well, let’s take a couple of points.  I think first of all, obviously we believe that she will get a fair shake and a fair set of hearings.  I think the meetings that she’s had thus far have been productive.  She’ll see others throughout the day, including Senator McConnell I think a little bit after lunch here.

So I do think that that almost universally the comments have been, I think, productive.  I think it’s obvious that Republicans understand and take their duties as it relates to the Supreme Court extremely seriously, as one would expect.

I would say a couple of things in terms of timing.  First of all, we anticipate that her Senate questionnaire will go up at some point this week.  And I don’t want to belabor this, but if you look at the time frame of number of days between the announcement of a Supreme Court pick and the hearings, for the last nine confirmed justices it’s been 51 days between the announcement and the beginning of the hearing.  For the last four justices — that includes Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, Justice Roberts, and Justice Alito — that has been 54 days.  That would put her hearing sometime in mid-July, which would I think provide a timetable by which the due diligence of senators on both sides of the aisle can be accomplished.

I think what’s important about the timing, Ben, is that we get a Supreme Court justice not simply ready to hear cases at the beginning of the Court’s work in October, but obviously so that that person can take part in the very important discussions in September as the new court decides which cases it’s going to hear.  I think obviously to be part of that process is extremely important.  And given the historical norms of hearings I think that can easily be accomplished, while giving everyone the time they need to examine the record.

Yes, sir.

Q    I have a question about the speech that President Obama is going to give to the Muslim world.  I was wondering, where there will be an economic component to that speech?  Will he talk at all about U.S. interest in increasing trade with countries –  countries like Egypt, Pakistan, that face relatively high tariffs on their exports to the United States?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, obviously, I think some economic component of this you’ll hear from the President.  I don’t want to get into specifics at this point, but we’ll have a little bit longer time to discuss exactly what’s in there as we get a little closer.

Yes, sir.

Q    Give us some guideposts, some signposts other than public polling as to how when you leave Cairo you know that it’s been a successful speech.  The President has given the Turkey speech; he’s had several meetings here with other Middle Eastern leaders.

MR. GIBBS:  Well, look, again, I think our perception in the world is a big measurement by which to look at this.  I think the willingness and to be able to work with countries on our common interests are important.  But I mean I guess I — let me just in some ways caution or hesitate that this is — as I said earlier, the President sees this as a series of events, not something that may or may not be easily quantifiable at any given — or after the end of one speech.

Let’s just say this, I think if the President thought one speech would cure that relationship I doubt we’d be giving that in June.

Q    Have you seen signs already that the relationship has changed with the speech in Turkey and what he’s done here in the past couple weeks, the meetings here?

MR. GIBBS:  I think the President feels like — again, as it relates to many of the problems that we’ve talked about, particularly in this room, we didn’t get where we are overnight and it’s not going to get solved overnight.  I think the President believes using his time and resources on an issue as important as this will pay dividends.

Yes, ma’am.

Q    Does the President have any sense that he feels any responsibility to bring up any issues of human rights in Cairo during his speech?

MR. GIBBS:  Again, I don’t want to get ahead of this.  But I think the President will talk about a series of things that are important throughout the Muslim world.

Yes, ma’am.

Q    I’ve got two questions.  What’s in the questionnaire to the judge?**(see end)

MR. GIBBS:  I think it’s a basic series of — not having been a Supreme Court nominee, Helen, they haven’t given me the questionnaire to fill out.

Q    What does it cover?

MR. GIBBS:  Let me see if we have a copy of — I’m sure there’s a series of financial stuff as well as writings and things like that, that typical nominees have to send up.

Q    My second question is, is this against any international law to annex occupied land?  Is the United States going to stick by its guns in terms of new settlements?

MR. GIBBS:  Helen, I think the President has been clear with everyone where we stand on settlements.  I think the Secretary of State has been clear on settlements.  And I think that message is — the President said no new construction and that’s what we mean.

Q    A General Motors question.  There’s a report that a Chinese company is looking to buy, basically, the Hummer division.  What’s your understanding of what that means or what that will mean for jobs in the U.S.?

MR. GIBBS:  I have not seen that report.  I would have you talk to somebody in communications at GM.  I haven’t seen that report, so I don’t want to comment on it.

Q    A second question.  On the announcement today about the Army Secretary nominee — can you just talk a little bit about the timing of that?  Was there a thought of maybe waiting, perhaps, until Secretary Gates was back in town or — I know he’s traveling.

MR. GIBBS:  He is traveling.  Obviously he’s involved in some important stuff.  The President believed with all that we need to do to protect and to take care of our troops that it was important to get the process of that nomination started as quickly as possible — so nothing out of the ordinary.

Yes, sir.

Q    Health care.  Up until now the White House, the President has been relatively low key, sort of allowing the Senate in particular to develop something organically through the legislative process.  But today you’re having Democrats up here, so I’d like to see if I could get you on the record on a couple of things.  Will the President insist on a so-called public option version to health care?

MR. GIBBS:  I don’t — again, I don’t want to get ahead of where he’s going to be in the meeting.  They’re going to have I think a robust discussion about health care.  And I think you’ll hear the President reiterate once again how important it is to get something done, that businesses — small businesses and families and the government, quite frankly, are being crushed by health care costs; that it is something that I know people have said whether or not we have the luxury to deal with, but many families are each and every day struggling with those costs, our budget is weighed down by a lot of those costs and we have to take steps to address it — that’s part of laying the foundation for our long-term economic growth.

I don’t know how detailed he’ll get today.  I know the President — obviously the President outlined a plan that he thought could accomplish a lot of his goals during the campaign.

Q    The OMB director is quoted in an article today as getting some distance between Max Baucus and himself on the question of taxation of employer-provided health care benefits.  What is the White House position on that issue?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, I think we’ve covered this any number of times in here.  I think we’ve been pretty clear on where we are on that throughout the campaign.

Q    Okay.  Finally, 145 social conservatives have written to the Senate Republican leadership asking them to please use at the least what they term a traditional filibuster to make sure there’s a full and fair debate and so forth, and that the base can be catalyzed, to use their terms.  What do you say to Republican senators who might be inclined to heed that advice?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, look, I think it’s important, building on the earlier question that Ben asked, I think the White House, from quite honestly both sides of the aisle, sees a strong desire to have a fair series of hearings.  We believe those hearings can be done in a time frame that allows senators to do the duty of due diligence and understanding and being able to question the nominee, but doing so that can get the nominee seated in time not just to hear cases, but to take part in the choosing of which cases the court will hear.

So I don’t want to get in the middle of that argument, except to say that I think we believe that we’re making progress toward all those ends.

Yes, sir.

Q    Robert, did Judge Sotomayor consent to the statements by the President and you that she would now use different words in that Latina white male statement that has been out there?

MR. GIBBS:  Again, I think the basis for what I said and the basis for what the President said were the result of conversations that had been had with the Justice — with the Judge, excuse me — and members of the team working on the confirmation.

Q    Is there a possibility she would issue a statement to that effect?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, I assume that she’ll likely get this today, maybe in her meetings, and I think she’ll have a chance to talk to senators about that.  And I have no doubt that the working press will get good readouts from their senators.

Q    On the Reagan Commission today, when was an invitation issued to former First Lady Nancy Reagan?

MR. GIBBS:  I don’t know when it was formally issued.  I know that she’s in town and the President thought it would be a good opportunity to have her take part in that.  I’ll try to find out if we can figure out exactly when it was.

Q    Were you surprised to learn she felt snubbed that she wasn’t invited to the stem cell announcement some weeks back?

MR. GIBBS:  I think the President lauded her active involvement in this issue, Mark.  I think it is safe to say that without her courageous and eloquent voice that the changes that have gone through Congress and that have been proposed by the President would have been much, much more difficult to get.  I think she speaks in real, personal terms about the issue.  I think, like I said, her candor and her courage have been heartening.  We certainly meant no slight whatsoever.

Q    Thanks.

Q    Just to clarify on the Baucus issue.  I know that the administration has said that it’s not part of their plan, but have you said whether President Obama would sign a bill?

MR. GIBBS:  If you can show me the bill that we’re about to sign I’ll be happy to thumb through it and give you a sense of what we like and what we might not.

Q    And a related follow up.  Later this week you’ll — a health campaign is kicking off.  Will there be anything similar for cap and trade?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, cap and trade seems ahead of health care at the moment.  (Laughter.)  I think that you’ve heard the President not just throughout his few months here at the White House, but throughout the campaign talk passionately about both issues.  And I think we continue to be heartened by progress that’s being made in Congress to address how to make ourselves more energy independent and protect our planet, and how do we drive down the costs for families and small businesses struggling with the rising cost of health care.

So I think we’re — obviously there will be — a lot of the President’s time will be involved over the next many months following up on these and other priorities, including financial regulation.

Yes, sir

Q    One on North Korea and a couple on Guantanamo.  There are reports in North Korea that there has been some effort to secure the secession of the current leader of North Korea, Kim Jong-il.  And a U.S. official is quoted on background in a Reuter’s story saying “It’s my guess that the North Koreans are likely to come back to the bargaining table, especially now that it appears that the secession has been secured.”  Does the White House have any overall comment on what appears to be happening in North Korea?  And is that quote I just read to you reflective of what the White House thinks may be happening in North Korea?

MR. GIBBS:  I can check.  Let me see what NSC has on that.  I don’t have anything in particular on the quote relating to secession.

I think, Major, what’s tremendously important is that the administration, and I think all our allies involved in the talks, believe that it’s important for North Korea to take the necessary steps to live up to the responsibilities and the agreements that it entered into; that coming back to the table to have productive talks are important because the actions that they’re undertaking, as we’ve said countless times in the past many weeks, are simply steps that further isolate them from the world.

Q    Does the White House have an opinion as to whether or not these activities that you just referred to at least partly have been motivated or promoted by any battle over secession or internal dynamics within North Korea as part of the understanding it has –

MR. GIBBS:  I don’t think it would be productive for me to speculate on that.

Q    The administration through the solicitor general filed a brief on Friday about the Uighurs.  I’m wondering if you could explain or put forth publicly the White House position on why they cannot be settled here in the United States.

MR. GIBBS:  Well, obviously — let me just go a little broader on this.  Obviously we continue to work with allies and nations throughout the world about the steps that will be needed to close Guantanamo Bay as the President promised to do at the very beginning of his administration.  Obviously there are nations that have taken detainees that have been ruled by judges and courts that they need to be transferred from Guantanamo Bay.  But we continue that progress and continue to try to make progress on that issue, but I don’t have anything specific on that.

Q    Well, the brief appears to link part of the reason they can’t come here to existing U.S. immigration law.  And one of the things I want to ask you about is the President, when he was a senator, voted for the Real ID Act, and there’s a provision in the Real ID Act that says if you were involved or implicated in terrorist activities you can’t be settled in the United States under any circumstances.  And I’m wondering if the White House, in taking a look at this entire issue, has confronted the Real ID Act as a genuine impediment legally to bringing anyone from Guantanamo to the United States and, if so, would it need to take redressive action in Congress to appeal that section?

MR. GIBBS:  That’s a good question that I will check on with the Department of Justice and NSC.  I don’t know if that’s part of what they’ve grappled with.

Q    Will you confirm the reports from the Australian foreign minister over the weekend that the administration has asked the Australians to accept six Uighurs?

MR. GIBBS:  I shouldn’t get ahead of anything that may or may not be official.

Yes, sir.

Q    Robert, is there any particular holdup with the completion of the questionnaire and the delivery to the committee, which was expected at some point maybe late last week, then Monday, and now it’s apparently going to be after today.  I mean, is there anything that’s holding it up and why is it taking so long to — I mean, you guys knew that this was coming.

MR. GIBBS:  Oh, sure.  I don’t know — well, I haven’t filled out one of these for the Supreme Court.  I know just filling out some of these questionnaires simply to get the ID that I possess is not something that you can do overnight.  They’re fairly specific –

Q    — having trouble finding –

MR. GIBBS:  April has pointed out most of them and we’ve catalogued them and — (laughter.)

Q    Thanks.

Q    Robert, just a quick procedural question.  You said that you guys are going to distribute the Cairo speech on social networks.  Are you guys going to be Twittering it?

