MSNBC "Morning Joe" - Transcript

Interview

MSNBC "Morning Joe" - Transcript

MSNBC "MORNING JOE" INTERVIEW WITH SENATOR JOHN THUNE (R-SD)

SUBJECTS: TROUBLED ASSET RELIEF PROGRAM, PAKISTAN

INTERVIEWERS: JOE SCARBOROUGH, MIKA BRZEZINSKI, PAT BUCHANAN, WILLIE GEIST, CHUCK TODD

Copyright ©2009 by Federal News Service, Inc., Ste. 500, 1000 Vermont Ave, Washington, DC 20005 USA. Federal News Service is a private firm not affiliated with the federal government. No portion of this transcript may be copied, sold or retransmitted without the written authority of Federal News Service, Inc. Copyright is not claimed as to any part of the original work prepared by a United States government officer or employee as a part of that person's official duties. For information on subscribing to the FNS Internet Service at www.fednews.com, please email Carina Nyberg at cnyberg@fednews.com or call 1-202-216-2706.

MR. SCARBOROUGH: Let me ask you. Willie Geist went out to Las Vegas. He had the chance to vote for Miss California or Miss North Carolina.

Willie, did you not -- this was South Dakota values, right, Willie Geist? You went with Miss California, right?

MR. GEIST: I did. I gave her credit for standing firm in her belief, Mr. Senator.

SEN. THUNE: Way to go, Willie.

MR. GEIST: Thank you.

MR. SCARBOROUGH: So you're saying, John Thune, that if you, if Donald Trump had asked you to be a Miss USA judge, you, too, would have voted for Miss California, right?

SEN. THUNE: Absolutely.

MR. SCARBOROUGH: He answered.

SEN. THUNE: Well, I would have voted for Miss South Dakota first, Joe, but yeah, Miss California next.

MR. SCARBOROUGH: All right, politician. Thanks so much. Pick up your check and we'll talk to you later.

SEN. THUNE: All right.

MR. SCARBOROUGH: John, you have an interesting idea about the TARP money that's paid back by the banks. What is it?

SEN. THUNE: Well, we're just concerned, Joe, that when these banks start paying back the monies and some are, and, in fact, we've got banks who want to pay the back the monies and right now are being told that the Treasury has no way of receiving funds that the banks want to repay, but when they are paid back, insuring that they don't go into some discretionary slush fund that can be used to pay for other government programs here in Washington that actually go directly to debt reduction.

Now, they will argue that we're already going to do that, but if you've heard statements made by chief administration officials like Timothy Geithner, they're indicating that they intend to recycle this, put it back into the TARP fund and continue to use it.

We think it ought to be -- once those funds are repaid, they're not necessary any more; they ought to go to reduce the debt, which is, you know, piling up by the minute as we continue to borrow from future generations.

MS. BRZEZINSKI: Yeah. But how long is it going to take for that money -- there's no way for them to pay back right now, did you say? There's no actual physical transaction?

SEN. THUNE: Ironically, we have banks who want to give the money back because they don't like the strings that are attached, the restrictions that have been applied and have been told by the Treasury that they can't return the money.

So we're hoping that's going to be fixed, but when it is fixed and they can pay the money back, we think it ought to be directed to debt reduction.

MR. SCARBOROUGH: Chuck Todd.

MR. TODD: But Senator Thune, what's wrong -- I've heard this argument that banks want to pay it back because they don't like the strings, but the government is like, you know what, you're not as capitalized yet as you're trying to make it out to be because you don't like the strings, but isn't that what taxpayers wanted -- look, we're going to help these banks, but by gosh, there's going to be real strings this time and you guys aren't going to be able to run wild? Isn't that a healthy thing that there are strings attached to this money?

SEN. THUNE: Well, I think you can argue and probably rightly so that there needs to be -- there's got to be oversight, Chuck, you know that. There have to be some certain conditions. But I think that banks that have healthy balance sheets took the money in some cases, felt sort of pressured to do it and want to give it back because I've talked to a bank, for example, who says we're losing executives to other banks because we can't compete with these executive compensation limits and the bonus limits and those sorts of things.

So there are banks, I think, who have healthy balance sheets that are well capitalized that want to give the money back and are being told that they can't.

MR. TODD: All right. But you used a phrase there that I think that a lot of people will dispute, a healthy balance sheet versus actually having enough capital to do proper lending, lending at a rate that where interest rates seem to be fair, that people feel like that they're getting the same deal where you get these banks that are borrowing money from the Fed right now at less than one percent. Are they passing that savings along?

So do you really believe -- these banks have been reporting a healthy balance sheet because they get to do some accounting tricks, but do we really feel comfortable that they have real capital to do the real lending at an interest rate that seems reasonable for small business?

SEN. THUNE: Well, all banks have to maintain reserves, they have capital ratios they have to meet and the regulators are going to insure that. So if they have satisfactory levels of capital and they want to pay back the funds, it seems to me they ought to have that option available to them. Now, obviously, there are banks who probably aren't in that condition and many of them who receive funds are going to need the funds probably to continue to provide the capital that they can continue to make loans with. But I'm aware of because we've had people who have contacted with us, including in my own state who have and we happen to know this and have very good capital positions, and yet want to pay back funds and haven't been able to do that.

MR. SCARBOROUGH: John, let's go to the scourge of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, I speak, of course, of Patrick J. Buchanan. Pat?

MR. BUCHANAN: Senator, we had a big discussion here this morning about whether or not the torture, the alleged torture that took place should be investigated by a congressional committee, independent commission like 9/11, independent counsel appointed by Eric Holder or should not be investigated, we know what happened, let's move on.

What do you think ought to be done among those options?

SEN. THUNE: Well, my view, Pat is and I know you had a very spirited debate about this this morning on the show that it's advisable, I think, for the new administration to look out the windshield rather than in the rear view mirror and there are so many challenges that we face out there. You mentioned earlier this morning the Taliban is closing in on Islamabad. Every day that goes by Iran is closer to having a nuclear capability and it seems to me that going back and trying, what do you do, prosecute lawyers for giving bad legal advice.

If you go down that path, that is an abyss from which there is no return and I think that political consequences of that to the country would be very, very devastating right now, and plus, there are folks up here as you all know on Capitol Hill on the intelligence committees that were informed about that. Where does this thing end? And it seems to me, at least, that right now, there was legitimate policy differences. We shouldn't criminalize policy differences and the administration, I think, is well served to look at the challenges and the threats that we face out in front of us rather than looking in the rear view mirror.

END.

Source