This morning in Warrensburg General (Retired) Richard B. Myers, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, presented the Ike Skelton Lecture on the campus of the University of Central Missouri. He spoke at length, then answered submitted questions from the audience (read from the podium by Brigadier General Thomas Bussiere), and then took questions directly from the audience.

Earlier in the morning General Myers took questions from the media in a short press conference.

At one point a submitted question (and the general’s answer) touched on new media:

General (Retired) Richard B. Myers, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, speaking

at the Ike Skelton lecture on the campus of the University of Central Missouri on January 22, 2014.

[….]

Question:  ….in your time as Chairman the media has become more invasive and rabid in coverage . Now with the advent of social media has become even more so and many stories are being created and developed by non-professionals. What challenges, uh, do you see this creates in the public sector for both leadership and how would you advise future leadership to handle this?

Gen. (Ret.) Richard B. Myers: Well, I think future leadership, and I think the Air Force here does pretty well. The Navy does very well. Uh, the Army here, the Army does not do very well in this area. But this is the whole notion of communications. And, uh, I met your public affairs officer earlier. We were briefed on the little press conference we had.

Uh, I think those that are in charge of our public affairs or communications, uh, need to have a seat at the table, uh, for everything that goes on to include, uh, uh, planning for combat. They’ve got to be right there. And then they’ve got to participate when you’re in the middle of, uh, co, conflict or a, uh, bad event. Uh, they need to be there as well. Early on, not when the reporters are at the gates saying, we want to come in and talk to you. Uh, but well before that, all part of that planning. I think that’s the way, you know, you accommodate to the world we’re in today where the, where the news whips around very fast.

Let me give you an example. So you sit in the Pentagon, you hear the news, and it says, uh, Al Jazeera’s reporting that the U.S. troops, this is hypothetical, U.S. troops, uh, bombed a mosque [inaudible], fired into a mosque. So I call Tommy Franks, say, Tommy, they’re saying that you guys bombed a mosque, what the heck’s that about? He says, I’ll find out and get back to you. And, uh, what Al Jazeera would show you is, uh, you know, U.S. fire going into the mosque. That’s all they would show you. And Tommy comes back and says, yeah, they had a big weapons cache in there and we were taking heavy fire from the mosque and, uh, we had to retaliate, he said. Okay, it sounds fair. Where are the pictures of that fire coming from the mosque? Where are the pictures of the, the weapons cache? Uh, well, they’d get that to you maybe in a, in a month. Well that, that great news story was live for maybe twenty, twenty-four hours. [inaudible] Maybe, maybe couple hour, uh, days. But, it’s no longer around. So I think being more agile in how we address, uh, those kinds of situations, making everybody in the unit know that they can be this strategic corporal that by their actions can draw international attention. I think that’s the way you address that.

You can’t, you can’t address all those that are on the blogosphere with varying credentials. I mean, it’s like swatting flies. And you don’t have time to swat flies. So, let, let the flies buzz around.  Concentrate on those sorts of issues, uh, pick out those in media that you trust. And you can develop trusting relationships with media as well. And, and develop those so when something really goes wrong you have somebody you can turn to that’s, you have a relationship with that’ll at least give you a fair hearing.

[….]

General (Retired) Richard B. Myers.

Credentials. Those worked out so well for Judith Miller.

Previously: White House blogger conference call on President Obama’s economic speech (April 13, 2011)

“….This is about what kind of country we’re gonna live in, what kind of country we believe we can, uh, we can make here. And, uh, the notion that somehow we can, uh, you know, cut education by a third, the notion that we can ask seniors to pay six thousand more dollars in Medicare costs, I don’t know many seniors that can even begin to think they could afford a fraction of that, the notion that we’re gonna cut energy research, at a time of high gas prices, by seventy percent, you know, that’s not, uh, the America I think most people believe, uh, we need to build….”

Last Wednesday we participated in a White House blogger conference call after the President’s speech on the economy which included David Plouffe, Dan Pfeiffer and Brian Deese from the National Economic Council and a whole bunch of A-list bloggers. And Z-list us. The transcript of the question and answer session follows:

[….]

Question: …Um, in his speech today President Obama said that he would refuse to, to extend the tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires again. I was wondering if this would be the case even if no deal could be struck with Republicans to do so and thus the only path of, of keeping them from being extended would be to have all of Bush tax cuts expire, including for those making under two hundred fifty thousand dollars.

David Plouffe:  Well, there’s, I, I think that, uh, the President’s view on this is clear that the, you know, middle class, obviously, particularly given that we have a healing economy but we have a long way to go, middle class people are obviously feeling the effect of, of gas prices and food prices right now. Obviously, the tax bill that was struck carries forward to the end of, uh, two thousand and, and twelve. Um, you know, the President’s been, been very clear, uh, on this, and restated it today. He’s not gonna renew, uh, those tax cuts. And, uh, you know, particularly if the economy hopefully continues to strengthen, um, uh, you know, he believes that the wealthiest in this country, uh, you know, are gonna have the ability, uh, to contribute both to deficit reduction and obviously, uh, to go to tax rates where they’ve been very successful in the past. So, uh, you know, under what scenario that comes up we obviously don’t know now. Uh, but, but as he said back in December of last year, uh, and restated today, he, he’s not gonna renew that. And, and I think in the future, uh, there’ll obviously be a debate about the middle class tax cut. There’s some people who don’t think that those should continue. Uh, I think the President, uh, believes that, uh, uh, he’s, you know, cut a lot of taxes for the middle class over the last two years. He thinks it’s one of the reasons, uh, that the economy is, uh, is growing, the tax bill that was struck in December. Uh, and, but, but, you know, the notion that somehow the only way to do middle class tax relief, uh, is to have the wealthiest in this country, uh, once again, uh, come along for the ride, uh, you know, the President doesn’t support that. So, uh, you know, that’ll be a debate. Obviously, uh, you know, again, it’s the law through next year, uh, so, uh, you know, I assume this’ll be part of, uh, whatever political discourse happens next year. Um, you saw some of the reaction to the President’s speech today. Uh, and, you know, that’s a debate the President’s comfort, comfortable having. Uh, more than comfortable having.  And, you know, we, we’ve had it, uh, you know, in two thousand and eight, certainly. But, not in a campaign context as we, as we go into the, the next few weeks here. You know, I, I  think we’re gonna have a debate here in the country and here in Washington about the best way to go about deficit reduction. Uh, and the President believes that, uh, uh, an answer that asks so much of the middle class and so much of seniors and so much of the poor, and not only just doesn’t ask something of the very wealthy, but lavishes them huge tax breaks. Again, think about that. The average, as the President said in his speech today, uh, he’s been very fortunate in his life, uh, at least lately, so he would get a two hundred thousand dollar tax cut that would get paid, essentially, by thirty-three seniors in America paying six thousand more dollars, uh, for their health care costs. And he said today, uh, you know, not on his watch. It’s not gonna happen as he’s President. Uh, so, uh, you know, I think the President’s gonna be clear that, uh, as we look at these tax issues down the line, um, uh, you know, uh, what happened in December, uh, is he said in December, uh, is not something he’s in favor of going forward…

…Question: Okay, so, just to be clear, the answer is yes, he’s not gonna renew them again under any circumstances.

David Plouffe:  Well, I would say again, what, what he said today is he’s not gonna renew them. Uh, and he does not believe, first of all, that that makes fiscal sense. Uh, and we can’t hold, you know, sort of middle class tax, uh, cuts down the, again, I know, you know, there’s a long time between now and that, so exactly what form and when, but the notion, uh, that the only way we’re gonna get middle class tax [inaudible], particularly if the economy is, is healing now, uh, uh, is to connect them to the wealthy, uh, the wealthy tax cut, the Bush tax cuts, he’s not gonna be in favor of that.

Question: …Simpson Bowles mentioned a robust public option as one of the proposals that they would put out there for cutting health care costs. Is that something the White House would consider being on the table?