MR. GIBBS:  No — that’d be awkward, wouldn’t it?  We can’t even get that on the computers here.  No, I think what I mean by that — and we’ll have some more in-depth on this, but obviously our goal is to ensure that the greatest number of people with an interest to see this — not just through newspapers and television, but can see this through Websites, I think it will be broadcast — I’m pretty sure it will be broadcast on our Website and the Internet team here is working with a host of others to get this information to as many platforms as humanly possible so that people will get a chance all over the world to see what the President has to say.

Mara.

Q    I want to try to ask a better question about the inherent conflicts of owning 60 percent of GM than I did yesterday.  (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS:  Take two.  (Laughter.)

Q    If it turns out that GM could make more profits for the taxpayer investors that you represent by outsourcing some of its production to China, even at the cost of maybe losing some U.S. jobs, is that something that you as the 60 percent owner would push them to do?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, again, I think we’re — there are core governance issues that, again, as I talked about yesterday, that the government will take part in as a holder of almost 60 percent or 60 percent of common equity.  I think the major thrust will be basically being involved in a majority of a new board of — a newly constituted board of directors.

But, look, business decisions are going to be made by General Motors.  I don’t want to get involved in making those business decisions for them.

Q    So if they did out-source that would be a decision for them –

MR. GIBBS:  Yes.

Q    I mean, there are public policy goals that the government has and then there’s the goal of making the highest return for the taxpayers as you can.

MR. GIBBS:  And understand this — I spent a little time thinking about this yesterday.  About half the questions yesterday were, you know, good golly, you can’t possibly do that.  And the other half of the questions were, good golly, why aren’t you doing that.

Q    Well, that’s the whole point — (inaudible) conflicting pressures, yes.

MR. GIBBS:  And the goal of the restructuring plan is to get a company that — and again, I think when we got a look at some of the details yesterday of the filings, we’ve got a company that was — these are rough, remembering these figures — I think $85 billion in assets and $172 billion in debt.  One gets a pretty good grasp on why a company is where it is based on those numbers.

Obviously now this is a company that we hope in a short period of time — 60 to 90 days — that emerges restructured, competitive, and without the massive debt that it previously had.  And that they’ll be free to make a series of decisions as a new car company in a new auto world.  And I think our goal and I think their goal, too, as a business is to produce profit for its shareholders.  And I can assure you the President’s goal is to get out of the equity business in auto companies as quickly as possible.

Q    So all of these topics are for them to wrestle with and resolve, not for you.

MR. GIBBS:  Yes.  Yes, sir.

Q    You’re asking for expeditious consideration of Sotomayor, but is there any conflict between –

MR. GIBBS:  Well, I think the statistics that I read don’t — I think the average I wouldn’t necessarily believe is “expeditious.”  I think it is within the norm of what you’ve seen both the last four and, extending back even further, the last nine have gone from announcements to hearing.

Q    Is there any inconsistency between that and both President Obama and the Vice President having voted to filibuster the nomination of Alito?

MR. GIBBS:  No, I — look, I think there is timing for when a hearing starts and then decisions that will be made after those hearings about each judge — I’m sorry, about how each senator wishes to vote on each judge.

Q    Why would they — I mean, it’s a delaying tactic.  So you’re saying that they were still — that he would still believe he was justified in supporting what amounts to a delaying tactic on a previous Supreme Court nomination, while trying to move this forward by the end of the summer –

MR. GIBBS:  Again, we’re talking about — I’m sure we’ll get a chance to traverse these issues at the conclusion of a hearing based on after senators have heard the testimony of the nominee and will render a decision, as they have twice before on this nominee about whether she should be elevated to the Supreme Court.  The statistics that I read I think denote that we believe that from announcement to the beginning of hearings can be done well within the norm, put her hearing probably sometime in mid-July.  And we see the likelihood that Judge Sotomayor can take part in the important pre-term work that the Supreme Court is involved with.

David.

Q    Two unrelated question.  But first, on George Tiller, anything else for the President to say about that, or any actions that he or the White House is contemplating in the wake of that murder?

MR. GIBBS:  No, I mean, I think I would simply reiterate and point you to what the President said on Sunday.  Obviously it’s a shocking crime and it is, regardless of whatever your viewpoint is, no way — no way at all to settle differences, even on something that there’s obviously great disagreement on throughout this country.

Q    And then secondly, when he meets the King of Saudi Arabia, are there any specific human rights issues he’s going to raise?  In particular there are some Saudi critics here who point to the case of two U.S. citizens, two brothers, who were arrested, I believe, in March at some silent vigil, who face punishment there who are, I’m told, U.S. citizens.  Is that on his radar screen?

MR. GIBBS:  I don’t know if that case is something specifically the President will discuss.  We will certainly look into that and have a fairly fulsome readout for you at the conclusion of the meeting.

April.

Q    Robert, back to the speech in Cairo, at the end of the four years, moving forward, what is the hope of this administration from this succession of outreach speeches from the President to the Muslim world?  What’s your hope?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, again, it’s hard to — it may be hard to, in many ways or in some ways, quantify in one term or one figure.

I think what is important is that we demonstrate that the United States wants to pursue a different relationship and ensure that Muslims around the world understand the message of the United States:  that we share common hopes and dreams, and that we can work together to fulfill those hopes and dreams, understanding that there are — separating that from that the extremism and extremists that wish to do us harm.  But I think the great — as the President has often said, we have more in common than we have disagreement about, and I think that’s what he wants to ensure that the vast majority of the Muslim world hears.

Q    And a follow-up to that, is it mostly about hopes and dreams, or more about concrete situations:  economics, trade, things of that nature?  Could you talk about that, too?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, look, I think in many ways it’s both.  I think unless you have — unless we improve economies, it’s hard to have hopes and dreams.  If we have — I think if we don’t have security, it’s hard to have hopes and dreams.  So I think in many ways they’re intertwined in a way that I think you’ll hear the President continue to spell out in his speech.

Bill.

Q    Robert, the Employee Free Choice Act, you’ve got a full plate, but that seems to have gotten pushed aside.  There are some labor leaders who feel that there has not been enough vocal support from the administration on the Employee Free Choice Act.  So two questions:  Is this something the President supports, and is it a priority for this year?

MR. GIBBS:  I don’t have anything new on it from what we’ve — I don’t know when the last time we were asked.  I think you heard the President talk about his support for it throughout the campaign, and it’s obviously one of many things that we will work on throughout our time here.

Q    High priority for this year?

MR. GIBBS:  Let me check.  I believe it is — I believe it is, again, something the President campaigned on and we’d like to see happen.

Yes, sir.

Q    Robert, I have a quick question on Cuba.  How did the White House characterize the decision of Cuba to restart negotiations on immigration?  Is this kind of gesture that the President is expecting for Havana to take for the new face of relations –

MR. GIBBS:  For the migration talks?

Q    Yes.

MR. GIBBS:  Well, look, I think we are — we’re pleased that the government has accepted the invitation to resume migration talks and to engage in discussions about direct mail service.  Obviously they’re in the interest of — we think in the interest of both governments.  I think obviously direct mail service would increase the ability for the President’s initiative to be able to reach out directly to the American — I’m sorry, to the Cuban people and make communication greater and easier.  So I think it’s — the President is pleased.

George.

Q    I’ve got two unrelated questions.  First, do you want to preview any of the wisdom the Churchill graduates are going to — (laughter.)

MR. GIBBS:  No, I think it is important that I not get ahead of the Press Secretary’s speech — (laughter) — later today to — (laughter.)  Why do you want to — you shouldn’t up the pressure on me like that.  I’ve got enough pressure with my cousin in the graduating class.

Q    Oh, okay, I knew there was some reason they invited you.  (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS:  Fair enough.  (Laughter.)  I will point out — George, I will point out that Montgomery County public high schools apparently have not just inexplicably the current Press Secretary speaking, but Scott McClellan and Mike McCurry are also speaking, and so maybe things just happen in threes and well, they needed a third.  (Laughter.)

Q    The second question –

MR. GIBBS:  I’m going to want to see the transcript.  (Laughter.)

Go ahead.

Q    The President’s message to the senators on health care — on the Hill they’re saying that the White House is saying, we want the markups in June, whether you have CBO scoring or not, want public option and want a bill by October 1st.  Is that the message –

MR. GIBBS:  I’m sorry, this is?

Q    On health care.

MR. GIBBS:  Right, but tell me who’s speaking here.

Q    On the Hill, some of the senators –

MR. GIBBS:  The senators are saying that’s what they want?

Q    No, that’s what they’re hearing from the White House.

MR. GIBBS:  Oh, well –

Q    Is that the message of the President?

MR. GIBBS:  Look, I think, without getting into a lot of specifics, obviously this is — we know we have a sense of what the legislative calendar is.  I think moving as quickly as possible to get something done, as you’ve heard the President say, it’s important to get that done this year.  We can deal with a high cost of health care in a way that helps families and small businesses and creates jobs.  So without getting into the specifics on a time table, I think the President is hopeful that it happens as quickly as we can.

Q    On the nomination of Representative McHugh, last year during the “don’t ask, don’t tell” period, he expressed a deep desire to move forward with a review of the policy, and he said, “I would hope and encourage both the Department of Defense and the various services to reconsider the reluctance they have displayed to this point.”  Was a review of the policy something that the President took into consideration with this nomination?  And will Congressman McHugh be encouraged to move forward with talks inside the Department?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, I think it is — I think from — it’s obvious from those statements and other statements that Congressman McHugh has made that he and the President are in agreement on changing a policy they both don’t think is working for this country right now.  And it’s a priority of the President’s, and I think for any number of reasons we have a nominee that we hope will be confirmed quickly and will have –  based on his background and experience, will help to improve the lives of the Army.

Q    Vice President Biden is in New York right now. Last night at a fundraiser he, in talking about Governor Paterson called him a “once and future governor.”  It’s being viewed very much as either an endorsement or certainly a prediction about his reelection chances.  Is that something that’s held — a view held by the White House or was Biden freelancing on that?

MR. GIBBS:  I have not seen the remarks, but let me go see if I can find that, and see what the context is.

Yes, ma’am.  Yes, ma’am, you.

Q    Thank you, Robert.  This is first time I got a chance.  (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS:  Long-time listener — (laughter) — first-time caller, right.  (Laughter.)

Q    On North Korea, do you have an update on two U.S. journalists in North Korea?  Did you hear anything from them?

MR. GIBBS:  The only update I have that I know is that the Swedish ambassador has met with each of the two detained American citizen journalists.  But I don’t have anything beyond that.

Q    (Inaudible.)

MR. GIBBS:  I think that’s been there for a couple of days, but I don’t have anything beyond that.  I can certainly check with NSC.

Yes, sir.

(Cell phone rings.)

MR. GIBBS:  Do you think I should confiscate cell phones at Churchill’s — at the graduation today?  (Laughter.)

Yes, sir.

Q    Two questions.  A fairly general question on the GM issue, with the government actually taking control of 60 percent of a company and putting $30 billion in it, could you explain why specifically the government should be able to do that without direct congressional authorization?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, I think the money is based on Trouble Asset Relief and is related to money that was approved in the prior administration through that program to deal with, as they had in the past administration, we were dealing with loans to cover — basically to bridge the operating costs.

Obviously, you know the history of this, the companies sought additional money and the President believed that their restructuring plans weren’t sufficient enough to meet the requirements of viability.  And he’s asked them to go back.  We’ve seen one company emerge from bankruptcy with a buyer and another company there now.

Q    And if I could follow up on that.  I mean, could such a large-scale, actually taking control of 60 percent of the company, could that be viewed as beyond anything anybody imagined and Congress, when they –

MR. GIBBS:  I can’t speak to what people in Congress believed in terms of their motivations back in September or October when this was being debated.

But, look, I can assure you the President shares any trepidation and reluctance to do this.  As I said yesterday, if the President wanted to run an auto company he could have saved himself two years running for President.

Q    And just one more.  A couple weeks ago John Boehner added his name to, like, 20 or so prominent Catholics asking that the President remove Harry Knox from the faith-based council for comments that he made about the Pope and the Catholic Church; he referred to the Pope as a discredited leader.  Does the President disagree with those comments and is he planning any action on that?

MR. GIBBS:  I haven’t seen that letter, but I think the President is comfortable with the makeup of his faith advisory council.

Thanks, guys.

END
1:02 P.M. EDT

Posted in Obama Blog Archives | No Comments »

6-1-9 Obama News- White House Press Briefing- Robert Gibbs- GM Restructuring

4. June 2009 by admin.

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

______________________________________________________
For Immediate Release                           June 1, 2009

PRESS BRIEFING
BY
PRESS SECRETARY ROBERT GIBBS

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

2:20 P.M. EDT
Q    Robert, was the package that was left inside the gate the northeast gate?

