Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
This -- extension and calls the program savings phony.
Republican senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire joins me now with his take on -- -- -- -- -- released a statement great news volleys or senator and you -- statement and yesterday.
And I would ask you about it you don't want real quick here you said you'd probably have -- extending TARP -- you say.
That that heart that this could be inappropriate or illegal it makes sense -- I went up for what you meant by us and.
Well first -- there's two pools of money here to talk about is the money that's gone out the door and is now being paid back.
By Citigroup for example they pay their money back all that money that went out to banks most of its gonna come back -- interest.
Text is gonna make little money.
That money under the terms under the terms of the TARP language I know this is -- -- asked to go to debt reduction when it comes back again.
Now there's another group of funds here alleged to exist they do not exist by the way which that you just -- -- your -- -- from.
Secretary Geithner the money that allegedly.
Between five or fifty billion and the 700 billion that was authorized there -- no money there there's no money in cash -- somewhere at the treasury 150 billion dollars.
That money would have to be borrow.
Just like you have to -- it for anything else the government does does the government doesn't have any money and so when they used car.
In this way or -- they're gonna use it this way for something other let's say building roads -- some sort of activity like that.
They're basically saying they're gonna go out and borrow another 150 billion dollars from China and spend it on routes.
Well that wasn't the intention of -- either and more importantly it's a fraud because there is no money there to use and they -- using TARP is a cover.
It political cover for the purposes of borrowing money to do one of their new stimulus packages.
We already know the stimulus packages are at the margin relevant to how they work.
And it would be totally inappropriate because our kitchen and up that delicate chip market should not end up with more debt being put on their back for stimulus package which is -- the best.
On the margin of doing anything as we move out of this recession.
And I think it clear on this senator -- because you -- part of the the negotiating committee for economic wearing a recovery stabilization act so under which became part.
So under that can they legally take TARP money and pay down.
The debt of the deficit and -- the legal and that's it.
Actually what they're supposed to do they're supposed to take the money.
Comes in they've got two things they can do of the money -- time one they can use it to stabilize the financial industry when there's -- systemic risk.
Two if they don't use it for that purpose.
As the money comes in or when the program terminates they have to use it to pay down the debt that's what the loss as they have these pay down -- what their -- Is that because they have not drawn down 150 billion dollars -- and borrow this additional 150 billion dollars in China yet.
That they can take that new borrowing authority -- that borrowing authority is -- for something else well they can dig any -- authority they want but they can't use TARP money.
For something else.
And it's totally inappropriate to allege that.
What we have back and looked at under the original bill for talk we're we're looking at exactly what TARP was supposed to be used for again to buy troubled assets -- under this.
It says in this is a quote from the -- any other financial instrument.
This is -- trouble -- added that the secretary after consultation with the chairman of the board of governors with the -- Determines the purchase of which is necessary to promote financial market stability but only upon.
-- middle of such determination in writing to the appropriate committees of congress did you get anything in writing for instance.
When we went to bail out general.
Motors and Chrysler.
Yes which my opinion push the envelope to the furthest extreme and that language but at that time.
We received a communication that said that it was a systemic risk if it GM went under.
And they were able to -- GM in.
And Chrysler in because of their financing arms but you certainly can't do that for building roads in the general purposes of the government even small business lending would be totally inappropriate under that language.
And it would clearly be illegal.
This money we put this -- we -- for very specific reasons you know.
Lent this money these banks let it.
And we expect to get -- back of interest which were going to do.
But we had to borrow this money to get it we had to borrow this money from other countries basically and that bill's going to our kids so when we did that we said listen if we get this money back.
Let's not have this gets still on her book for our kids that's pay it down and so that's why the language says that the money have to go to pay down the debt -- it's not used to buy up to settle -- A a systemic fiscal -- You -- -- -- 150 billion by the late senator stretched over a decade in their front loading it right now these -- jobs -- I mean let's be blunt I mean that -- troubled asset we're talking about -- the cut a Democrats own seats.
And congress in the mid term election so how do you square Treasury Secretary Geithner saying just now to congress.
That they had choices on how to use this 150 billion and with the president saying every penny of that will go towards back towards paying the deficit.
Well because they're playing.
They're playing language games with the American public has been games they're trying to -- -- into their stimulus package.
For political reasons been reasons you know the banks were bailed out there for a main street America -- get this money better.
Essentially the same thing would happen.
Under either approach which would be that you would add to death by -- 150 billion dollars.
Send that money out.
And uses walking around money for members of congress who want -- -- certain programs most of which most of those programs.
The it include implementation of them won't occur in the years when he thirteenth when he fourteenth when he fifteen long after.
We're well past this recession.
Priority -- session but the pain is still there -- any.
The simple fact is it that this is not a good way to manage our fiscal house we should not be adding massive increases in debt.
At all we certainly shouldn't be adding it complaining in some.
Extraordinarily tortured way that this is actually money that we have somewhere in some draw when it doesn't even exist it'll still have to be -- OK what what let me ask you this than senator you made your point -- -- -- disagree with the treasury secretary's decision to extend -- what you can do about it -- plan.
Well we certainly hope to be able to get a vote but it.
Hopefully as we wrap up this -- On terminating car.
John -- senator from South Dakota has -- bill to do exactly that I think we should do it.
Obviously was one of the authors of -- I think it did what it was supposed to do which is settled out the financial industry and avoided a fiscal collapse which probably would have led to a depression it.
Chairman Bernanke said but now that you know that the purpose of the TARP is over.
And we should terminated and I hope we can get a vote to do that but right now are being stonewalled by.
Our colleagues on the other side of the -- and the administration getting such a vote.
Senator we're definitely picked the story up with you again very sensitive Jenrette in New Hampshire it's always great to have you on the -- -- -- -- With a brand New York again.
Filter by section