[crosstalk]

Brian Deese: …The framework that the President put out today included a set of proposals, uh, and [inaudible] will be sensible and important and build on the framework that was put in place, uh, with true health reform. And it would both, uh, increase some of the cost saving measures that actually bring down the rate of heath care costs, uh, growth through that, uh, uh, through that legislation and also incorporate new reforms, including on Medicaid by strengthening the federal state partnership, increasing the efficiencies for states, and asking more accountability of states as well. Uh, I think our view is that those steps taken together would really [inaudible] the deficit reduction potential of the Affordable Care Act and have the potential to actually double, uh, the, uh, deficit reduction savings, add another trillion, uh, in deficit reduction, uh, in, uh, the second decade of the [inaudible] reforms. So we think that the, the framework that we put down today would really, uh, be good for the health care system overall and helping further bend, uh, bend the cost curve. Uh, but, also for, uh, for, uh, reducing the deficit as well. So, that’s, uh, that’s the, that’s the approach that we’re putting forward, uh [crosstalk]…

Question: [inaudible] the approach put forward. I asked you a question about the public option. I mean, you simply restated what your proposal was. So are you saying the White House would not be amenable to considering the public option?

Brian Deese: Uh, I think, I think, I think that we’re gonna go into a negotiation here and the president was putting forth what he thinks is a sensible balanced approach. Um, obviously, when you go into a negotiation, um, nobody’s going to, uh, you know, set preconditions on what others can put onto the table, but the President’s putting on the table what he thinks makes sense in moving forward on our, on health care reform.

Question: Okay. All right, thanks.

[….]

Question: …I had a question about the baseline, um, that you’re using for part of the tax, um, plan on a call earlier. I, I, basically it’s just reconfirming something that, uh, was s
aid on the call that you guys did earlier today for media. Um, there is, one part of the plan says that, uh, I think a quarter, uh, no more than a quarter of deficit reduction, um, will come from tax reform, from increased revenues from tax reform. And what I wanted to verify is that what, what was said on the previous call is that the baseline assumption is the expiration of the upper income tax, uh, cuts. So therefore, that twenty-five percent, the additional savings, tax reform, or the additional revenue generated by tax reform would be above and beyond the, um, expiration of the tax, uh, of the tax cuts for the wealthy. So, I just wanted to verify that that understanding is in fact what you all are proposing.

Brian Deese: Yes. Yes, that’s right. Uh, you know [inaudible] we had with our budget, uh, assumed the expiration of the Bush high income tax cuts. So, the four trillion dollar framework and the, uh, the one in four, uh, uh, dollar steps to reduction [inaudible] tax reform is, uh, in addition to the revenue impact of allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire.

Question: Do you have, uh, a sense, generally speaking, um, if you, if you were to, if you were able to break out what the, um, revenue impact of allowing those tax cuts to expire, how that would compare with the, uh, tax reform revenue?

Brian Deese: Yeah, I , over a, over a ten year budget window, uh, the full cost of allowing, uh, the, the Bush high income tax cuts to expire, uh, as well as returning the estate tax to its two thousand nine parameters, uh, which is the, you know, uh, the administration’s, uh, uh, policy, uh, is nearly a trillion dollars including interest, uh, or interest savings. [crosstalk]

Question: So, so, it would be roughly equal to the tax reform, uh, uh [crosstalk]…

Brian Deese: Yes.

[….]

Question: …There’s some confusion stemming from the, the meeting, uh,  with the congressional leaders this morning. Uh, Speaker Boehner left and said that, uh, he’s heard from the White House that, uh, they would be open to a, uh, debt ceiling raising bill that had various reform elements attached to it, so, in other words, not a clean bill that was, uh, discussed by the White House, um, and by you David on, on Sunday. I’m wondering if, uh, that, if the Speaker has the facts correct. And, secondly, related to it, is, uh, it a possibility that the, uh, debt fail safe, uh, option that you talked about in the speech today, if that is something that could theoretically be attached to a, the, uh, uh, the ceiling being raised?

[crosstalk]

Speaker unknown: [inaudible] …to the second half of your question, it’s too early to get into, uh, where this [inaudible] We’re just beginning the process the President announced today. [inaudible] congressional leaders, um, and then from kickoff, um, the leaders gonna go, are gonna go, are gonna work on it, uh, [inaudible] come back to us with recommendations out of the board [inaudible] getting something done by June. Uh, [inaudible]…

Uh, our view on this, uh, [inaudible] has always been the fact that the debt ceiling is gonna get raised. Every, every member of Congress, uh, every leader in Congress that [inaudible] they said they’re gonna raise the ceiling. Uh, they’re, uh, it is, uh, but, it is our belief that they do not want to play chicken with the economy, uh, on this ’cause it would have, uh, calamitous effect. We are, we do not believe you need to, uh, you do not need the debt ceiling to deal with the deficit. [inaudible] done separately, um, and that’s our hope.

[….]

David Plouffe: …You know, listen, and I, I do think this is important, I mean, we’re at the point now where, you know, it’s not just the leadership, although that’s most important, but, you know, a lot of rank and file members of Congress in both parties. I mean, everyone’s been clear.  We’re not gonna play chicken with the full faith and credit of the United States and risk an economic catastrophe. Uh, particularly just as we’re recovering from the last economic catastrophe.  So, the debt limit is going to pass. Um, you know, uh, obviously exactly when, uh, what the process is, uh, will, uh, will be revealed. But, you know, now at the same time, and we’ve been clear about this, there’s gonna be important bipartisan discussions about reducing our deficit. Um, and that, there was a good discussion about that today with the President and the leadership. So, um, you know, we need to do the responsible thing in the coming weeks, which is passing the debt limit. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t start to make progress in reducing the deficit in a smart way. And, uh, and in terms of the, the fail safe, again, as Dan said, it’s too early. Uh, I think that was an important part of a proposal, it should give people confidence and if, uh, the projections aren’t right or if Congress doesn’t do all it should on the front end in terms of putting us on the right pathway, uh, you know, there’s gonna be a, uh, hard backstop. Uh, that forces Congress to, uh, to, uh, you know, to, to make decisions or be at the whim of the trigger. So, um, I think that’s important part of this and my sense is that something that should have some, um, you know, some bipartisan support.

Question: …One of the major concerns fro, uh, progressive community, uh, off of the speech with this three to one ratio of, uh, spending cuts to tax revenue that you outlined in the fact sheet, wondering if you could just sort offer a, uh, an explanation of how you settled on that and whether, and why you think that’s, uh, the best way to move forward.

Brian Deese: …I would just make one point going back to the, the question, uh, two questions ago. Um, when, when thinking about three to one ratio I think it is important to recognize that that is, uh, that is on a baseline that already assumes the, uh, expiration of the Bush high income tax cuts. So, uh, there is nearly a trillion dollars in revenue, uh, from allowing a, uh, Bush high income tax cut to expire, uh, that is not part of that [inaudible] framework. So, I think that’s, uh, that’s important, that’s important context of, and, you know, with respect to the question of, uh, balancing the need to have tax reform that, uh, that [inaudible] package. I think the, the balance of two dollars in spending cuts, a dollar in interest savings, and a dollar from, uh, uh, from revenues, which, you know, is three dollars in spending, including interest, plus revenue is a, uh, you know, is a, a, is, is, is an approach that has, uh, has economic logic but also, uh, uh, it is, is a framework that people, uh, could get around, particularly when [inaudible] we’re working off, working, we’re working off a starting point where we’ve already, uh, we’ve already gotten, uh, gotten rid of [inaudible].