MR. GIBBS:  I simply saw an email that said there was one, but I have not seen an email since then.

Q    You don’t know what it was or — where inside the gate was it?

MR. GIBBS:  It just simply said — I didn’t even know it was inside the gate.  They just said along the gate — was, I think, the email that I saw.  But I didn’t see anything other than that.

Q    Was the First Lady, anyone in that office — it was such a lock-down situation in the –

MR. GIBBS:  I can check, but nobody apprised me of that before I came out here.

Q    Is it open yet?

MR. GIBBS:  Is it all clear?  They got the email and read it; I didn’t.

Yes.

Q    Thank you, Robert.  Leader Boehner said the administration has got to release an exit strategy for General Motors.  Does the President have an exit strategy?  And I know he described these principles that he’s going to follow during restructuring, but is there a timeline for Washington to get out of Detroit for good?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, Phil, as you know, the President has made a series of difficult decisions that lead us to the point where we are now.  And as he has said on many occasions, he doesn’t desire to hold a significant share of, or run on a day-to-day basis, an auto company.

But he does believe that the investment that we’re making — structured in what is in the best interests of taxpayers, and it — we’ll get out of this equity as quickly as possible in order to protect the investment that taxpayers have made.

I don’t know that there’s a specific timeline.  But, Phil, let me broaden a little bit, because — and I did this a little on Friday, but you basically have several different pathways here.  On one side you have a bankruptcy that largely would have resulted in a liquidation — probably 60,000, 70,000 direct jobs lost, not including suppliers or things like that — obviously would have had a dramatic economic devastation in the Midwest region and throughout the country.

I think another side of this was simply to continue pouring money into a company that you knew wasn’t acting in any viable way.  The President decided on a different path that I think made some real concessions in restructuring the company.  You’ll have a company after about a 60- or 90-day bankruptcy that will emerge without a balance sheet loaded down with debt; a restructured company that the task force and the President believe can be profitable in a scenario that sells far fewer cars than what it would take to break even at this point.

So the President is certainly anxious to get out of this business, but at the same time he made a series of tough decisions to stave off something that I think would have been far more economically devastating.

Q    But there is no exit strategy?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, no, no, no — I don’t –

Q    Do you want to –

MR. GIBBS:  Well, maybe I should — I can start all over again.  There is an exit strategy — it’s to get this company viable; it’s to get the economy strengthened so that GM is producing cars that people want to buy; that Americans have the income to buy those cars; to do so in a restructured way that allows them to be profitable more quickly; and then in order to protect the investment that taxpayers have made, we get out of any involvement in the company — that’s the exit plan.

Yes, ma’am.

Q    Robert, I wanted to zero in on the President’s pledge to be hands-off when it comes to the day-to-day management of the company.  And you said the same thing from the podium, but a lot of people are very skeptical that Washington will really be able to resist the temptation to be hands-off.  There’s a lot of decisions that will come up that are politically sensitive, on Capitol Hill and elsewhere, such as which plants are going to close — those types of things.

MR. GIBBS:  Well, a lot of those decisions are being made right now.  Those decisions are being made by the companies.  The dealership structure — those are decisions that are being made by the companies.

Q    But down the road there may be other decisions that have to be made — dealerships and plants and things like that –

MR. GIBBS:  Let me interrupt you for a second.  I don’t think many people ever thought that we could get to this point of restructuring, in all honesty.  I think if you take a look at what was set up by some in Congress in November and December when the very first discussions were going on about bridge loans to cover the operating costs for fixed period of time while GM made some restructuring — I think if you look at some of the standards that were laid out, the Auto Task Force has far exceeded what anybody thought was possible in restructuring.

This is a company that will emerge from bankruptcy in 60 to 90 days with no debt, whereas people were saying, well, it would be nice to have — if we could get to some place that reduced the debt by maybe half.  You’ve got a company that has, I think, a real chance to emerge viable based on some of the tough decisions that have been required.  And I think a lot of those decisions have been made without politics in mind.

Q    But if lawmakers decide they do want to interfere with decisions such as the mix of vehicles and things like that, you can’t prevent them from passing a law.  What are the safeguards?

MR. GIBBS:  I think you’re now into a little bit of a different question.  What if Congress acts to –

Q    No, the question is about interference and meddling the day-to-day operations.

MR. GIBBS:  But let me make sure that I understand your question.  Are you talking about if Congress does that or –

Q    If Congress does that, as well as if Congress asks you to do it.

MR. GIBBS:  Well, look, I think it would be unhelpful to get into a hypothetical on what we would do based on a bill that Congress might pass asking us to do something.  I think that’s a few too many leaps for me to go into.  I can simply say that we will work on core governance issues.  I think one of the ways to get to a viable company as quickly as possible is working on a board of directors, and a serious and stable management structure that moves this company quickly through bankruptcy and quickly to viability.

I think those are the type of core issues that are important as we protect the investment of taxpayers while at the same time, as the President has said, as the task force has said, and lastly as I have said, not involved in the meddling decisions on a day-to-day basis.  That’s never been and isn’t our desire.

Q    Just to probe a little further on the White House, on the administration’s — how much you’re going to be involved in the day-to-day operations of the company — if General Motors wants to manufacture a car that your Auto Task Force — whether it’s Rattner, Deese, or whoever — thinks is not going to be a car that’s going to sell very well, are you going to stop General Motors from manufacturing that car?

MR. GIBBS:  Jake, we don’t make those determinations.  Those aren’t — Brian Deese isn’t picking out Chevy Malibu’s colors for next year.

Q    I’m not talking about the color for next year.  You said that the point is — that the exit strategy to make the company about viable for the GM is making cars that people want to buy.  So are you going to be involved in –

MR. GIBBS:  No, we will be involved in corporate governance decisions such as setting up a board of directors that is going to make those business decisions based on how to get the company the profitability.  That’s what each company — that’s what the board of directors and the CEOs and the managers and the workers of every company we want to be involved in is a viable, strong, profitable company.

Look, now, I don’t want to confuse this, so obviously Congress and the executive branch are involved in — have always been involved in some decisions.   And again, I’m not — I don’t want to co-mingle these issues, but I am separating to some degree — two years ago, Congress set fuel mileage standards that go through model 2016, okay.  Those have been established.  I’ve seen reports that said, well, you know, we may — the Auto Task Force may decide that it’s time to build these tiny little cars that go 40 miles an hour, blah, blah, blah.  Congress has always exercised its purview to set, for instance, corporate average fuel economy standards.  That’s, I know, not what you’re talking about, but I am sort of separating some of those issues so that we’re not in the midst of confusing them.

Q    Right.  I guess my point is, Fritz Henderson said today that the standard is going to be that they’re going to try to build, for their new lines of cars and trucks, ones that are outstanding that people want to buy — which came as a surprise to me that this was some new idea for an auto manufacturer, the idea that they would try to come up with something that consumers actually would like to purchase.  What reason do you have for confidence that United Automakers, the people who have been running these companies, are going to be able to come up with something that Americans are going to want to buy, and therefore, this $30 billion to $50 billion investment is going to pay off?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, look, I think you have seen over the course of several years an auto industry that has seen, regardless of economic conditions, a fairly dramatic decrease in its auto sales, not the least of which is because some of — you know, you’ve seen the reports –

Q    Yes, and they kept on making Hummers and they kept on making junky cars that nobody wanted to buy.

MR. GIBBS:  Well, I think part of the restructuring ultimately is that the Auto Task Force forced some decisions that I think in many ways some of these companies had been putting off for years.  The auto companies have dropped brands.  We’ve all seen that — whereas some people — different companies are marketing only a few different models and using a fixed number of advertising dollars to push them, whereas some of the American auto companies have had 10 or 12 different models.  You’ve seen different companies that have the same car — literally the same car under different names and several different manufacturers, which hasn’t made a lot of sense.  Obviously I think, again, one of the things that’s been done is there is a fundamental –

Q    You’re proving my point.  You’re proving my point.  It’s not like Fritz Henderson just walked in from another company.  I mean, what makes you think that this investment is going to pay off?  Just because they’ve learned a lesson now?

MR. GIBBS:  I think in many ways their previous business model had been very locked in.  I think you’ve all seen the reports today of the serious amount of debt that GM was carrying, right?  When you’re losing that kind of money, it’s hard to undergo some fundamental restructuring without making some very fundamental decisions.

I think it’s pretty clear that the companies have, in many instances, decided that they’ve got to produce different cars; some of those are coming on in later model years.  There are things like the Chevy Volt that I think people believe, based on the high price of gas, based on consciousness about our dependence on foreign oil, can create different markets.  But I think that fundamentally what has happened is a company is free now to make fundamentally different decisions.

Yes, sir.

Q    Robert, have you defined the criteria for the board of directors?

MR. GIBBS:  Not that I know of, but I can check on that.  I don’t know if there’s been a strict delineation.

Q    But, I mean, sort of overriding principles for these people, because they will key.

MR. GIBBS:  Well, look, I think you want a group of people that have been very successful in the businesses that they’ve run; that have some experience in running companies and understand what it means to undergo fundamental restructuring; to operate in a whole different world.  Again, if you look at — I used this analogy last week — you’re going to have to make fundamental different decisions.  Thirty years ago this was a company that employed probably 10 times the number of workers that it does right now.  Obviously, there’s a mind-set change that has to go on, and I think that’s what they’ll look for in a board of directors.

Q    Do you think they have to come from the auto industry, per se?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, no I don’t.  I don’t think that’s necessary, no.  I think that having people that understand how to run a good business means running a good business regardless of what you’re doing.

Yes, sir.

Q    Following up on this, you said the company is now free to make fundamentally different decisions.  But I think the question is what if they don’t?  And adding to that, that the President has an obligation here — if he’s spending $30 billion or $50 billion of taxpayer money, he has an obligation to make sure that money is well spent.  So if they make a decision he disagrees with on a line of cars or anything else, doesn’t he have an obligation to taxpayers to make sure that the decision is a good decision?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, I think he has a strong obligation to ensure that there is a management structure in place that is making smart business decisions.

Q    And if they’re not?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, I think we covered an example about two months ago of the President and the Auto Task Force thinking that GM might not have made business decisions that were so good in the past.

But, again — and this isn’t –

Q    So in other words –

MR. GIBBS:  But, Chip, is the President going to thumb through engineering reports and each page of the annual report?  No.

Q    Well, I’m not asking.  I’m asking fundamental business decisions.

MR. GIBBS:  I’m simplifying this question — (laughter) –

Q    Thank you very much for that; appreciate it.

MR. GIBBS:  — a helpful service I provide from the podium.

Q    But I mean on big decisions — on what lines of cars, what to go with.  What if he simply disagrees and thinks they’re making bad decisions?  And he has an obligation to make sure that tax dollars are well spent.

MR. GIBBS:  Well, the obligation is to find people to manage General Motors, when it emerges from bankruptcy as a different company.

Q    So it sounds like you’re saying the leverage here isn’t in getting in there and changing decisions, it’s if he doesn’t like the decisions he can change the people like he did two months ago.

MR. GIBBS:  Look, I think, again, we will — as we stated in our principles — have a limited role, but vote on corporate governance issues.  I think the President and the Auto Task Force are aware of what’s involved and what’s at stake, and the need to get a strong management team in there that can get this company to viability.

Q    And if I could follow up on the question about Congress — you said it’s a hypothetical, it’s a lot of steps and a  hypothetical, but I don’t think it’s hard to imagine that members of Congress, now that the government owns 60 percent of GM, would start saying, hey, we have a role here and start lobbying GM to build things in particular places or to –

(Cell phone rings.)

MR. GIBBS:  I don’t know where people get these ring tones.  (Laughter.)  Sorry.

Q    — to make other decisions.  I mean, it’s not hard to imagine that Congress is going to start lobbying behind the scenes GM to do things in their states or do other things that they would like them to do.  Will the President get actively involved in keeping Congress’s fingers out of the mix?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, again, I’m reminded that just last week you guys were asking me questions about Congress complaining about not being involved enough and now you’re presenting me with situations where they would be overly involved in those decisions.

Q    They do both of those things.

MR. GIBBS:  Well, I guess I’ll come back on any given week to whichever scenario we’re pursuing at that time.

