Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
2.7%  Q1 GDP    4.57%  avg. 30-year mortgage     9.5%  Unemployment

Sen. Gregg hammers Orszag on unspent bailout funds

Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) really laid the wood to White House budget director Peter Orszag in a Hill hearing this morning over what to do with the remainder of the original bailout, or the $700 billion TARP.

Orszag, who, as you may recall, has been in the news lately, was making the argument that $30 billion worth of the unspent TARP funds should be used to help out small businesses.

That really set off Gregg, who withdrew a nomination from the Obama White House to be commerce secretary.

"No, no, no, you cannot make that kind of statement with any legitimacy," Gregg responded, his voice rising, Reuters reports. "You don't appear to understand the law."

Orszag tried to respond, beginning, "Okay ..."

But Gregg would not hear it. He began reading from the TARP authorization law saying that unspent TARP funds must be used to pay down the national debt.

"You're adding to the debt that our kids our going to have to pay back," Gregg said.

Gregg told Orszag that he cannot use the unspent TARP funds to score political points in "Nashua, N.H.," where the president is speaking at this moment.

Follow me on Twitter at @theticker

By Frank Ahrens  |  February 2, 2010; 2:16 PM ET
Categories:  The Ticker  | Tags: Judd Gregg, Obama, Peter Orszag, TARP, bailout  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: January sales: Ford up 24%, GM up 14%, Toyota down 9%, Chrysler down 8%
Next: Stocks open slightly down following positive jobs news


Wah, your not helping the big business robber barons, only small business with returned TARP fund supposed to reduce the budget. This Senator will have a tough time with Obama in his state today pushing to spend to help the little guy. Thankfully Gregg turned down Obama's Commerce Secy offer by his votes against the little guy. Here's his votes and (S.)enate outcomes on various issues. Preventing OPECs No/S. Yes, provide Native Americans healthcare NO/S. Yes, Anwar driling Yes/S. NO, Sugar growers assoc get 6 million Yes/S No, more medicare funds No/S. Yes, FDA increase-small farmer-rural development No/S. Yes, Mandatory arbitration (strike breaker) Yes/S. No, SCIPS No/S. Yes, Lily Ledbetter No/S. Yes, rural medicare increase No/S. Yes, Wash. D.C. voting act No/S. Yes, union voice waiver voting act No/S. Yes, equal pay act No/S Yes, Investigate Iraq contractors (20 billion not accounted for) No/S. No (Republican Senate), investigate Katrina No/S. No (R.S.), Starwars funding drop No/S. Yes, re-import of drugs No/S. No (Democratic Senate that paid with Brown). Pretty obvious whose side he's on, not yours.

Posted by: jameschirico | February 2, 2010 5:10 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company