David Plouffe: And I would just add, you know, to what Brian said is, you know, obviously the way this works is you don’t decide what the ratio should be and then get into the details. I mean this was built off of, you know, the President and his, uh, budget and economic team doing a lot of work about what the, you know, what the best pathway here is for the country, for the economy, for the people in the country. And, uh, you know, I think the President’s view is as it relates to, uh, uh, taxes, uh, you know, the middle class, people trying to get in the middle class, uh, you know, can’t afford, uh, additional taxes right now. Uh, you know, uh, they are, uh, still trying to, [inaudible] still trying to find work, obviously, some are trying to find better work, uh, obviously, uh, you know, people’s home prices, uh, the value of their, uh, you know, uh, savings account. Now, that’s come back a little bit. You’ve got, uh, you know, uh, consumer price pressure now. So the notion that somehow the solutions, uh, to our long term deficit reduction, uh, is to ask the middle class to pay more is something the President rejects. So, this is a smart composition that allows us to invest in the things that allow us to win the future, uh, uh, and,
uh, ask those that have the greatest ability to contribute who are doing, you know, remarkably well in this economy, uh, again, and it’s a choice. I mean, I think if you had to sum up the difference between the President’s approach and the approach of the Congressional Republicans, there’s many differences, [inaudible] certainly the approach to health care, uh, is, is an important one, but if that, you know, uh, senior citizens, uh, you know, the disabled, the poor, the middle class are asked to shoulder the burden. Uh, and not just for deficit reduction, they have to shoulder the burden for enormous tax relief for millionaires and even billionaires. Uh, and I think that’s a pretty stark contrast and I think it’s one the President, uh, was very eloquent in, uh, in laying out [inaudible] today.

[….]

Question: …I’m very interested in how this plays out politically in terms of, you know, how do you make this happen. Just listening to NPR in the last half an hour, you know, the, the Republicans are already out in front saying tax cuts completely of the table, which represents from what I’m hearing, roughly forty percent of, uh, of the, the formula [inaudible] we’re talking about. How do you, uh, how do you, you and the administration foresee this playing out so that, you know, we’re not in the hostage taking situation, you know, like we’ve been in, you know, two, three times here in the last year?

David Plouffe: Well, first of all, I mean, uh, you know, in terms of what we just, uh, completed on Friday night, um, I, you know, uh, we, uh, we’re very comfortable. Uh, we have the package that was agreed upon and that will eventually become law. Um, you know, we, uh, you know, the notion that somehow, you know, the Republicans got thirty eight million of their sixty million in cuts, I mean, that’s not what happened. Um, they got some of their cuts, mostly cuts that we were already, in our two thousand twelve budget that got carried, uh, forward. Uh, and the, to, the composition is what matters, not a numbers exercise it’s the composition. Uh, you know, does, and, and we believe that we’re able to maintain a lot of our important priorities and obviously make sure that some of the social policy they were trying to litigate, you know, on family planning and on clean air and clean water issues, uh, was, uh, was defeated. So, uh, and you know, they started that process, obviously, saying a sixty-one or bust and anything below sixty-one has to be all of our, you know, composition. That’s not where these things end up. So, uh, I think everyone, uh, you know, John Boehner said last week on ABC that, uh, you know, he was not gonna let revenues keep him from the negotiating table. So, there’ll be a process that will be worked on over the next couple weeks and starting in early May the Vice President will begin working with leaders, uh, in both parties and both houses to see if we can make progress here. And, uh, there are, no doubt, uh, you know, clear differences. Um, the one thing that seems to be in common, uh, most members of Congress in both parties believe that the deficit is an important issue. Uh, and, and there’s gonna be, uh, obviously, uh, you know, big disagreement about how to get there. And we’re gonna have to see, and, and what kind of progress we can make. Um, you know, and while the President was very clear that he disagrees strongly with most elements of the Republican congressional approach today, uh, he also stated very clearly that just as we have done, uh, in our, uh, in our past, but as also we have done in the last few months on tax cuts and on, on spending and the budget, uh, you know, the country’s gonna demand that our leaders, uh, try and come together here and find what common ground they can. So, there’s gonna be, uh, [inaudible]. Now you do have some Republicans in the Senate who clearly, uh, discussing, I think in an honest way, that any kind of, uh, deficit solution, uh, that doesn’t have revenues as a component is not an honest solution. You know, my hope is that that, uh, you know, uh, point of view, uh, grows, uh, in that party. That would be a helpful thing. But, uh, you know, let’s wait ’til we get through these negotiations and see and, and, uh, there’s no doubt they’re gonna be difficult. Um, but I think for the sake of the country everyone is gonna have to try and, and, uh, and find those sort of, uh, you know, common areas, stretch out of your comfort zone a little bit and see where we can end up.  But, uh, but, you know, there’s no doubt this is gonna be, uh, you know, is everything gonna be resolved in the next weeks, I think that’s highly unlikely. But we need to make as much progress as we can. And, uh, obviously, this debate is been with us in the country for a long time and it’ll probably continue. We’re at the point now, though, from a fiscal situation, uh, that the rubber’s hitting the road. And we both are gonna have to, uh, agree on, on, uh, you know, the scale of the problem, uh, but then the difficult discussion of the means to, uh, to solve the problem. And, you know, that’s a debate that, you know, that we think is important. I, I think the President did a very good job of laying out [inaudible] the view of numbers today is a, you know, from the, I think from the, from the, uh, from values. This is about what kind of country we’re gonna live in, what kind of country we believe we can, uh, we can make here. And, uh, the notion that somehow we can, uh, you know, cut education by a third, the notion that we can ask seniors to pay six thousand more dollars in Medicare costs, I don’t know many seniors that can even begin to think they could afford a fraction of that, the notion that we’re gonna cut energy research, at a time of high gas prices, by seventy percent, you know, that’s not, uh, the America I think most people believe, uh, we need to build. So this is a fundamental discussion and debate and, uh, and, but, I, I do think that the, there seems to be, I will tell you, that I think that the meeting this morning was a constructive meeting, uh, both in tone as well as substance. And, uh, you know, obviously, uh, you know, as we get back from the congressional recess folks will gather and we’ll see what kind of progress can get made.

We received notice earlier today that the White House would be holding a blogger conference call with David Plouffe, Dan Pfeiffer and Brian Deese from the National Economic Council this afternoon after the President’s speech on the economy.

David Plouffe’s remarks at the beginning of today’s conference call:

[….]

David Plouffe: …Hopefully most of you have been able to watch or read the speech and, and maybe even looked at some of the, uh, accompanying documentation. So, we’ll [inaudible] the questions shortly. Uh, what the President laid out today, first of all I’d say that the President believes it’s important that we try and reduce the deficit in a significant way. Um, he believes that’s important, uh, to the economy in the long term, but also in the short term. Uh, that if we are gonna provide the right kind of confidence for the economy, if we’re gonna be able to continue to invest in things like education, whether that be Pell Grants, college, or Head Start for very young kids, research and development, NIH research, infrastructure, if we’re gonna do these things, uh, given the fiscal situation, we’re gonna have to live within our means. So, uh, the President agrees, uh, uh, with, with those out there that suggest we need to do significant deficit reduction. Uh, the program he laid out today would, uh, would reduce, uh, the deficit by four trillion dollars over about a twelve year period. Uh, now, uh, the President’s view is that, uh, this should be a shared responsibility across our country that would yield to that shared prosperity. And, uh, he talked about a balanced approach today, uh, that, uh, included, uh, other significant, uh, savings in defense. Uh, we’ve obviously already done a lot in non defense but, uh, we’ll, what we can do there, uh, that, uh, the wealthiest in this country have to be a part of the solution here. Uh, and, uh, that we also look at additional Medicare and Medicaid savings on top of the trillion dollars that health care reform already is [inaudible] the next two decades.

Now, the President also thought it was important in his speech to lay out, uh, his vision compared to that of the Congressional Republican plan, uh, that’s been in the news lately. Uh, and I hope all of you spent some time with that, uh, because I think that while there is a shared goal of deficit reduction, uh, the means to get there couldn’t be any different. And really, the reason to get there couldn’t be any different. Um, I, what, what we saw to Congressional Republicans was a plan that would give the average millionaire a two hundred thousand dollar tax cut. And the reason, the, the way they pay for that is to ask senior citizens down the road to pay over six thousand dollars more for their health care costs while giving them a voucher. They’ll be left to their own. Uh, huge cuts in education, huge cuts in energy research, uh, asking the middle class and the poor to bear more and more of the burden. And, uh, again, the reason they’re doing that, uh, isn’t, you know, they’ll say it’s ’cause we can’t afford programs anymore or people have to pay more. Uh, it’s not that, uh, it’s because they have these enormous, enormous tax benefits for the very wealthy. And what the President said today, uh, is, uh, we need to try and protect the middle class in this exercise. Uh, we obviously, uh, need to look for savings, uh, but, uh, we do not want to put the burden here, uh, on seniors as it relates to, to Medicare. So, uh, you know, they want to end Medicare as we know it, the President wants to strengthen it through reforms.