Q    Okay, Robert, quickly on this exit strategy, is it — will the administration deliver — you talked about, that the President wouldn’t thumb through annual reports, but at this point isn’t the government responsible for delivering annual reports to taxpayers on how this money is being spent?

MR. GIBBS:  I mean, that’s, again –

Q    To see when profitability is hit.

MR. GIBBS:  Well, look — well, I don’t –

Q    I mean, will you report to taxpayers:  Okay, every six months, this is the status of our investment in GM.  And will this be a very public, a regular thing that we’re going to see reported on?

MR. GIBBS:  I don’t know what — other than normal corporate communications that are done as — that every company does, I don’t — I mean, Bill is not going to work for GM — not that I’m aware of.  Do you want to talk to me afterwards?  (Laughter.)

Q    All right, how about this:  Is the government’s stake always for sale, if there is — if it’s to repay — if –

MR. GIBBS:  Well, look, again –

Q    — if somebody — if an investor comes in and comes to the federal government and says, hey, we know you own 60 percent, we’d like to buy some of those shares, and you’ll turn a profit - or you’ll get some of the taxpayer — but right now, is the government’s stake for sale?

MR. GIBBS:  I think if the President was convinced that we had taken the steps to put the company on a path toward viability and that we could recoup for investors — meaning the taxpayers, in this case — their investment in ensuring that GM is taking — continuing to take those steps, the President is eager to get out of any ownership stake in the auto companies.

Q    Not for sale right now?  Nobody can come now?

MR. GIBBS:  If you want to buy it, Chuck, we can talk after this.  I don’t –

Q    No, but you just said, when it’s viable, so obviously –

MR. GIBBS:  Well, look, I think right now, Chuck, if there were a lot of — if today there were a lot of buyers, I think we’d be having a different discussion.

Q    Fair enough.  Quickly on North Korea, Defense Secretary Gates seemed to hint that the United States would hold North Korea accountable if they were involved in trading nuclear materials across their border.  Does that mean nothing is ruled out at that point; the United States would act unilaterally?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, I don’t want to get into, from here, what steps would be on the table or could be taken.  Obviously we continue to watch what’s going on in North Korea.  Again, the many ways their actions were predicted by them by telling us that they were going to do a series of things — and they’ve done those things.

Again, I think, as Secretary Gates and others have said, they’re continuing to take steps that isolate themselves from the community of nations.  We’ll continue to watch, and obviously we’re concerned that — as they work to develop weapons and work to develop delivery systems, you’re always concerned about proliferation.  That’s why –

Q    That’s the red line in this case, more so than what they’re doing?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, look, I don’t want to absolve the North Koreans of any of their actions.  I think they’re all serious violations of their responsibilities and responsibilities that they’ve agreed to.  But obviously I think the greatest concern of anybody would be taking these weapons and delivering them to somebody to use.

Q    And the President agrees with the Defense Secretary that this isn’t a crisis?

MR. GIBBS:  I think that we agree with the Defense Secretary that even as the Defense Secretary himself would tell you, we’re watching the situation closely.  But I think as I’ve said from here a number of times, I think it does not make sense to provide North Korea repeatedly with attention that they desire by making a series of irrational international decisions.

Q    Follow on that, Robert?

MR. GIBBS:  Do you want to follow?  Go ahead.

Q    Just to follow, how personally involved is the President in this issue right now?  Can you tell us how often he’s been briefed on this?

MR. GIBBS:  Let me check.  I want to say they were — let me check on this before I get too far — the schedule from last week, the end of last week blurs.  Obviously a series of meetings have been continuously held off and on for many weeks on this issue.  And the President obviously gets regular updates.

Jonathan.

Q    Robert, are you going to tell us how much the President and the First Lady’s date night cost on Saturday night, and if not, why not?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, Jonathan, I think spokespeople have spoken to this over the weekend that the President would — had he or could he, based on the Secret Service, he would have taken the shuttle, but I would say that the costs are proportionate with travel for Presidents.  And I would encourage you to look up previous coverage on travel costs because they’re analogous.

Q    But is there any President or a President and First Lady who have taken an out-of-town date night like this, not connected to an official or even a political — previous event?

MR. GIBBS:  You’ve got probably more researchers than I do.

Yes, sir.

Q    You’ve got a dozen or so Cabinet Secretaries and others fanning out tomorrow to some of these auto-producing states.  What are their talking points, especially to auto workers who may not be too thrilled to sacrifice for the common good, as the President argued today?

MR. GIBBS:  I’m going to have you talk to Chip.  (Laughter.)

No, look, Peter, in many ways — and I talked about this last week — 700,000 jobs have been lost in Michigan since the beginning of this decade, in a little more than nine years.  The auto industry has seen a tremendous — in a sense, it has seen some restructuring before we got to the point of some serious restructuring, even before bankruptcy.

As I’ve said, GM employs about 10 percent of the people that it employed just 30 years ago.  But I would say to you that the President — obviously the Cabinet, many of the Cabinet, Ed Montgomery, who the President has specifically tasked to deal with communities and elected officials — the President is asking those to go out into those communities to listen, to see what — to make sure that people know what’s available in terms of retraining; in terms of help on their behalf; in making sure that they have the benefits that they deserve.

But what I would also say is, again, the other path that the President didn’t choose is not some losing their jobs, but all losing their jobs.  And the President made some tough decisions to give GM and its workers and the communities it supports a fighting chance to be the GM of old again.

Yes, sir.

Q    On the GM board, will the White House be suggesting names?

MR. GIBBS:  I can check with those guys.  I don’t know whether that’s the case.  I think sort of similar to earlier –

Q    It’s just a question of whether or not you’ll be either appointing (inaudible) and you’ll be voting your slate on the board of directors.

MR. GIBBS:  Well, let me check in terms of whether we have candidates or not.  I assume that we will be involved in finding names of people that we believe — as we have done with other companies that have received extraordinary assistance in both this administration and previous administrations — to find people that we think represent good management.

Q    Okay.  So, just, the criteria will be good management — will there be any bipartisan consideration there?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, I think what you pick on a board of directors are people, regardless of their politics, who can make hard-nosed business decisions and turn a profit — that’s what you want a company to do.  We’re not checking voter registration; we’re looking for good managers.

Q    Robert, I may have missed this.  How many will be on the board of directors?  What’s the actual number?

MR. GIBBS:  I don’t have that number in front of me.

Q    Does anyone — Jen?

MS. PSAKI:  I’ll get it for you.

Q    Okay.  And as I understand it, the administration, the task force, will name or suggest all but two — Canada will have one and the UAW VEBA will have one; the rest will come from the task force.  So the administration, through the task force, will play a substantial role and voice in creating this new board of directors.

MR. GIBBS:  Right.

Q    And will the administration retain the right to remove members of the board of directors, based on GM performance as they evaluated, on behalf of the U.S. taxpayer?

MR. GIBBS:  Yes, well let me just — I will double check exactly.  I just want to make sure that I have going forward.  But I’ll check on that.

Q    Okay.  Now, in the — as this bankruptcy process was put together, the administration was in favor of getting a declaration from General Motors that it will not import for sale in the U.S. market automobiles manufactured in China, correct?  That was part of the deal, and I just want to make sure the task force was interested in –

MR. GIBBS:  I don’t know about that aspect of the deal, so let me — let us check on that.

Q    Was the task force in favor of General Motors committing to the production of a new, small car for the U.S. market to be produced here in the United States?

MR. GIBBS:  Look, Major, I don’t have that level of detail on the deal, so let me –

Q    Well, these were all part of the details that were announced last night, they were part of the fact sheet.  It just seems to me that those are significant decisions made by this new GM.  And it would seem the task force would have had some voice that.

MR. GIBBS:  Well, let me take a look more closely.

Q    And the bottom line of this question is, maybe it won’t have day-to-day operational supervision going forward, but clearly the task force, it appears, was involved in some very significant General Motors decisions relating to the U.S. market:  a product line that doesn’t exist now, that it’s committed to creating — I just want to make sure that I understand correctly that those were task force involved.

MR. GIBBS:  Look, I don’t think it took a — I don’t think it takes a task force to understand that the company has got to make cars that are going to do better fuel-efficiency-wise –

Q    No, I know, but the President in his remarks said that there will be the large amount of U.S. production of vehicles.  The only way you get there is by General Motors committing to make this new small car in the U.S. market.

MR. GIBBS:  Well, I think General Motors –

Q    And it seems to me that’s an outgrowth of these talks –

MR. GIBBS:  Well, I think General Motors put out a press release Friday denoting that — from what I saw, denoting that a factory would, at some location in the United States, be chosen for that production.  But past that, I will check on that with –

Q    Does the President expect GM to be profitable by the end of his first term?

MR. GIBBS:  You know, again, I think that — I think there — I think it would be unwise for me to speculate.  I think the President believes a number of factors are important getting in place that good management, ensuring that we have a strong and stable economy.  Obviously, the biggest determining factor in profitability is going to be the number of auto sales.  So ensuring that we have an economy that is strong and robust where people are buying cars is going to be the largest determinant as to profitability, and how quickly we can get out of the business of being involved in auto companies.

Yes, sir.

Q    Yes, Secretary Geithner is in China, and he’s telling audiences that the United States plans to reduce its debt.  Is the administration concerned that the Chinese demand for U.S. debt is declining?

MR. GIBBS:  No, again, I think we’ve said up here many times that we have the deepest credit markets in the world.  Obviously the President has long been concerned about fiscal responsibility, but believes that — does not believe — is not concerned about that right now, no.

Q    Just a quick follow.  In making decisions about when to start reducing the debt, particularly out-years of the budget, what is the White House looking for, in terms of economic indicators or legislative benchmarks that are going to prompt you all to start revisiting some of these numbers and bringing them down?

MR. GIBBS:  Give me some — give me examples of what you’re –

Q    For example, the period we’re in now, obviously, there’s a lot of almost emergency spending taking place to fill in demand.  Once that is finished, I imagine if you’re serious about reducing out-year budget numbers, you’re going to revisit the budget and those figures.  What will prompt you to do that?  When will you know it’s time to do that, it’s safe to do that?

MR. GIBBS:  Economically, you mean?

Q    Exactly.

MR. GIBBS:  Well, look, I think this is obviously an ongoing process.  I think it’s hard to pick in the future some mythical date certain.  But I think you’ve heard the President discuss on a number of occasions the reason why we thought a recovery and reinvestment plan was important was to get money into the hands of American citizens, to get money to states that were struggling, to ensure that those that were displaced and losing their job had the type of benefits that they deserved, and that one of the ways to get control ultimately of our deficit is to get our economy growing again.

So without having sort of a firm graph of numbers, obviously we need to see some concrete economic growth and job growth as equally as important.

Q    When I mentioned legislation, I meant health care reform and energy reform, two things that you’re hoping — that you say will lead to long-term savings.  Once those are passed, will you have a better sense?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, I think, again, we’ve talked about it on a number of occasions and I would reemphasize again, getting our health care costs under control, making the system dramatically more efficient over the long term will provide a huge change in our budgetary outlook as we struggle with rising health care costs.  I think the same is true as we create the jobs of the future to deal with energy independence — obviously short term and then I’d say probably medium to long term, creating that strong foundation in order to get the economy going again.

Mark.

Q    Robert, oil prices hit $68 a barrel today — very substantially up in recent weeks.  When the President goes to Saudi Arabia, is going to talk to King Abdullah about that?  Is he going to express concern?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, we’ll have a readout exactly of what’s done and said in the meeting, but as I said last week I assume that’s something that will indeed be on the docket next — later this week — sorry, I’m getting my weeks mixed up.

Q    Robert, one question –

MR. GIBBS:  Hold on a second.  Hold on –

Q    — you will want to answer, I’m sure.

MR. GIBBS:  I appreciate the certainty with which you said that.  (Laughter.)

Q    I also wanted to ask about the Cairo stop — since we talked to you last week about that, the schedule is more firm.  Is the President going to be meeting with any dissidents?

MR. GIBBS:  We’ll have more on that as we get closer.

Yes, ma’am.

Q    Robert, you have gone out of your way to reassure people that the government isn’t going to be micromanaging and they’re not going to be picking the paint colors –

MR. GIBBS:  Many people have given me the opportunity to do that.

