Budget Hypocrisy: How Can You Tell When Robert Gibbs Is Lying?
His lips are moving.
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs is a condescending troll. I leave the room when he breaks into his soft voice. Jennifer Loven from the Associated Press and ABC's Jake Tapper question Gibbs why the Obama administration was grandstanding about saving $100 million in his proposed budget when Gibbs downplayed the significance of $8 billion in earmarks less than a month ago.
This is some beautiful stuff. Can't really explain the joy I get from watching Gibbs get slapped around.
From ABC:
April 20, 2009 3:01 PM
I interjected in an exchange between White House press secretary Robert Gibbs and another reporter today, so I've included their exchange (with my interruption) as well as my own.
JENNIFER LOVEN, AP: The $100 million target figure that the president talked about today with the Cabinet, can you explain why so small? I know he talked about -- you know, you add up 100 million and 100 million, and eventually, you get somewhere, but it would take an awfully long time to add up hundred million (inaudible) in the deficit. Why not target a bigger number?
GIBBS: (Smiling) Well, I think only in Washington, D.C. is a hundred million dollars...
LOVEN: The deficit's very large. It's not a joke.
GIBBS: No, I'm...
LOVEN: The deficit's giant. $100 million really is only a step.
GIBBS: But no joke.
LOVEN: You sound like you're joking about it, but it's not funny.
GIBBS: I'm not making jokes about it. I'm being completely sincere that only in Washington, D.C. is $100 million not a lot of money. It is where I'm from. It is where I grew up. And I think it is for hundreds of millions of Americans.
LOVEN: The point is it's not a very big portion of the deficit.
TAPPER: You were talking about an appropriations bill a few weeks ago about $8 billion being minuscule -- $8 billion in earmarks. We were talking about that and you said that that...
GIBBS: Well, in terms of -- in...(CROSSTALK)
TAPPER: ...$100 million is a lot but $8 billion is small?
GIBBS: Well, what I'm saying is I think it all adds up just as the president said, just as Jennifer was good enough to do in her question. If you think we're going to get rid of $1.3 trillion deficit by eliminating one thing, I'd be -- and the administration would be innumerably happy for you to let us know what that is.
LOVEN: Why not try to get a bigger number so you can get a...
GIBBS: Well, let me explain sort of what has happened. Let's walk through this so that everybody understands this. The president has laid out cuts, large and small, in both the administrative costs and in the program costs of the federal budget. Some of the examples that we were -- we provided you all will add up. For instance, the Department of Veteran's Affairs either cancels or delays 26 conferences that can be better or more effectively and more cost effectively done by video conferencing that saves almost $18 million.
A lot of these administrative things will add up. This is a short-term goal to come back with over the course of the next few weeks to identify further administrative savings that secretaries haven't already both identified and eliminated.
The president has also proposed savings on a much larger scale. The president has proposed ending the bank middle man for college loans, saving $94 billion over a ten-year period of time. The president has attacked, in his budget, the subsidies that we provide insurance companies to provide the same Medicare coverage -- private insurance companies the same type of Medicare coverage that's already being offered at a savings of over $200 billion.
Jennifer, the reason that the president can stand up with the backing of the Congressional Budget Office and talk about cutting the deficit in half over the course of four year's time is because there are cuts that are large, student loans and Medicare Advantage, as well as small. This is the part of the president's promise and proposal to go line by line through the federal budget deficit. Will we enumerate programs that don't work that we're going to eliminate in the future? Yes. Some of those cuts will be large. Some of those cuts will be small.
But we're not going to put ourselves back on a path toward fiscal sustainability if we don't look at each and every item in this federal budget and make some of the cuts that are necessary to get us on that path.
Apr 21, 2009 at 4:01 AM
Reader Comments (7)
To put those numbers in perspective, imagine that the head of a household with annual spending of $100,000 called everyone in the family together to deal with a $34,000 budget shortfall. How much would he or she announce that spending had to be cut? By $3 over the course of the year--approximately the cost of one latte at Starbucks. The other $33,997? We can put that on the family credit card and worry about it next year.
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2009/04/fiscal-responsibility.html
http://nymag.com/news/businessfinance/56151/
Mrs. Feinstein's intervention on behalf of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. was unusual: the California Democrat isn't a member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs with jurisdiction over FDIC; and the agency is supposed to operate from money it raises from bank-paid insurance payments - not direct federal dollars.
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/21/senate-husbands-firm-cashes-in-on-crisis/
It's even worse. It's like taking $1 out of a $34,000 budget. Sorry, peasants, no latte for you. But maybe you could afford a small cup of joe from Dunkin Donuts.
While I appreciate your anger, you needn't fear nationalization. It will not function as you assume. It is precisely to avoid unlimited losses to taxpayers that we advocate seizing the failed banks (C and BAC), and then chopping and selling their assets. The losses would be shared between taxpayers and bondholders versus the current system where bonholders are kept whole.