Uh, the President believes the wealthiest in this country who, who are doing better and better every year, and the income divide is getting more and more stark, have a responsibility to contribute to making sure we get the, the kind of deficit reduction we need. The other approach, obviously, just to lavish them with, uh, with enormous tax, uh, relief while asking the middle class, the poor, the seniors to pay for that. And the President’s is a balanced approach which still allows us to, uh, invest in things that are gonna help us win the future. Uh, because the President believes that, uh, if you starve those things we’re not gonna create the jobs that we need to and the economy’s not gonna grow. And that those are fundamental as he laid out in the State of the Union, we’ve got to out educate, out innovate, and out build. Uh, and those just can’t be words, uh, you know, you obviously have to fund those, uh, so that you have the ability to grow economically…

[….]

File photo of David Plouffe at the Harkin Steak Fry in Indianola, Iowa on September 12, 2010.

President Obama’s speech (transcript provided by the White House):

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

____________________________________________________________

For Immediate Release                                          

April 13, 2011

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT

ON FISCAL POLICY

George Washington University

Washington, D.C.

1:48 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you very much.  (Applause.)  Please have a seat.  Please have a seat, everyone.

It is wonderful to be back at GW.  I want you to know that one of the reasons that I worked so hard with Democrats and Republicans to keep the government open was so that I could show up here today.  I wanted to make sure that all of you had one more excuse to skip class.  (Laughter.)  You’re welcome.  (Laughter.)  

I want to give a special thanks to Steven Knapp, the president of GW.  I just saw him — where is he?  There he is right there.  (Applause.)

We’ve got a lot of distinguished guests here — a couple of people I want to acknowledge.  First of all, my outstanding Vice President, Joe Biden, is here.  (Applause.)  Our Secretary of the Treasury, Tim Geithner, is in the house.  (Applause.)  Jack Lew, the Director of the Office of Mangement and Budget.  (Applause.) Gene Sperling, Chair of the National Economic Council, is here.  (Applause.)  Members of our bipartisan Fiscal Commission are here, including the two outstanding chairs — Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson — are here.  (Applause.)

And we have a number of members of Congress here today.  I’m grateful for all of you taking the time to attend.

What we’ve been debating here in Washington over the last few weeks will affect the lives of the students here and families all across America in potentially profound ways.  This debate over budgets and deficits is about more than just numbers on a page; it’s about more than just cutting and spending.  It’s about the kind of future that we want.  It’s about the kind of country that we believe in.  And that’s what I want to spend some time talking about today.

From our first days as a nation, we have put our faith in free markets and free enterprise as the engine of America’s wealth and prosperity.  More than citizens of any other country, we are rugged individualists, a self-reliant people with a healthy skepticism of too much government.

But there’s always been another thread running through our history — a belief that we’re all connected, and that there are some things we can only do together, as a nation.  We believe, in the words of our first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, that through government, we should do together what we cannot do as well for ourselves.

And so we’ve built a strong military to keep us secure, and public schools and universities to educate our citizens.  We’ve laid down railroads and highways to facilitate travel and commerce.  
We’ve supported the work of scientists and researchers whose discoveries have saved lives, unleashed repeated technological revolutions, and led to countless new jobs and entire new industries.  Each of us has benefitted from these investments, and we’re a more prosperous country as a result.    

Part of this American belief that we’re all connected also expresses itself in a conviction that each one of us deserves some basic measure of security and dignity.  We recognize that no matter how responsibly we live our lives, hard times or bad luck, a crippling illness or a layoff may strike any one of us.  “There but for the grace of God go I,” we say to ourselves.  And so we contribute to programs like Medicare and Social Security, which guarantee us health care and a measure of basic income after a lifetime of hard work; unemployment insurance, which protects us against unexpected job loss; and Medicaid, which provides care for millions of seniors in nursing homes, poor children, those with disabilities.  We’re a better country because of these commitments.  I’ll go further.  We would not be a great country without those commitments.        

Now, for much of the last century, our nation found a way to afford these investments and priorities with the taxes paid by its citizens.  As a country that values fairness, wealthier individuals have traditionally borne a greater share of this burden than the middle class or those less fortunate.  Everybody pays, but the wealthier have borne a little more.  This is not because we begrudge those who’ve done well — we rightly celebrate their success.  Instead, it’s a basic reflection of our belief that those who’ve benefited most from our way of life can afford to give back a little bit more.  Moreover, this belief hasn’t hindered the success of those at the top of the income scale.  They continue to do better and better with each passing year.

Now, at certain times — particularly during war or recession — our nation has had to borrow money to pay for some of our priorities.  And as most families understand, a little credit card debt isn’t going to hurt if it’s temporary.

But as far back as the 1980s, America started amassing debt at more alarming levels, and our leaders began to realize that a larger challenge was on the horizon.  They knew that eventually, the Baby Boom generation would retire, which meant a much bigger portion of our citizens would be relying on programs like Medicare, Social Security, and possibly Medicaid.  Like parents with young children who know they have to start saving for the college years, America had to start borrowing less and saving more to prepare for the retirement of an entire generation.

To meet this challenge, our leaders came together three times during the 1990s to reduce our nation’s deficit — three times.  They forged historic agreements that required tough decisions made by the first President Bush, then made by President Clinton, by Democratic Congresses and by a Republican Congress.  All three agreements asked for shared responsibility and shared sacrifice.  But they largely protected the middle class; they largely protected our commitment to seniors; they protected our key investments in our future.

As a result of these bipartisan efforts, America’s finances were in great shape by the year 2000.  We went from deficit to surplus.  America was actually on track to becoming completely debt free, and we were prepared for the retirement of the Baby Boomers.

But after Democrats and Republicans committed to fiscal discipline during the 1990s, we lost our way in the decade that followed.  We increased spending dramatically for two wars and an expensive prescription drug program — but we didn’t pay for any of this new spending.  Instead, we made the problem worse with trillions of dollars in unpaid-for tax cuts — tax cuts that went to every millionaire and billionaire in the country; tax cuts that will force us to borrow an average of $500 billion every year over the next decade.

To give you an idea of how much damage this caused to our nation’s checkbook, consider this:  In the last decade, if we had simply found a way to pay for the tax cuts and the prescription drug benefit, our deficit would currently be at low historical levels in the coming years.

But that’s not what happened.  And so, by the time I took office, we once again found ourselves deeply in debt and unprepared for a Baby Boom retirement that is now starting to take place.  When I took office, our projected deficit, annually, was more than $1 trillion.  On top of that, we faced a terrible financial crisis and a recession that, like most recessions, led us to temporarily borrow even more.

In this case, we took a series of emergency steps that saved millions of jobs, kept credit flowing, and provided working families extra money in their pocket.  It was absolutely the right thing to do, but these steps were expensive, and added to our deficits in the short term.

So that’s how our fiscal challenge was created.  That’s how we got here.  And now that our economic recovery is gaining strength, Democrats and Republicans must come together and restore the fiscal responsibility that served us so well in the 1990s.  We have to live within our means.  We have to reduce our deficit, and we have to get back on a path that will allow us to pay down our debt.  And we have to do it in a way that protects the recovery, protects the investments we need to grow, create jobs, and helps us win the future.

Now, before I get into how we can achieve this goal, some of you, particularly the younger people here — you don’t qualify, Joe.  (Laughter.)  Some of you might be wondering, “Why is this so important?  Why does this matter to me?”

Well, here’s why.  Even after our economy recovers, our government will still be on track to spend more money than it takes in throughout this decade and beyond.  That means we’ll have to keep borrowing more from countries like China.  That means more of your tax dollars each year will go towards paying off the interest on all the loans that we keep taking out.  By the end of this decade, the interest that we owe on our debt could rise to nearly $1 trillion.  Think about that.  That’s the interest — just the interest payments.  