Q    Right.  But, I mean, you could look at it — come at it in a completely different way, which is when you own this much of a company and you are representing the taxpayers, you have a fiduciary responsibility to make sure that this company turns a profit as soon as possible, and that might behoove you to get as involved as you need to be to make sure that happens.  So I’m wondering if you can imagine times when the goal of making GM profitable as fast as possible conflicts with the goal of it being the kind of car company that you might want it to be.  I mean, what if it turns out that they can sell more big gas-guzzlers, at least in the near term, than little –

MR. GIBBS:  Well, I see no present evidence that would make that theory plausible.

Q    Well, once they’re restructured and get rid of all the kind of dead weight and they’re leaner and meaner, I mean, it’s possible that some of the profit –

MR. GIBBS:  The company, not the cars.

Q    Yes, the company, that’s what I’m talking about.  (Laughter.)  But, I mean, there is — when you’re the owner of a company, making a profit for the taxpayers and maintaining a “viable” U.S. auto industry sometimes will come into conflict.

MR. GIBBS:  I actually don’t know that that’s the case, given, again — I think if you take a look at auto sales for the past many, many months, go back a year or two, I don’t think you would say, we didn’t end up in this place because these companies were doing great and we wanted them to do greater.  I think if Hummer was a brand that was turning a big profit it wouldn’t be for sale for anybody that has $5 in loose change to buy it.

Q    So you’re just saying those two things right now are one and the same.  But to follow up on Chuck’s question, if somebody came in next year to buy out your share, returning a profit to the taxpayers, and then proceeded to kind of dismantle GM — still would have given a profit to the taxpayers, but the end result would have been a non-viable U.S. auto industry, I mean, those are choices that you’re going to have to make –

MR. GIBBS:  Let me just address this for a second, Mara, because the scenario that you’re setting up is, somebody would want to come in and pay markedly more than what the stock price is once we purchase it; they want to give us more than that, establishing that difference as being the taxpayer profit; and assuming that they’re making a rational decision about how much to pay for each share of that stock, they’re then going to make business decisions that are in the opposite of that in order to make the company less viable?

Q    No, no, I’m saying sometimes –

MR. GIBBS:  But I think that if you actually –

Q    — the most profitable thing you can do is sell off the parts of a company, that’s all.

MR. GIBBS:  But Mara –

Q    Part of what you’re doing you’re doing now, in fact.

MR. GIBBS:  — if you look at the scenario outlined by your question, I think in many ways the scenario I just outlined is exactly what you outlined.  I don’t know of anybody that’s going to come pay twice the share price and go back to making the decisions that got the company into $172 billion in debt.

Q    Well, of course not.

MR. GIBBS:  Then I guess I’m straining to understand your scenario.

Q    I guess what I’m asking you is there any acknowledgment that sometimes there can be a conflict between representing the taxpayers as their investor, which is what the U.S. government is right now, and doing things that you would like the U.S. auto industry to do or be?  You don’t see any –

MR. GIBBS:  — example.  Sure, if somebody can –

Q    If Michael Moore came out this morning and he said, look –

MR. GIBBS:  I’m sorry, what?

Q    If Michael Moore, you know, “Roger Rabbit” or whatever — (laughter) –

MR. GIBBS:  Not exactly, but yes –

Q    — came out and said, look, if you — if it is in the United States’ interest to retool these plants so that we make high-speed railroads, railroad cars, that we make public transportation automobiles that will carry more people and use less fuel, et cetera, then we should retool the GM plants to do that.  Now that’s sort of the opposite of what her question is, which is, is there a way to make this so that it actually not only helps the taxpayer become profitable but also helps our long-term goals of becoming more green, and would we have an interest in doing that?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, again, as I said, there are traditional roles that Congress and the executive branch have played regarding, for instance, as I’ve said before, corporate average fuel economy; ensuring that there is for the average of a fleet some standard by which it should meet given the mix — given an appropriate mix of different vehicles.

But, again, going back to Mara’s scenario, I don’t — again, I just don’t understand a scenario where somebody is going to come in and pay more than the company is — more than what we paid for the company in order to make wildly disparate decisions that in some ways are what got the company to where we were, say, last night.

Q    You’re assuming that entity might want to run it just the way the old, bad managers did.  There’s a lot of ways to dispose of assets — meaning, you want to keep a viable U.S. market –

MR. GIBBS:  What you’re saying is — wait, so let me understand this –

Q    — industry going no matter what.

MR. GIBBS:  So what you’re saying is, you think — you’re saying somebody is going to come in and pay, say, twice the — hold on, let me do this scenario — hold on, let me see if I’m inferring what you’re saying — somebody is going to pay twice the share price but ultimately decide that selling the factory, basically, covering simply a fixed cost — well, I mean –

Q    Aren’t you doing a little bit of that –

MR. GIBBS:  Well, I mean, there is a fairly –

Q    — in this kind of structured bankruptcy — isn’t that what it is?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, I will tell you this.  There’s a — I mean, there’s an economic theory — I took a few of these classes that — (laughter) — no, no, no, I don’t mean — I did, I don’t mean that in a sarcastic way –

Q    You had to clarify that –

MR. GIBBS:  Yes, exactly.  (Laughter.)  I mean, I think there are not many people, and the President — the President made a conscious decision about what path to take, right?  But if the investment far exceeded the assets, the fixed costs, that would be a terribly irrational business decision, and I think you can assume rightly that the President and the task force made decisions based on what they thought the company could become.

Look, guys, this isn’t an exercise in perpetuating a company — to perpetuate a company just for that sake.  That doesn’t make any sense, and that wouldn’t be rational for taxpayer investment.  That’s why I think — that’s why people are making those decisions.

Yes, sir.

Q    Robert, related to that, you’re not setting up any benchmarks for the investment, is that correct?  And if so, why not?

MR. GIBBS:  I’m sorry, say that again.

Q    No benchmarks for GM, for the company — steps towards the road to viability that you’d like to see accomplished, year one, year two –

MR. GIBBS:  Well, look again –

Q    You’re basically — playing off what people said, a way to evaluate whether this is working.

MR. GIBBS:  Well, whether or not they’ve handed me how they would enumerate the evaluation, David, I think the notion that we’re somehow writing them a check and then walking away and hoping to come back in two years and find a company that’s in different shape — again, I don’t think we would be involved in core corporate governance issues like a board of directors if we didn’t have some concern about viability.

And as I’ve said, as the President has said — look, guys, he didn’t — if he wanted to run an auto company, he wouldn’t have run for President.

Q    There’s got to be a trigger here.  I mean, I guess that’s what I think — you’ve six versions of this question.  What is the trigger point at which you say, okay, is it the market that will evaluate the price of the government — you know, the share price on the sales?  The taxpayers –

MR. GIBBS:  Well, look, that’s the stock market, yes.

Q    Right, that’s what I’m saying.  If the market shows that the taxpayers can get their money back, does that mean, okay, we’ve got to get — is that the trigger?

MR. GIBBS:  If there’s a good — well, if there’s a good deal, I can assure you we don’t want to –

Q    Should we watch the stock price — that should be the evaluating –

Q    I’m not on the Dow anymore.  (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS:  I would note that for all the questions I’ve gotten about our actions in the market, I would note the market seems to be doing seemingly well today.

Q    I mean, is that the trigger?  That’s what we should watch?

MR. GIBBS:   Well, look, I think we desire to get out of the auto industry as quickly as we can and do it in a way that protects taxpayers.  I can’t — Chuck, I can’t sit here and tell you that when — I think, first of all, we’re going through a 60- to 90-day bankruptcy.  We’ve got to figure out — and a judge is going to do that — the size, the entity, the scope, and the stock price that you’re going to watch, what that’s going to do when it spits out the other side.

So I think it would be disingenuous for me to speculate or stand up here and say, when it hits 375, then we’re out.  But I can assure you, again, the President is not looking to –

Q    Put the sell order on E-Trade.

MR. GIBBS:  Yes, exactly.  Check whitehouse.gov.

Q    But I still think the question is what procedures do you anticipate having in place at the end of the 60-to-90-day period by which the Auto Task Force or anybody else will be monitoring, whether or not intervening, but monitoring what’s happening and deciding if things are going in a good or not so good direction.

MR. GIBBS:  Well, look, I think, again, part of that is the purview — will be the purview of what we believe will be a strong board of directors that are making decisions to make this company profitable.  That’s the basic –

Yes, sir.

Q    Robert, will the government exercise its authority to remove Fritz Henderson as CEO either now or after the bankruptcy exit?  And what’s the realistic likelihood that the government will get much of the $50 billion back?  There were some officials who said last week that of the first $20 billion that the Bush administration gave, it’s not likely to get much of that back.

MR. GIBBS:  Well, again, I think it’s, at the beginning of this process, not based on market implications and such, I think it’s important that I not speculate precisely on what that is, again, simply to say that the investment that was made — it splits out roughly — some is secured debt, but the bulk of this is equity, because you don’t want to take a company that’s just come out of massive debt and saddle it with massive debt under a different name.  So that’s one of the reasons that we exercised the equity option in this case.

Lester, I’m just going to — here we go.

Q    On Thursday, Buckingham Palace announced:  “Neither the Queen, nor any other members of the Royal Family will be attending the D-Day commemoration on June 6, as we have not yet received an official invitation to any of these events.”

And my question:  Since Queen Elizabeth is the only living head of state who served in the armed forces during World War II, President Obama believes she should surely be officially invited, doesn’t he?

MR. GIBBS:  He does.  And we are working with those involved to see if we can make that happen.

Q    Wonderful.  (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS:  Lester, will you please pass that directly to the Queen for me?

Thank you.

END
3:07 P.M. EDT

Posted in Obama Blog Archives | No Comments »

6-1-9 Obama News- GM Bankruptcy Restructuring Plan- An Official White House Release

4. June 2009 by admin.

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

__________________________________________________
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                  June 1, 2009

BACKGROUND BRIEFING
BY SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS
ON THE GENERAL MOTORS RESTRUCTURING

May 31, 2009
Via Conference Call

7:10 P.M. EDT
MS. PSAKI:  Thank you, everyone, for joining the call.  Just a reminder that the call this evening is on background, and you can attribute quotes to a senior administration official.  And the embargo is set for 10:00 p.m. this evening Eastern time.  Everyone on this call should also have a fact sheet.

I’m going to turn it over to Robert Gibbs now.

MR. GIBBS:  Thanks, everybody, for joining.  We’re going to do this basically in two parts.  The first part, my colleagues will go through the GM specific parts of the call tonight.  And then after that we will go through the government ownership principles, which I know a number of you are interested in as part of this and other transactions.

So with that, I’m going to turn it over to my colleague.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thanks, I’ll just try to run through this reasonably quickly and maximize the time for questions.  Everyone should have a fact sheet.  I know you’ve only had it for a short period of time, so let me run through quickly the main points that we wanted to cover.

Everyone is aware that 60 days ago the President announced that he would give General Motors 60 days in order to design a plan for viability that would achieve lasting and permanent profitability and opportunity for success.  And since that time the company has been working diligently in conjunction with the auto task force to implement those principles, including one of the President’s main principles which was the concept of shared sacrifice among all of the stakeholders.

And so we are here tonight to give you a preview of the results of this, including what the President will talk about tomorrow.  So I’ll run through that reasonably quickly.

First, within this concept of shared sacrifice there are several things to talk about — first, as I said, the auto task force has worked with GM on an operational restructuring that is designed to reduce General Motors break-even point of about 16 million annual rate of car sales down to 10 million annual car sales environment.  As many of you undoubtedly know, we’re running about 9.5 million car sales at the moment.  And so we hope that by reducing this break-even point GM will be able to endure a period of difficult car sales before hopefully we will see a recovery, and this will, of course, allow GM to become profitable at a much lower level of car sales than has been the case before.

Secondly, as you know, the UAW has reached a new agreement with GM and that agreement has been ratified that involves significant concessions by the UAW — concessions that are in virtually every respect more aggressive than what the previous administration demanded in its loan agreement.  And one of the major aspects of that settlement, of that renegotiation, was changes in terms of the VEBA — employee retirement health care trust in which GM had a $20 billion obligation under its existing — and I’ll talk in a second about what’s going to happen with that.

GM is also announcing more or less as we speak that the steering committee has reported that bondholders represent at least 54 percent of GM’s unsecured bonds, have agreed to tender their portion of the $27 billion of unsecured debt for a pro rata share of 10 percent of the equity of new GM for — inaudible — for an additional 58 percent.  And so I think from the standpoint of the U.S. government we are very pleased and gratified to be going into the 363 process that will commence tomorrow with such a strong showing of support from the — inaudible — community.