Then, as the Baby Boomers start to retire in greater numbers and health care costs continue to rise, the situation will get even worse.  By 2025, the amount of taxes we currently pay will only be enough to finance our health care programs — Medicare and Medicaid — Social Security, and the interest we owe on our debt.  That’s it.  Every other national priority — education, transportation, even our national security — will have to be paid for with borrowed money.

Now, ultimately, all this rising debt will cost us jobs and damage our economy.  It will prevent us from making the investments we need to win the future.  We won’t be able to afford good schools, new research, or the repair of roads — all the things that create new jobs and businesses here in America.  Businesses will be less likely to invest and open shop in a country that seems unwilling or unable to balance its books.  And if our creditors start worrying that we may be unable to pay back our debts, that could drive up interest rates for everybody who borrows money — making it harder for businesses to expand and hire, or families to take out a mortgage.

Here’s the good news:  That doesn’t have to be our future.  That doesn’t have to be the country that we leave our children.  We can solve this problem.  We came together as Democrats and Republicans to meet this challenge before; we can do it again.

But that starts by being honest about what’s causing our deficit.  You see, most Americans tend to dislike government spending in the abstra
ct, but like the stuff that it buys.  Most of us, regardless of party affiliation, believe that we should have a strong military and a strong defense.  Most Americans believe we should invest in education and medical research.  Most Americans think we should protect commitments like Social Security and Medicare.  And without even looking at a poll, my finely honed political instincts tell me that almost nobody believes they should be paying higher taxes.  (Laughter.)

So because all this spending is popular with both Republicans and Democrats alike, and because nobody wants to pay higher taxes, politicians are often eager to feed the impression that solving the problem is just a matter of eliminating waste and abuse.  You’ll hear that phrase a lot.  “We just need to eliminate waste and abuse.”  The implication is that tackling the deficit issue won’t require tough choices.  Or politicians suggest that we can somehow close our entire deficit by eliminating things like foreign aid, even though foreign aid makes up about 1 percent of our entire federal budget.

So here’s the truth.  Around two-thirds of our budget — two-thirds — is spent on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and national security.  Two-thirds.  Programs like unemployment

insurance, student loans, veterans’ benefits, and tax credits for working families take up another 20 percent.  What’s left, after interest on the debt, is just 12 percent for everything else.  That’s 12 percent for all of our national priorities — education, clean energy, medical research, transportation, our national parks, food safety, keeping our air and water clean — you name it — all of that accounts for 12 percent of our budget.

Now, up till now, the debate here in Washington, the cuts proposed by a lot of folks in Washington, have focused exclusively on that 12 percent.  But cuts to that 12 percent alone won’t solve the problem.  So any serious plan to tackle our deficit will require us to put everything on the table, and take on excess spending wherever it exists in the budget.

A serious plan doesn’t require us to balance our budget overnight — in fact, economists think that with the economy just starting to grow again, we need a phased-in approach — but it does require tough decisions and support from our leaders in both parties now.  Above all, it will require us to choose a vision of the America we want to see five years, 10 years, 20 years down the road.

Now, to their credit, one vision has been presented and championed by Republicans in the House of Representatives and embraced by several of their party’s presidential candidates.  It’s a plan that aims to reduce our deficit by $4 trillion over the next 10 years, and one that addresses the challenge of Medicare and Medicaid in the years after that.

These are both worthy goals.  They’re worthy goals for us to achieve.  But the way this plan achieves those goals would lead to a fundamentally different America than the one we’ve known certainly in my lifetime.  In fact, I think it would be fundamentally different than what we’ve known throughout our history.

A 70 percent cut in clean energy.  A 25 percent cut in education.  A 30 percent cut in transportation.  Cuts in college Pell Grants that will grow to more than $1,000 per year.  That’s the proposal.  These aren’t the kind of cuts you make when you’re trying to get rid of some waste or find extra savings in the budget.  These aren’t the kinds of cuts that the Fiscal Commission proposed.  These are the kinds of cuts that tell us we can’t afford the America that I believe in and I think you believe in.

I believe it paints a vision of our future that is deeply pessimistic.  It’s a vision that says if our roads crumble and our bridges collapse, we can’t afford to fix them.  If there are bright young Americans who have the drive and the will but not the money to go to college, we can’t afford to send them.

Go to China and you’ll see businesses opening research labs and solar facilities.  South Korean children are outpacing our kids in math and science.  They’re scrambling to figure out how they put more money into education.  Brazil is investing billions in new infrastructure and can run half their cars not on high-priced gasoline, but on biofuels.  And yet, we are presented with a vision that says the American people, the United States of America — the greatest nation on Earth — can’t afford any of this.

It’s a vision that says America can’t afford to keep the promise we’ve made to care for our seniors.  It says that 10 years from now, if you’re a 65-year-old who’s eligible for Medicare, you should have to pay nearly $6,400 more than you would today.  It says instead of guaranteed health care, you will get a voucher.  And if that voucher isn’t worth enough to buy the insurance that’s available in the open marketplace, well, tough luck — you’re on your own.  Put simply, it ends Medicare as we know it.

It’s a vision that says up to 50 million Americans have to lose their health insurance in order for us to reduce the deficit.  Who are these 50 million Americans?  Many are somebody’s grandparents — may be one of yours — who wouldn’t be able to afford nursing home care without Medicaid.  Many are poor children.  Some are middle-class families who have children with autism or Down’s syndrome.  Some of these kids with disabilities are — the disabilities are so severe that they require 24-hour care.  These are the Americans we’d be telling to fend for themselves.      

And worst of all, this is a vision that says even though Americans can’t afford to invest in education at current levels, or clean energy, even though we can’t afford to maintain our commitment on Medicare and Medicaid, we can somehow afford more than $1 trillion in new tax breaks for the wealthy.  Think about that.

In the last decade, the average income of the bottom 90 percent of all working Americans actually declined.  Meanwhile, the top 1 percent saw their income rise by an average of more than a quarter of a million dollars each.  That’s who needs to pay less taxes?

They want to give people like me a $200,000 tax cut that’s paid for by asking 33 seniors each to pay $6,000 more in health costs.  That’s not right.  And it’s not going to happen as long as I’m President.  (Applause.)

This vision is less about reducing the deficit than it is about changing the basic social compact in America.  Ronald Reagan’s own budget director said, there’s nothing “serious” or “courageous” about this plan.  There’s nothing serious about a plan that claims to reduce the deficit by spending a trillion dollars on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires.  And I don’t think there’s anything courageous about asking for sacrifice from those who can least afford it and don’t have any clout on Capitol Hill.  That’s not a vision of the America I know.

The America I know is generous and compassionate.  It’s a land of opportunity and optimism.  Yes, we take responsibility for ourselves, but we also take responsibility for each other; for the country we want and the future that we share.  We’re a nation that built a railroad across a continent and brought light to communities shrouded in darkness.  We sent a generation to college on the GI Bill and we saved millions of seniors from poverty with Social Security and Medicare.  We have led the world in scientific research and technological breakthroughs that have transformed millions of lives.  That’s who we are.  This is the America that I know.  We don’t have to choose between a future of spiraling debt and one where we forfeit our investment in our people and our country.

To meet our fiscal challenge, we will need to make reforms. We will all need to make sacrifices.  But we do not have to sacrifice the Americ
a we believe in.  And as long as I’m President, we won’t.

So today, I’m proposing a more balanced approach to achieve $4 trillion in deficit reduction over 12 years.  It’s an approach that borrows from the recommendations of the bipartisan Fiscal Commission that I appointed last year, and it builds on the roughly $1 trillion in deficit reduction I already proposed in my 2012 budget.  It’s an approach that puts every kind of spending on the table — but one that protects the middle class, our promise to seniors, and our investments in the future.

The first step in our approach is to keep annual domestic spending low by building on the savings that both parties agreed to last week.  That step alone will save us about $750 billion over 12 years.  We will make the tough cuts necessary to achieve these savings, including in programs that I care deeply about, but I will not sacrifice the core investments that we need to grow and create jobs.  We will invest in medical research.  We will invest in clean energy technology.  We will invest in new roads and airports and broadband access.  We will invest in education.  We will invest in job training.  We will do what we need to do to compete, and we will win the future.

The second step in our approach is to find additional savings in our defense budget.  Now, as Commander-in-Chief, I have no greater responsibility than protecting our national security, and I will never accept cuts that compromise our ability to defend our homeland or America’s interests around the world.  But as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mullen, has said, the greatest long-term threat to America’s national security is America’s debt.  So just as we must find more savings in domestic programs, we must do the same in defense.  And we can do that while still keeping ourselves safe.

Over the last two years, Secretary Bob Gates has courageously taken on wasteful spending, saving $400 billion in current and future spending.  I believe we can do that again.  We need to not only eliminate waste and improve efficiency and effectiveness, but we’re going to have to conduct a fundamental review of America’s missions, capabilities, and our role in a changing world.  I intend to work with Secretary Gates and the Joint Chiefs on this review, and I will make specific decisions about spending after it’s complete.      

The third step in our approach is to further reduce health care spending in our budget.  Now, here, the difference with the House Republican plan could not be clearer.  Their plan essentially lowers the government’s health care bills by asking seniors and poor families to pay them instead.  Our approach lowers the government’s health care bills by reducing the cost of health care itself.

Already, the reforms we passed in the health care law will reduce our deficit by $1 trillion.  My approach would build on these reforms.  We will reduce wasteful subsidies and erroneous payments.  We will cut spending on prescription drugs by using Medicare’s purchasing power to drive greater efficiency and speed generic brands of medicine onto the market.  We will work with governors of both parties to demand more efficiency and accountability from Medicaid.

We will change the way we pay for health care — not by the procedure or the number of days spent in a hospital, but with new incentives for doctors and hospitals to prevent injuries and improve results.  And we will slow the growth of Medicare costs by strengthening an independent commission of doctors, nurses, medical experts and consumers who will look at all the evidence and recommend the best ways to reduce unnecessary spending while protecting access to the services that seniors need.  

Now, we believe the reforms we’ve proposed to strengthen Medicare and Medicaid will enable us to keep these commitments to our citizens while saving us $500 billion by 2023, and an additional $1 trillion in the decade after that.  But if we’re wrong, and Medicare costs rise faster than we expect, then this approach will give the independent commission the authority to make additional savings by further improving Medicare.  

But let me be absolutely clear:  I will preserve these health care programs as a promise we make to each other in this society.  I will not allow Medicare to become a voucher program that leaves seniors at the mercy of the insurance industry, with a shrinking benefit to pay for rising costs.  I will not tell families with children who have disabilities that they have to fend for themselves.  We will reform these programs, but we will not abandon the fundamental commitment this country has kept for generations.

That includes, by the way, our commitment to Social Security.  While Social Security is not the cause of our deficit, it faces real long-term challenges in a country that’s growing older.  As I said in the State of the Union, both parties should work together now to strengthen Social Security for future generations.  But we have to do it without putting at risk current retirees, or the most vulnerable, or people with disabilities; without slashing benefits for future generations; and without subjecting Americans’ guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market.  And it can be done.

The fourth step in our approach is to reduce spending in the tax code, so-called tax expenditures.  In December, I agreed to extend the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans because it was the only way I could prevent a tax hike on middle-class Americans.  But we cannot afford $1 trillion worth of tax cuts for every millionaire and billionaire in our society.  We can’t afford it.  And I refuse to renew them again.

Beyond that, the tax code is also loaded up with spending on things like itemized deductions.  And while I agree with the goals of many of these deductions, from homeownership to charitable giving, we can’t ignore the fact that they provide millionaires an average tax break of $75,000 but do nothing for the typical middle-class family that doesn’t itemize.  So my budget calls for limiting itemized deductions for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans — a reform that would reduce the deficit by $320 billion over 10 years.

But to reduce the deficit, I believe we should go further.  And that’s why I’m calling on Congress to reform our individual tax code so that it is fair and simple — so that the amount of taxes you pay isn’t determined by what kind of accountant you can afford.

I believe reform should protect the middle class, promote economic growth, and build on the fiscal commission’s model of reducing tax expenditures so that there’s enough savings to both lower rates and lower the deficit.  And as I called for in the State of the Union, we should reform our corporate tax code as well, to make our businesses and our economy more competitive.  

So this is my approach to reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the next 12 years.  It’s an approach that achieves about $2 trillion in spending cuts across the budget.  It will lower our interest payments on the debt by $1 trillion.  It calls for tax reform to cut about $1 trillion in tax expenditures — spending in the tax code.  And it achieves these goals while protecting the middle class, protecting our commitment to seniors, and protecting our investments in the future.

Now, in the coming years, if the recovery speeds up and our economy grows faster than our current projections, we can make even greater progress than I’ve pledged here.  But just to hold Washington — and to hold me — accountable and make sure that the debt burden continues to decline, my plan includes a debt failsafe.  If, by 2014, our debt is not projected to fall as a share of the economy — if we haven’t hit our targets, if Congress has failed to act — then my plan will require us to come together and make up the ad
ditional savings with more spending cuts and more spending reductions in the tax code.  That should be an incentive for us to act boldly now, instead of kicking our problems further down the road.  

So this is our vision for America — this is my vision for America — a vision where we live within our means while still investing in our future; where everyone makes sacrifices but no one bears all the burden; where we provide a basic measure of security for our citizens and we provide rising opportunity for our children.  

There will be those who vigorously disagree with my approach.  I can guarantee that as well.  (Laughter.)  Some will argue we should not even consider ever — ever — raising taxes, even if only on the wealthiest Americans.  It’s just an article of faith to them.  I say that at a time when the tax burden on the wealthy is at its lowest level in half a century, the most fortunate among us can afford to pay a little more.  I don’t need another tax cut.  Warren Buffett doesn’t need another tax cut.  Not if we have to pay for it by making seniors pay more for Medicare.  Or by cutting kids from Head Start.  Or by taking away college scholarships that I wouldn’t be here without and that some of you would not be here without.

And here’s the thing:  I believe that most wealthy Americans would agree with me.  They want to give back to their country, a country that’s done so much for them.  It’s just Washington hasn’t asked them to.

Others will say that we shouldn’t even talk about cutting spending until the economy is fully recovered.  These are mostly folks in my party.  I’m sympathetic to this view — which is one of the reasons I supported the payroll tax cuts we passed in December.  It’s also why we have to use a scalpel and not a machete to reduce the deficit, so that we can keep making the investments that create jobs.  But doing nothing on the deficit is just not an option.  Our debt has grown so large that we could do real damage to the economy if we don’t begin a process now to get our fiscal house in order.  

Finally, there are those who believe we shouldn’t make any reforms to Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security, out of fear that any talk of change to these programs will immediately usher in the sort of steps that the House Republicans have proposed.  And I understand those fears.  But I guarantee that if we don’t make any changes at all, we won’t be able to keep our commitment to a retiring generation that will live longer and will face higher health care costs than those who came before.

Indeed, to those in my own party, I say that if we truly believe in a progressive vision of our society, we have an obligation to prove that we can afford our commitments.  If we believe the government can make a difference in people’s lives, we have the obligation to prove that it works — by making government smarter, and leaner and more effective.

Of course, there are those who simply say there’s no way we can come together at all and agree on a solution to this challenge.  They’ll say the politics of this city are just too broken; the choices are just too hard; the parties are just too far apart.  And after a few years on this job, I have some sympathy for this view.  (Laughter.)

But I also know that we’ve come together before and met big challenges.  Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill came together to save Social Security for future generations.  The first President Bush and a Democratic Congress came together to reduce the deficit.  President Clinton and a Republican Congress battled each other ferociously, disagreed on just about everything, but they still found a way to balance the budget.  And in the last few months, both parties have come together to pass historic tax relief and spending cuts.

And I know there are Republicans and Democrats in Congress who want to see a balanced approach to deficit reduction.  And even those Republicans I disagree with most strongly I believe are sincere about wanting to do right by their country.  We may disagree on our visions, but I truly believe they want to do the right thing.