And then GM is also announcing tonight the specifics of its operational restructuring with respect to its plant operations.  And we will leave the details of that to them as it is their decisions and their restructuring.

So we are going through, as I think everyone here is aware, a 363 process that we hope and expect will be similar to Chrysler.  We do not expect it to be as speedy as Chrysler’s because GM is a far larger, far more complicated global company, but we do expect it to proceed, broadly speaking, along similar lines to the Chrysler one, which you all know, has made very good progress and is very close to a successful outcome.

So in the context of that 363, a new company, a new GM, if you will, will be formed to purchase the operating assets out of the old General Motors that will become part of this new company.  And left behind in the old company will be liabilities and other miscellaneous assets that are no longer needed as part of the new General Motors that we expect to create.

So as part of that several other things will happen.  First, the new GM will establish a new VEBA, a new independent trust.  And you will recall that I mentioned the $20 billion obligation that the old General Motors had to VEBA.  As part of the shared sacrifice that the President has emphasize, that will be replaced by a $2.5 billion note, $6.5 billion of preferred stock, and 17.5 percent of the equity of new GM — thus warrants to purchase an additional 2.5 percent of the company.

As was the case in Chrysler, VEBA will have the right to select one independent director, and as in the case with Chrysler, and will be the case with both companies, neither VEBA nor UAW will have any right to voter’s share or any other government right.  So it is with the exception of one independent director, a purely passive interest.

As was the case with Chrysler, the qualified pension plan for both hourly and salaried employees will be carried over to the new GM and will remain intact and benefits will be paid in the normal course.

Thirdly, as I mentioned, the U.S. Treasury is preparing to provide about $30 billion of additional financing through — inaudible — possession process during this Chapter 11 to meet both working capital needs during the bankruptcy process as well as to refinance certain existing obligations, and as well as to be sure that the company has the means to be successful in the future.  And I’ll talk a little bit more about that in a second.

The U.S. Treasury does not believe or anticipate that any additional assistance to GM will be required.  We intend for this to be a permanent resolution of the GM situation and an ability for the company to go forward and be profitable.

In exchange for the $30.1 billion, the U.S. government will receive about $9 billion of debt and preferred stock in the new GM and approximately 60 percent of the equity in the new company.

Let me emphasize in anticipation of those later discussion and questions that we did not seek or solicit or desire to have this equity position.  We came upon it simply as a matter of prudence and out of desire to assure that GM was able to go forward with a flexible, deleverage balance sheet, one that is capable of sustaining itself during — in a very cyclical business in what is obviously a difficult environment.  And so we had a choice as guardians of the taxpayer dollars, which was to either take this equity as part of the consideration that we could receive on behalf of the U.S. taxpayers, and hopefully have it result in the taxpayers receiving a greater recovery, or we could have simply left it behind and given it to others and taxpayers would have ended up much shorter in terms of the total outcome.  So the equity ownership of the U.S. government is not something we sought or desired; it was simply a necessary outcome of the restructuring process and a desire to have GM with a substantially deleveraged balance sheet and able to be competitive.

We’re also very pleased to say that the governments of Canada and Ontario — similar to the situation with Chrysler, will participate alongside the Treasury by lending about $9.5 billion and they will also receive both debt and preferred stock and about 12 percent of the equity in the new GM, and similar to the case with Chrysler, the right to pick one of the initial directors.

I think at that point I will — I think I’ve covered now the main points on GM, so let me turn it back to Robert

MR. GIBBS:  Thanks.  Before we take questions on that — do you want to go through our government ownership principles now?  I know it’s a big part of what a lot of folks are interested in.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Sure, let me take that on and start by saying that while this, of course applies to GM right now, this is part of a much broader effort to articulate principles for the U.S. government investments in a series of other companies as well.  So this is more about how we can expect the government to act as a common shareholder in this and other cases.

The first starting point is really to pick up on something you said, which is the government really has no desire to own equity stakes in companies any longer than is absolutely necessary and will actively seek to dispose its ownership interest as soon as it is practical to do that.  The goal is to promote strong, viable companies that can become profitable quickly, can contribute to growth and jobs without government involvement.  And there is absolute clarity about that.

Of course, in exceptional cases where the U.S. government feels it’s necessary to respond to a company’s request for assistance the government has decided to reserve the right to set upfront conditions that will protect taxpayers and promote the financial stability or encourage growth.  And in the sense of — inaudible — conditions, there has been some — as you’ve seen in this restructuring and in some other companies, where necessary, these conditions are precisely the kinds of restructuring that my colleague has talked about and would focus primarily on ensuring a strong board of directors, that focuses on the right kind of management that can deliver a long-term vision, that gets these companies to be profitable, ends the need for government support as quickly as is practical.

Now, after those upfront conditions are in place, the government feels that it can protect taxpayers’ investment by managing its ownership stake as a hands-off in a commercial manner as possible.  And so the government will not interfere with or exert control over day-to-day company operations and very much will ensure that no government employees will serve on board or be employed by the company it makes investments in.

As a shareholder, the government will limit what it votes on to core governance issues, particularly the selection of the company’s board of directors; major corporate events or transactions.  And in its effort to protect taxpayers’ resources as much as possible, the government intends to be extremely disciplined as to how it uses even these limited rights.

So those, as I said, are the principles that apply here in the upfront restructuring of GM and in the intention of the government going forward, but are consistently being applied where the U.S. finds itself in these kinds of situations.

MS. PSAKI:  Thank you so much.  I think we’re ready to turn it over to questions at this point.

Q         Good evening.  Appreciating that this is obviously a bigger company than Chrysler, how quickly do you expect you can get it through, and do you expect that legally it will be more difficult?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  In 60 to 90 days; more complicated and many more moving pieces, but we are hopeful that it will have a similar successful outcome.

Q         Can you speak a little bit about the input that you will have on the selection of some of the directors — you’re not naming them directly, but you will have input into who some of the new board members are — what kind of direct or indirect input, and what would you be looking for in the directors?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Let me say a couple of things about that.  First, you’ll recall that at the time the President, on March 30th — announced that a majority of the directors of new General Motors would be new, so by implication, there will be a number of existing General Motors directors that will continue with the new company and there will be identified, based on consultations between the current chairman and his colleagues and ourselves — there has been a process underway since that announcement, led by the General Motors board, to identify additional directors, again in consultation with the U.S. government.

Thirdly, with respect to the kinds of people that are being sought, they are business leaders, CEOs, former CEOS, people from other walks of life with relevant experience and can contribute, regardless of political background, affiliation, or nature.  And I would point you to the selection of the term at Chrysler, Bob Kidder, very distinguished former businessman, former CEO of Borden, former CEO of Duracell, his politics are not known to any of us anyway, who has agreed to take this on because of his belief in this industry and belief and desire that Chrysler could succeed.  And I think Bob Kidder exemplifies the type of individual that will be sought to serve on the new General Motors board.

Q         Are we going to see the new board members named tomorrow or is that a longer process?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I would expect over the 60 to 90 days, by the time the company comes out of bankruptcy 60 or 90 days from now, I would expect you to see substantial additions to the GM board.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  As a technical matter, these directors will actually join the board of New Co., which will be buying the assets out of General Motors.

Q         Gentlemen, can you specify how the UAW negotiations altered the restructuring plan and are there still the number of plants being closed as before, even though there is one new assembly plant — also how would the process for — inaudible — dealer count of GM mirror or change from that used by Chrysler in its bankruptcy case?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  We were involved in helping to facilitate the discussions between the UAW and General Motors, but I think those are matters that are best left to the two of them.  I think the UAW has spoken about its contracts and what it believes.  Obviously the vast majority of its members have ratified it.  And General Motors has spoken about the contract.  So I think they’re both satisfied with it and we’re satisfied with it, but we don’t see a need to get into the details.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  And with respect to your second question, GM has already embarked on the beginnings of its new — inaudible — program.  They have different management in process, so inevitably it thinks about life slightly differently and so it’s a slightly different process that they’re going through, but the goal and the end result is intended to be very similar.

Q         Can you talk a little bit about how long it might take to get all this money back over time and what your expectations are as to how much the taxpayer might see back on this?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I don’t think we’re here today to predict or project.  We designed the restructuring to maximize the potential for taxpayer money.  The company has done a great job on the operational restructuring — in conjunction with our colleagues in order to facilitate that.  And so we certainly intend to maximize taxpayer proceeds, but I would also point you back to what my colleague said, that we intend to also exit as soon as practical.

Q         My question is to expand the subsidiary of GM.  Australia, for instance, has got a subsidiary of General Motors America.  What will happen to those subsidiaries, and will there be any restrictions on the new GM investing in factories overseas, like for instance, the factory in Australia?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  One of the principles that the President established early on that we have very much intimated as part of this is that U.S. taxpayer dollars should stay within the U.S.  And that is not intended to sound protectionist — I think it’s a principle that every country follows.  And so we do not intend to use U.S. taxpayer dollars to support foreign subsidiaries.  Happily, most of GM’s foreign subsidiaries are able to sustain themselves independently or by receiving support from their local governments, as I believe will be the case in Australia.  We have had contacts with the Australian government on this matter and I believe they’re intending to support GM Australia.

You’re all aware of the restructuring of Opal — of GM Europe, and that was effected under the same set of principles, and those are the principles that we intend to maintain going forward.  I think having a global footprint is certainly an advantage to General Motors, and to the extent that it is financially prudent and within those principles, we’d certainly like to see it continue.

Q         Good evening.  Could you give us a sense whether any members on the current GM board will be remaining on the board of the new company, and how that will work with the lead executives at GM, as well, please?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Well, I believe I already answered that question by reminding you that the President, on March 30th, said that the majority of the GM board will become new members, which means a minority will be old members.  And so we do expect to have some continuity with respect to those members.  Fritz Henderson is the CEO and like all CEOs, serves at the pleasure of the board, and we would expect that that relationship would continue.

Q         As GM restructures and the government is now involved in that company, how — or will the government get involved in new jobs, or should I say, fuel-efficient, alternative-fuel sources, starting with that type of training with GM employees?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  As my colleague suggested, there are a number of principles that are going to govern our behavior as a shareholder in this company and others, one of which is no involvement in day-to-day business matters.  And that will be a continuing principle for us.  Of course the government of the United States has many relationships with the automobile industry as a whole, including foreign companies and including companies that have not been the beneficiaries of financial support from the U.S. government.  And those matters, whether they go to regulation for fuel efficiency, or regulation for safety or support, or employment or what have you, will continue, but they will continue on a track entirely separate from and not driven by our role as shareholders.

I might mention the President some time ago appointed Ed Montgomery, the former deputy secretary of labor, to support him in assuring that we were doing everything that we could for communities in Michigan.

Q         I was just wondering if you guys are disclosing which plants or factories may close as part of all this restructuring.  I know there’s been talk of 14, or is that still up in the air right now or haven’t been determined?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  As I said earlier, General Motors I believe is in the process of releasing that information, and I think, in the context of what my colleague said about us not making plant-by-plant or any other kind of management decisions, we will leave that to them.

Q         Thank you.  I’ve got a couple of quick things.  Are secured bondholders, do they get a hundred percent back?  Does the tax lump carry forward, go to the new company?  And can you say that there’s no negative impact on Ford from these arrangements that you’ve described?  Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  With respect to the first question, there are no secured bondholders in GM; there are secured banks, and they will receive a full recovery because they are amply secured, as distinct from the banks in Chrysler which were not fully secured.

With respect to your second question, I’m going to let my colleague answer — would you expect the transfer?  And what was the third question?  Oh, Ford.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Ford has ample financial resources.  Ford has been very successful in maintaining and even growing its market share during this period and is a world-class company, and we do believe completely — and that has been the President’s decision — the belief that this country can support three domestic successful, viable auto companies.

Q         Thanks, guys.  A number of the principles — the governmental principles you’ve established — members of Congress have asked GM and the administration to keep the company from importing cars made in Chinese plants.  Is that an issue that the administration will specifically stay away from, or will it take a position?  Have you made a preference known to GM’s management?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  GM has made a commitment in its later agreement with respect to production in North America.  But as to any specific thing, no, that would be a kind of specific commercial thing and would not be the object of our negotiation with the company.

Q         — any additional money going into GM beyond the $30.1 billion that you’re extending now — is that an expectation, or are you saying, or will the President say that this is it for GM, this is the extent of taxpayer money and they won’t get any additional funding?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  There’s no plan of any kind, intention, contingency plan, anything of any kind for further support beyond this point.