So I believe we can, and must, come together again.  This morning, I met with Democratic and Republican leaders in Congress to discuss the approach that I laid out today.  And in early May, the Vice President will begin regular meetings with leaders in both parties with the aim of reaching a final agreement on a plan to reduce the deficit and get it done by the end of June.

I don’t expect the details in any final agreement to look exactly like the approach I laid out today.  This a democracy; that’s not how things work.  I’m eager to hear other ideas from all ends of the political spectrum.  And though I’m sure the criticism of what I’ve said here today will be fierce in some quarters, and my critique of the House Republican approach has been strong, Americans deserve and will demand that we all make an effort to bridge our differences and find common ground.

This larger debate that we’re having — this larger debate about the size and the role of government — it has been with us since our founding days.  And during moments of great challenge and change, like the one that we’re living through now, the debate gets sharper and it gets more vigorous.  That’s not a bad thing.  In fact, it’s a good thing.  As a country that prizes both our individual freedom and our obligations to one another, this is one of the most important debates that we can have.

But no matter what we argue, no matter where we stand, we’ve always held certain beliefs as Americans.  We believe that in order to preserve our own freedoms and pursue our own happiness, we can’t just think about ourselves.  We have to think about the country that made these liberties possible.  We have to think about our fellow citizens with whom we share a community.  And we have to think about what’s required to preserve the American Dream for future generations.

This sense of responsibility — to each other and to our country — this isn’t a partisan feeling.  It isn’t a Democratic or a Republican idea.  It’s patriotism.

The other day I received a letter from a man in Florida.  He started off by telling me he didn’t vote for me and he hasn’t always agreed with me.  But even though he’s worried about our economy and the state of our politics — here’s what he said — he said, “I still believe.  I believe in that great country that my grandfather told me about.  I believe that somewhere lost in this quagmire of petty bickering on every news station, the ‘American Dream’ is still alive…We need to use our dollars here rebuilding, refurbishing and restoring all that our ancestors struggled to create and maintain… We as a people must do this together, no matter the color of the state one comes from or the side of the aisle one might sit on.”

“I still believe.”  I still believe as well.  And I know that if we can come together and uphold our responsibilities to one another and to this larger enterprise that is America, we will keep the dream of our founding alive — in our time; and we will pass it on to our children.  We will pass on to our children a country that we believe in.

Thank you.  God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.  (Applause.)

                                        END                         2:31 P.M.

A transcript(s) of the questions and answers during the conference call will follow on subsequent post(s).

Previously:

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): a conversation with bloggers in Kansas City (January 20, 2011)

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): a conversation with bloggers in Kansas City, part 2 (January 20, 2011)

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): a conversation with bloggers in Kansas City, part 3 (January 21, 2011)

Senator Claire McCaskill (D).

On Wednesday evening Senator Claire McCaskill (D) met with a small group of Missouri political bloggers for a conversation at her Kansas City office. Blue Girl (They gave us a republic… and Show Me Progress), Sean (Fired Up!), and I were in attendance. This is the fourth and final part of that conversation.

The continuation of the transcript:

….Michael Bersin: When it comes to, um, energy policy do you see any move for, um, increasing things, uh, at the federal level, support, try to expand, uh, renewable energy?

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): I think you’re gonna continue to see support for what we’ve got in place. We’ve got some pretty good incentives in place now. We were able to extend them, um, for this new sector of our economy that does have great potential for job growth. That’s a place where we really can realize some, some, some net new jobs. And, you know, mean, Missouri’s a good example. We’ve, we’ve got things going on in Missouri that are netting jobs that are in the alternative fuel sector. Um, lots of different kinds. We’ve got electric cars, we’ve got wind farms, we’ve got ethanol, we’ve got biomass, and I think all of it is part of the equation. It’s just how much of it can we do and afford in terms of expanding it. Uh, I think the current programs, what I don’t like the idea of doing, if someone has put together a financing plan and, for a, a company based on incentives that have been given they deserve a little certainty because they can’t the financing unless they’ve got the certainty. So, we’ve gotta give enough certainty to make these incentives work. Which means we can’t be playing around with them every six months going, ah, should we or shouldn’t we? So I’d like to see us have some certainty about extending the level of incentives we have now, maintaining them, and allowing the market to get to move in and take care of itself as you have more demand and you have more profit.

Michael Bersin: But, but in, in, in the big picture is the more we invest in now it, it takes a lot of pressure off on, on, in another area. Uh, you know, if we can increase production of energy from the green sector it lessens the demand in other areas that can cause problems or, uh, alleviate shortages, or at least mitigate some of the shortages. How do you educate people about that?

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): Well, I think, um, a lot of it, I mean, Dr. Chu [Secretary Steven Chu, Department of Energy] is pretty articulate about this. There is, speaking of low hanging fruit, there’s a lot of low hanging fruit in, in retrofitting buildings, in, uh, energy efficiencies, uh, weatherization of homes. People don’t realize the massive amount of energy that could be conserved and saved by some of the things that don’t require a massive capital investment. Um, that’s why I think a lot of weatherization programs have been, um, something that was very helpful during the stimulus because, not only did they put some people to work, but the end result is we’re gonna conserve some energy, we’re gonna make people’s homes more affordable for them to live in and healthier in the long run. So, um, you know, they’re, they’re now doing a lot of this on retrofitting buildings. I think this, you know, we’ve got architects here in Kansas City that have been leaders in the green building, uh, LEED qualified buildings,  going in and retrofitting buildings to make them more energy efficient. I think if we continue to focus on those things, it is just, I mean, I know that I disappoint some people in my party about my position on cap and trade. But, um, it is not realistic to think that right now we can get there from here without coal. We can’t. Eventually can we? I hope so. But we don’t have the technology or the ability to charge enough money to Missourians to get the technology in place to completely divorce ourselves from coal. And Missouri is one of those states that Missourians would pay a very, very high price. Working class, poor, fixed incomes, Missourians would pay a very high price. And that’s what I’m concerned about. It’s not that I have a love affair with coal. It’s that I have a love affair with people in Missouri that are trying to live on a fixed income.

Michael Bersin: But, then the steps need to be taken, taken in some way to, to sort of shift us to, to move us away [crosstalk] from that…

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): Well, we have a renew, we have a renewable standard in Missouri that was voted on by the people of Missouri. That’s good. Uh, you’ve seen meaningful steps taken by all of our utilities to move towards different, uh, uh, utility generation. I’m somebody who believes we’ve gotta do nuclear. I believe we have to do nuclear. I think it’s clean. I think it is safe. And I think it needs to be part of the equation. So I’m one of these we’ve gotta do it all. We’ve gotta clean up coal, we’ve gotta do nuclear, and we’ve gotta develop alternatives. All of it.

Staff: Guys, we’ve been going about an hour. Um, you want to, one more question each, kind of thing? I want to let you guys get out of here before it [snow] gets too [crosstalk] terrible.

[….]

Sean: Campaigns look a little different in two thousand eleven and two thousand twelve than they did in oh-five, oh-six. [Inaudible] there. But can you just reflect a little on that and what’s exciting or scary about how things have changed?

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): Well, I wouldn’t carry something like this [iPad] around [crosstalk]…

Sean: Right.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): …in two thousand five, two thousand six. I’m excited about how it’s different. I see great opportunities, uh, through the social media, through, uh, the online opportunities, through, um, doing different things that, I mean, my big thing about campaign finance has always been the way you clean up campaign finance, no matter what we pass there’ll be loopholes. The way you get big money out of politics is by getting a lot of little money in. The Internet gives us the opportunity to have thousands and thousands of people give ten bucks. That is much different than me sitting on the phone calling people that are perfect strangers saying, can you write me a check with a comma in it. I mean, that is a really weird system that I detest. So, I want to really work hard at, at utilizing all the technology that’s out there, um, you know, this, the, I don’t know why my party hasn’t been more aggressive about adopting some of the tools that are out there. If you look at the people that are tweeting in Congress, most of the ones that are, I think using it a lot effectively, are Republicans. I don’t know what that is. Um, I don’t know why that
is. I think it’s great. I think, um, uh, paying attention to things like having different kinds of media available on your Facebook page and figuring out ways to interact with people, the interactivity that you can embrace, uh, with some of the technology, I think it’s exciting. And I am busy thinking of creative ways to do things that haven’t ever been done before. Um, joining together some of the traditional campaigning with some of the new campaigning, like, you know, figuring out something to do online to figure out who wants to ride on the RV this week. You know, all different kinds of things that we could do that would, um, bring the campaign closer to folks, uh, with the technology that’s available. I think it’s gonna be fun. I’m looking forward to doing much more online that, than we even thought about doing, uh, four years ago. It’ll be a big part of the campaign.