Q         But beyond not having as plan are you saying that there’s no way they will get –

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  We believe the support being provided within a framework on a conservative economic assumption should allow the company if stakeholders do what they need to do, if its managers are successful in doing what they need to do, to be commercially viable going forward and not require extraordinary support going forward.  One never says never with respect to any hypothetical contingency that could arise in the future, but this is it for support for GM, and on a go forward basis, GM’s position will be the same as that of any other company in the United States.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  We are reducing GM’s liability by well over 50 percent and providing it with the financial flexibility that we truly believe — and an enormous amount of work that’s been done here that will allow it to be viable even under today’s difficult economic circumstances.

Q         I just wanted to ask what the sort of anticipated future of the whole task force operation that you all have set up is going to be?  And maybe this answers that question, but whether there will be, six months from now or a year from now, some part of the U.S. government that will look after the shares that we will have in the two car companies, if only at a distance?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  There are a number of people around the table who are looking at me with interest in how I answer this.  On a go forward from here, moving through this bankruptcy where the government has a major role, there is a great deal to be done, and the staff of the task force will continue to be very active.  The Cabinet members who comprise the task force will continue to play their role in providing expertise on a range of issues.  On a go-forward basis, the government will obviously adjust its staffing to its needs.  But for now, there’s plenty to do.

Q         As it is now, you guys have folks in Detroit — I’m not sure what numbers there are.  Is it anticipated that you’ll continue to have representation on site going forward?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  We don’t have anybody in Detroit on any kind of long-term basis.  People obviously go out there in the context of diligence.  I think we — in the context of what my colleague said about the government as shareholder, we are shareholders, like a lot of other people who don’t control companies.  And in that respect, we expect that the taxpayers will want us to monitor their investment and be sure that we understand what’s going on, but we’re not going to be having people based in Detroit or anything like that.

Q         What will the government’s position be in terms of executive compensation issues?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  There are a series of laws and other regulations that exist, and the company will comply with all of them.

Q         But will you — you’ll have the ability to name the compensation committee.  Will you leave it to the compensation committee?  Will there be any government policy — because you have a policy with the banking bailout; I’m wondering if you’re going to have any kind of a policy for this industrial company.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Again, there are a series of policies; there’s the Dodd amendment, there will be regulations to implement the Dodd amendment in due course, and the company will live with them.  We don’t intend to name the compensation committee per se.  We intend to, as we said, to work with the company and their initial directors, but the compensation committee will operate on its own.  And we assume, just as it has during the period of the loan agreements where there were also compensation restrictions, that it will operate within them.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  And like as in any company, the board will name a compensation committee.

Q         Thanks, guys.  Just a couple quick questions.  Can you talk about the appointment of the chief restructuring officer and about the bad assets that GM will leave behind, even if you’re not going to name the plants or the dealers that might be left behind?  And also, is the government planning or encouraging any more management changes at GM?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I think those are all pretty much questions for the company in terms of the naming of the chief restructuring officer is a company decision.  The assets that will be left behind will be — are being chosen, have been chosen by the company, and again we would direct you to them to answer those questions.  And in terms of management changes, we have nothing further to announce on that at this time.  As I said earlier, Fritz Henderson and other management key members serve at the pleasure of the board.  It will be up to the existing board until emergence and then the new board to make any decisions about management.

MS. PSAKI:  We have time for one more question.

Q         I just wanted to go back to the question of the task force.  In terms of the longevity of the task force, do you perceive it being needed well beyond the bankruptcy proceeding itself?  I mean, do you perceive the task force being in existence in fact until the company is sold?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  The company is not going to be — I mean, I’m not sure what you mean by the company being sold.  The company will go through this restructuring period; new GM will emerge as part of the 363 process; and then the company will continue, as we said, as a private company operating in the for-profit commercial role and so forth.  And the government, as we indicated, is a reluctant — will be a reluctant shareholder for only as long as is necessary, for as long as — we will be out as soon as is practicable.  During that period of time, we imagine that the taxpayers want us to be looking after their money, and so as we indicated, there will be people here watching over that investment, but as I indicated, in the nature of passive shareholders similar to Fidelity or some other large investment firm that has a large stake in a company.

MS. PSAKI:  Thank you, everyone, for joining the call.  As a reminder, this is embargoed until 10:00 p.m. Eastern time.

END
7:40 P.M. EDT

Posted in Obama Blog Archives | No Comments »

6-3-9 Obama News- President Obama and King Abdullah Remarks

4. June 2009 by admin.

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

__________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release                              June 3, 2009

REMARKS BY PRESIDENT OBAMA
AND KING ABDULLAH OF SAUDI ARABIA
BEFORE MEETING

King’s Royal Farm
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

4:22 P.M. (Local)

Q    Mr. President, what’s your message, sir, here?

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  This is my first visit to Saudi Arabia, but I’ve had several conversations with His Majesty.  And I’ve been struck by his wisdom and his graciousness.  Obviously the United States and Saudi Arabia have a long history of friendship, we have a strategic relationship.  And as I take this trip and we’ll be visiting Cairo tomorrow, I thought it was very important to come to the place where Islam began and to seek His Majesty’s counsel and to discuss with him many of the issues that we confront here in the Middle East.

So I just want to again thank him for his extraordinary generosity and hospitality.  And I m confident that working together the United States and Saudi Arabia can make progress on a whole host of issues and mutual interests.

KING ABDULLAH:  (As translated.)  I thank you, Mr. President, for the kind words and the kind sentiments expressed within them.  I am not surprised, given the historic and strategic ties between our two countries, I believe that go back to the time of the meeting between the late Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the late King Abdul-Aziz.

I also want to express my best wishes to the friendly American people who are represented by a distinguished man who deserves to be in this position.

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Shukran.

END
4:27 P.M. (Local)

Posted in Obama Blog Archives | No Comments »

Obama News- Editorial- the declaration of the end?

3. June 2009 by admin.

The Death Of America- Bone Logic Salvation

Filed under: Uncategorized — admin @ 21:55 Edit This

 http://blog.freedomist.info/2009/06/03/america-has-fallen-and-we-dont-even-know-it-living-in-ghost-america/

Bone Logic

 

In the course of human history, it has been at times of ‘bone logic’ that great revolutions have occurred, that great discoveries have been made. This bone logic is the implicit meaning of the famous aphorism “necessity is the mother of invention”.

 

What is the driving force behind bone logic and how can we expand our internal sense of what defines our ‘line of bone’, our holy citadel, our inner chamber, that which we would protect above all other aspects of self?

 

Bone Logic is a process of stripping away all of the artifice that defines the overwhelming aspect of our lives, the guile of social masking, the seduction of the ordered, controlled world over the mess of bone sense, the visceral realities we work so hard to conceal at almost all cost.

 

As the bone, or the citadel, begins to become vulnerable, the self retreats from the veneer of the controlled universe and begins to deal with the visceral facts before them. It is a rejection of studies and emotions and patriotic rhetoric in favor of the action of bone preservation, crisis language, if you will.

 

This is that proverbial “FUCK” guttural, which is like a valve releasing a pulse of steam, a shattering of the social veneer to reveal the core bone threat, and to respond in like terms.

 

It is the dichotomy of societies that the harmony and security they create can also breed the creation of utopian guile, which goes further and further away from bone logic, until bone logic itself has become an untalked about vulgarity that ‘good people’ would be well to avoid.

 

In this environment, guile becomes almost the sole governor of lives, and the power to stalk the citadels of others is greatly increased, because less and less eyes are still looking at the citadel, even KNOW what the citadel is, what the bone of self is. Not knowing your holy of holies is like not knowing the rules of chess, so you have to trust the person who’s playing against you.

 

to read the rest of this article- click here:

 http://blog.freedomist.info/2009/06/03/america-has-fallen-and-we-dont-even-know-it-living-in-ghost-america/

Posted in Obama Blog Archives | No Comments »

6-1-9 Obama News - Weekly Audio Review

1. June 2009 by admin.

Gibbs addresses Gingrich over racist charge



Gibbs on the British press



Gibbs on California’s Prop 8



Gibbs addresses Birth Certificate question



Gibbs on Sotomayor nomination





Pelosi montage
by Hannity Show



Pelosi in China on our lives being inventoried
start at :27 mark



Obama’s Cyber Czar move analyzed by Russia Today

Posted in Obama Blog Archives | No Comments »

not Capitalism OR Socialism- Concordianism

31. May 2009 by admin.

 

Concordianism- A Definition

 

 

Concordianism is a new way of measuring the economic health of the economy. This new way of measuring the economy’s health has implications that go towards a revolutionary way of restructuring the mechanisms by which we manage and maintain our economic systems, methods that create what Concordianism calls ‘Economic Justice’.

 

The measure of an economy’s health today is measured by the overall wealth in the system. No distinction is made between monetary wealth and real wealth. Concordianism will argue that the health of the economy should be measured in the overall REAL wealth of the economy, and the degree to which real and monetary wealth are in concord with one another.

 

Why do we measure the economy that way? In what ways can we change the rules to guarantee that concord between monetary and real wealth? And why is it necessary that this state exist? We will talk about ‘Economic Justice’, the new Concordian model of economics, and why today’s way of thinking about the economy is all wrong.

 

 

An Introduction to Concordianism-

 

 

Classical Model of Economics

 

 

Before we try to understand Concordian economics, let’s examine what it is not. In the classical model of economics savings = income – consumption. But what is investment? Let’s look further at the implications of the classical model. If Savings = income – consumption, then Income = consumption + savings. Where is investment?

 

Investment can only be equated with savings, because savings is measured as income – consumption. Let’s summarize:

 

Classical Model of Economics:

Savings = income – consumption, therefore…

Income = consumption + savings, therefore…

Investment = Savings.

 

What is missing from this traditional model of economics? Hoarding. Hoarding is a whole other element of economics altogether unmeasurable in this system because savings is both hoarding and investment. No distinction is made in this system. Now let’s look at the Concordian model of economics.

 

Concordian Model of Economics

 

In the Classical Model:

Savings = income – consumption

In the Concordian Model:

Investment = Income – Hoarding

 

What is so revolutionary about this nuanced change in the old formula? Where is the measure of health for an economy in a Classical Model? It would be savings. In the classical model, consumption eats into savings, the engine of a Capitalistic system (with savings here being a component of Investment). Where is the measure of health for an economy in a Concordian Model? Investment. The goblin, if you will, in this system is hoarding, an element altogether missed in the classical model.

 

Do you notice something missing from the Concordian Model? The word consumption is not used. Where can it be? Consumption can’t be Income and it certainly can’t be hoarding. You’ll find, in the Concordian Model, that consumption is considered investment, and this is a key to understanding Concordianism.

 

To summarize:

Consumption in a classical model takes away from the engine that drives that system, savings. Savings equals both investment and hoarding.

 

Consumption in a Concordian model adds to the engine that drives that system, Investment. Investment equals Investment plus Consumption.

 

Hoarding is a positive part of the Classical model, being a component of savings.

 

Hoarding detracts from the engine that drives a Concordian model, Investment.

 

You must see by now how two key elements, hoarding and consumption, are reversed in importance. Where one detracts from economic health in one system, it contributes to it in another. But this is about more than playing around with words.

 

Before we can go on, you need to understand two things, the two different types of wealth and the economic cycle.

 

Two types of Wealth:

Real Wealth- Physical wealth

Monetary Wealth- Paper or Digital Wealth

 

 

A Concordian Economic Cycle:

Producers (real wealth) give to Consumers.

Consumers (monetary wealth) give to Producers.

 

A successful Concordian Cycle is one in which the Monetary Wealth transferred to the Producers is then converted to Real Wealth that is eventually transferred to the consumers. An unsuccessful Concordian Cycle is one in which Monetary Wealth is taken out of the system in the form of hoarding, thus taking away Real Wealth from the Cycle and allowing, essentially, for the high jacking of that wealth, the concentration of that wealth towards the top echelon of society.

 

The real value of the Concordian economy is in the actual real wealth within that system. Monetary wealth is simply the ability of individuals and companies to take real wealth out the system, to keep the flow of monetary to real wealth from occurring. In any system in which hoarding predominates, the differences between the haves and the have-nots will be great. The more acute the occurrences and degrees of hoarding, the more dramatic that difference will be.

 

 

 

The Allegory of the Twigs and the Worms:

 

 

There are two birds. One bird is good at getting twigs. To get the twigs, the bird needs worms to have the energy to get the twigs. Another bird is good at getting worms, but not so good at getting twigs. The bird who can’t get twigs (let’s call her the consumer bird) works out an arrangement with the bird who CAN get twigs (let’s call him the producer bird).

 

In this relationship, it is plain to see that if the bird who gets the twigs begins to hoard the worms, he won’t be able to produce as much twigs. The other bird, our consumer bird, will have to work harder to get more worms so as to produce enough worms for the producer bird to both get twigs and hoard his stash of worms. The greater the degree of hoarding, the harder the consumer bird will have to work to get the amount of twigs she needs to build her nest.

 

She is creating monetary wealth (the worms) that she transfers to the Producer bird. The monetary wealth she has created is not completely converted to real wealth (the twigs). Part of that wealth, her wealth in essence, has been co-opted by the Producer bird who has chosen to hoard some of his monetary wealth instead of using it to create real wealth (get the twigs).

 

As this allegory shows, hoarding is equivalent to freezing up other people’s wealth. But we all do a degree of hoarding, and in the world we operate in it would almost be foolish not to do so. How can we change the system so as to eliminate hoarding? How can we create a Concordian Cycle that truly creates a state of Concord between Real Wealth and Monetary Wealth?

 

 

Economic Justice: The Four Core Principles of Concordian Economics

 

Concordian Economics seeks to create Economic Justice through the implementation of four policies:

 

Land Policy- We pay taxes only on the land and natural resources we use according to the degree of benefit we derive from their possessions.

 

Monetary Policy- Loans can only be issued for purposes of creating real wealth, and these loans can only be given at cost.

 

Labor Policy- Workers are Contractors and should be compensated according to the value they bring to the company.

 

Industrial Policy- In essence, you cannot hoard. Hoarding is a system of co-opting others’ real wealth.

 

To be sure, what you have read is merely a brief explanation of a complex system that has been developed over 30 plus years by former Fulbright Scholar Carmine Gorga. What we want is for you to understand the very basic principles and ideas of Concordianism. If you believe in the principles, but have questions then we encourage you to find out more about this system.

 

This article does not explain all of the many aspects of Concordianism and how certain dilemmas are solved (like how do you purchase a home in a Concordian system, or how do you protect yourself from economic hardships if you can’t hoard?)

 

Paul Collier

This article may be reprinted fully so long as this link is included:  find more Obama-related news editorials at http://blog.obamanewstweets.com

Posted in Obama Blog Archives | No Comments »

5-30-9 Obama News- Obama Parody- Right

30. May 2009 by admin.

The Butchers of Liberty

In

The Shutdownitus Operation

Starring Lady Liberty as Mrs. Libertas

Nancy Pelosi as Dr Losi

Barrack Obama as Dr. Bomarx

And the musical stylings of D. Mint

Doctor Losi:

Mrs. Libertas?

Mrs Libertas:

Yes, Doctor Losi?

Doctor Losi:

This is my colleague, Doctor Bomarx, who will be explaining things to you in more detail.

Mrs. Libertas:

How’s my child?

Doctor Losi:

I’m afraid your child suffers from Shutdownitus, a very rare disease that causes organs to slowly shut down.

Mrs. Libertas:

Can you save my child?

Doctor Losi:

Doctor Bomarx will talk to you about this.

Doctor Bomarx:

First of all, let me tell you we are sure we are going to possibly save your child, but you have to trust us and we have to act quickly, ok?

To hear the rest of this webpay- go to http://blogtalradio.com/obama_tweets live- Monday 9 EST- or visit our archive site at http://obamacare.tv

Posted in Obama Blog Archives | No Comments »

Sotomayor Nomination 5-28-9

29. May 2009 by admin.

obamachronicles

‘Latina woman’ remark

may dominate hearings

http://tinyurl.com/n4gbn7

“For all her experience and accomplishments, the Senate confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor could hinge on one sentence she uttered more than seven years ago.“Briefing by White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, 5/27/2009

http://twurl.nl/t7gkrl

Gibbs warns Sotomayor critics to ‘be careful’

SBAList

@KarlRove in @WSJ:

Empathy is Code for Judicial Activism

http://bit.ly/ntGi5

“Empathy” is the latest code word for liberal activism, for treating the Constitution as malleable clay to be kneaded and molded in whatever form justices want. It represents an expansive view of the judiciary in which courts create policy that couldn’t pass the legislative branch or, if it did, would generate voter backlash.”

SheridanFolger

Sotomayor Ruled Against a Blogger

http://ff.im/-3lyyc

Sotomayor joined two other judges from the 2nd Circuit in ruling that the student’s off-campus blog remarks created a “foreseeable risk of substantial disruption” at the student’s high school and that the teenager was not entitled to a preliminary injunction reversing a disciplinary action against her, Education Week reports.

LimbaughWire

According To #Limbaugh,

#Obama Wants #Sotomayor

to Impose Race-Based Justice:

http://bit.ly/FmAns

“Rush read from an AP Spin Meter article on the argument over Sotomayor’s statements about courts making policy and white men and Latinas. Rush said the last paragraph of the story was key: “The problem for Sotomayor is that she went beyond the experience-is-important line. She said the Latina experience leads to ‘better’ decisions than the white experience. It’s hard to imagine a judge getting nominated to the Supreme Court after saying white men made better decisions than black women, or Catholics better than Jews.” That’s exactly right, said Rush”

Posted in Obama Blog Archives | No Comments »

Pelosi- On President Obama’s Speech- Should Pelosi go?

24. May 2009 by admin.

  NancyPelosi
On President Obama’s Speech
on National Security
http://twurl.nl/ey36u7

This is a two-paragraph speech, of which  the second paragraph is the one of most provocative, this section being the honey spot, if you will, the meat of the bone:

“President Obama proved again today that being honest with the American people about the threats we face, without resorting to hyperbole and fear mongering, is how responsible leaders conduct themselves in dangerous and difficult times. ….”

Pelosi is trying two simultaneous strategies at the same time, the first is to criminalize the mere questioning of her statements.  After all, by extension, her ‘fear mongering’ quote is a very serious charge to levy not just at republicans but those pesky reporters who want to ask any more questions about this…which leads to the second part of her strategy…

The ‘above it all’ approach….

My silence on this matter is not to be inferred to be anything but a grave sense of responsibility to my nation to uphold decency and civility in our American Political Process…No, that was little ole me that wrote that ghost language, not a Pelosi staffer (I just know they WISH they wrote it..yeah..I’m that good), but it echos her attempt to cloak herself in the prestige of her office as a way of justifying her refusal to answer a very serious charge, did she just lie to the American people and undermine the effectiveness and morale of the CIA in the process, a woman who is two heartbeats removed from the presidency (by the way, that one heart just got lost in his pantry again..he thinks it’s a secret nuclear sub or something), pretty much demands some serious working out to truth, one way or another.

Lest the right get that glossed-over ‘I’m gettin’ puddin’  look on their faces, the Pelosi dustup is a distraction, at least to a wholly separate debate that America needs to have:  Are we going to apply our American Citizenship standards to the rest of the world?  And if so, what are the legitimate security concerns from opening up our process to every single person in the world?  Do the moral reasons alone compel us to willingly sacrifce power leveraging for the sake of being ‘decent’?

This editorial does not attempt to take a position on the matter, only that Pelosi’s CIA charge is wholly separate to the EIT debate.  Her actions were possibly irresponsible, which, were she a Congresswoman alone could be allowed to be forgotten for the sake of the real debate we have to have with ourselves as Americans, but as the Speaker of the House of the United States of America, the woman who controls the purse of the CIA, when she accuses the CIA of lying to congress she undermines our standing amongst ourselves, amongst the CIA folks trying to protect our nation, and even amongst our worldwide enemies.

How do you think Bin Laden feels when Pelosi calls the CIA a bunch of liars?  That cave gets a little warmer that day…like Christmas in Pakistan with deranged Islamo-Fascist killers ….without the Christmas..but with ALLLLLLLL the joy.

Mind you, the right does not want to push this point too strongly?  Why?  They like their damaged Speaker better than someone that might replace her and revitalize the democratic partycongresional image, which will never be strong as long as that face is in front of the cameras doing that arab dance interpretation thing with her hands (what was that..early onset of pelosikan disease?).

They also like using Pelosi to shut down the EIT debate.  Exploiting a valid concern for political gain?  Nooooo!  To the left, I say, don’t put your party in front of the country.  If Pelosi lied, she must go, and, in truth, long term you will be all the stronger for it.  She is a party hack , corrupt through and through, and she needs to be placed by one of your young guns, maybe someone who doesn’t accuse the CIA of lying..even if they did.

Which brings me to the last point of this editorial…

If the CIA has lied before, well, no one would be terribly surprised by that.  But yet, that’s one of those things you don’t share with people who will exploit your statements to train killers to hate us.  It’s kind of like when a family member gets arrested for drunk driving and you know he was an idiot.  You don’t necessarily want to go to his workplace and complain about his stupidity.  Again, if she were merely a congresswoman (congress members are about as useful as those tags on pillows telling me not to de-tag the pillow..vested interest in that, no doubt), this would not be worthy of continuing to investigate..

But she is the speaker of the House.  Not that I would wish a special investigation or any investigation that requires money (we’re like so broke..can you check back in a decade or two?)…you see, the fact that the Speaker of the House of the United States, using the prestige of her office, accused the CIA of lying, is more than enough for Americans from all sides of the aisle to rise up and call for Pelosi to go.

This will delay the implementation of Obamacare, and, unless he gets some positive news soon, his political capital might not last much longer (not his popularity, that should remain high).   For Progressives who have been waiting for decades to prove their plan will work, Pelosi needs to stay until they get the most essential elements of ObamaCare through Congress.

For republicans (there are no conservatives left in Washington with any real power, even within the republican party), it is in their best interest to keep Pelosi as the face of the democratic party.  She drives away dems like no one else (save for that other winner of ‘in touch with the people’, Harry Reid).  They just want to carve out a nice niche for themselves in the new progressive reality.

But America must move to remove this irresponsible wletoman from such a powerful and essential part of our American government, even if it delays ObamaCare, even if it strengthens the dems for 2012.  Party be damned, let no Speaker feel they can be so irresponsible with the lives of our young men and women serving in dangerous lands around the world without suffering draconian consequences, the loss of their Speakership.

I do not conceal that I am a right-leaning libertarion Freedomist, and I will confess that Pelosi in office is good for my cause, for 2010, and even more for 2012, but I would sacrifice anything, including my own life, to preserve America as a viable nation, even if it means the progressives will be in charge a little longer.

We cannot allow our nation to be run by a woman who has sacrificed so much for the sake of preserving her political capital amongst the hard left.  Didn’t we learn enough from Bush and Clinton..and..and..

Ivo Fisic

An American Freedomist- for ObamaCare

This article may be used so long as this link is included:  find more articles like this at http://blog.obamanewstweets.com

Congress will continue to work hand-in-hand with the President to provide our military and intelligence services all the tools they need to fight terrorism and to keep the American people safe.”

Posted in Obama Blog Archives | No Comments »

Maddow Calls out Obama- 5-21-9

23. May 2009 by admin.

http://blog.obamacare.tv/2009/05/21/obama-blog-maddow-calls-out-obama-is-the-left-turning-on-obama-video-5-21-9/

Posted in Obama Blog Archives | No Comments »

Obama Blogs- Video Release- Open Questions- Transparent Government

23. May 2009 by admin.

http://blog.obamacare.tv/2009/05/21/obama-blogs-video-release-white-house-open-for-questions-transparent-government/

Posted in Obama Blog Archives | No Comments »

5-21-9- White House Press Briefing

23. May 2009 by admin.

http://blog.obamacare.tv/2009/05/22/white-house-press-briefing-obama-news-5-21-9/

Posted in Obama Blog Archives | No Comments »

Eric Cantor Protests Dawn Johnsen Nominee

23. May 2009 by admin.

http://blog.obamacare.tv/2009/05/22/eric-cantor-on-dawn-johnsen-nomination-youtube/

Posted in Obama Blog Archives | No Comments »

5-22-9 White House Press Briefing

23. May 2009 by admin.

http://blog.obamacare.tv/2009/05/23/5-22-9-white-house-press-briefing-robert-gibbs-the-6am-joke/

Posted in Obama Blog Archives | No Comments »