Blue Girl: I think I read somewhere that the average contributor to Barrack Obama’s campaign gave eighty-six dollars in, in five to twenty-five dollar increments throughout the, throughout the course of the campaign.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): Yep, I used to tease him and say, you know, you don’t, you don’t have to pick up a phone, you just walk in, unlock this door, open the cash register and it’s full. [laughter] You know, the Internet was just on fire with people giving money in small amounts to, to Barrack Obama. [crosstalk]

Blue Girl: My, my college age [crosstalk]…

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): It was very exciting. [crosstalk]

Blue Girl: …kids were hitting the [crosstalk], were hitting that button.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): Mine, too! With my money!

Blue Girl: Yeah!

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): Because I’d, you know, they get allowance, right?

Blue Girl: Uh, huh.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): And I’d look and I’d go, what is this? And, well, and they, in fact, this last cycle I noticed my daughter gave contributions. I, I said, who are these candidates? She said, they’re people I believe in. And I said, well, what about people in Missouri? She goes, mom, I don’t live in Missouri [inaudible]. [laughter]

Blue Girl: Uh, okay. Do you think we’re ever gonna see anybody go to jail or any of the money come back from the, from the fraudulent contracts like, uh, uh, the, when, when projects in Afghanistan are falling apart before they’re complete that’s not poor stewardship on the part of the Afghans, that’s shoddy construction. I’ll, I tell you what I want to see. I want to see one sentence of legislation passed so Afghan companies can be paid directly by the military instead of mandating a third party, usually a U.S. company, that may or may not pay for the labor at the end, at the end of the con. You know, they may or may not fulfill the contract. They may or may not live up to their financial obligations to the Afghan company. Who slipped that line in for their buddies?

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): Well, there, there, as you well know, um, there are, uh, books that have been written and will continue to be written about contract abuses in a contingency. It has obviously been a theme of my time in the Senate. It’s not the stuff that most people are interested in. I am vitally interested in it. And I think we’ve gotten the military’s attention. Um, I can tell you the difference in my trip on contracting oversight to Iraq in two thousand and seven and to Afghanistan in two thousand and ten were dramatically different. Um, my questions could at least be answered. There was someone who had the answer. There, they, they had an idea of how many contractors were in the country. They had an idea of how much money was being spent. I mean, when I went to Iraq it was jaw dropping how little they knew and how little oversight was really going on. So, not that we need to be satisfied with the progress that has been made, but there has been some progress made. Having said that, we are saddled with a very big challenge. And that is, spending way, way more money in a country that it has in gross domestic product.

Blue Girl: Yeah.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): I mean, their GDP is very small and we are flooding their country with money and it is inherently corrupt [crosstalk].

Blue Girl: Corrupting.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): So, when you have a coun, country that is already riddled with corruption and you bring a lot of money in it is really, really hard to figure out how you do what you need to do to stabilize the country without losing a lot through fraud and a lot through just downright just walking away with the cash. But, um, there are a number of criminal investigations ongoing and that’s why I felt so strongly about removing the Special Inspector General [crosstalk]…

Blue Girl: Yeah.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): He was not up for the job. I think we now are in a position to get a really strong inspector general that has a law enforcement background. Um, somewhat like the [crosstalk]…

Blue Girl: Are they gonna consult with you on that? [crosstalk]

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): …inspector general  like we got over TARP who has experience in criminal prosecutions and will not only be looking to see what is going on with the contracts but where is there somebody that needs to go to jail.

Blue Girl: Yeah.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): And you’re exactly right. I mean, it, it, you know, we’ve gotta quit giving performance bonuses to bad contractors. And instead, we need to be putting corrupt contractors in prison.

Blue Girl: Yeah.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): That’s what we need to be doing.

Blue Girl: I agree.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): That’s the example [crosstalk] we need to set.

Blue Girl: I agree…

[….]

Previously:

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): a conversation with bloggers in Kansas City (January 20, 2011)

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): a conversation with bloggers in Kansas City, part 2 (January 20, 2011)

Senator Claire McCaskill (D).

On Wednesday evening Senator Claire McCaskill (D) met with a small group of Missouri political bloggers for a conversation at her Kansas City office. This is the third part of that conversation.

The continuation of the transcript:

….Michael Bersin: And, but in your experience, you did a lot of town halls about health care. And, uh, some of your colleagues did, in, in the Senate, did anybody, were you aware of anybody else doing the kinds of things that you did? And…

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): Well, I mean, a few did. But, the, the, the prevailing wisdom in the, in Washington was don’t go do town halls.

Michael Bersin: But, and I, I heard you do several of those and you used it, and sometimes the, the crowd was boisterous, we’ll say, but you always used it as an opportunity to educate people. And, and that seemed like it was a, a, a missed kind of, uh, opportunity for some of your, your colleagues in the Senate to, to actually go out and teach [crosstalk] people. I was going…

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): I wish we would have had a nationally televised town hall on the health care bill. I would have loved us to have some prime, you know. Let’s do a, a prime time debate on the health care bill between, you know, uh, Barack Obama and John McCain. You know, um, seriously, I just think if we would have done, if we would have used what the media wanted to cover which was the fight, if we’d have used that opportunity, I mean people wanted to cover the town halls ’cause they sensed there was a conflict. And, you know, I welcome that because I thought it was important for me to get out there and not to shirk away from that. But that’s the, just one example, and it’s a little example, there’s lots of things we could have done. That we could have embraced the conflict and used it to illuminate the differences between what they were saying and what the reality really was. But, we, we can’t get around one thing. The mandate is very, very, very unpopular. Nobody, I shouldn’t say nobody, most Missourians do not like the government using the word shall. They just don’t like it.

Michael Bersin: But, is, is there any other  way, you know, you, and I heard you describe this. You say, well, you can’t have, you know, pre-existing condition as something that, that, you know, you take care of and then somebody says, well, I’m not gonna have insurance until my pre-existing condition comes up [crosstalk] [inaudible]…

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): Right. And I’m not gonna get insurance until I get sick. Be like telling people you can go get car insurance after you’ve had a wreck. I mean, who’d buy car insurance, right? Now, it’s go, if we did that it’d make health insurance in a private market, which is what we passed, very, very expensive. So the issue is how do we get health people in the pool without saying the word shall? And I’m exploring it right now.

Michael Bersin: But.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): I think there is a way. If we would use Medicare Part D as a model, not how much we made the pharmaceutical companies rich or the insurance companies rich, but as a model in terms of an enrollment period. Seniors know they’ve got to sign up for Medicare D, they’ve got like a month at the end of every year, they’ve gotta sign up. And if they don’t, it’s cost ’em more. We could do that with this. We could say, you’ve got an enrollment period. Now, if you don’t enroll, when you get insurance it’s gonna be thirty percent more ex, expensive. Um, and actually do it that way so that you’re, so you don’t have the shall, you shall buy something. Rather, if you don’t buy something it’s gonna be a lot more expensive. And I think most Americans want affordable health care insurance. So if you have it I think most Americans are going to buy it as long as they know if I don’t I’m not gonna be, be able to get it later except for a lot more money.

Michael Bersin: Yeah, and, but part of it is, you know, people use the, kind of, the rhetoric to say, well, if, if I’m healthy I don’t need it. But, you know, part of it is educating people, say, well, sometimes you might think you’re healthy or something comes up that’s unexpected then, then what? And, and there was not a lot of it, you know, [inaudible] education about that. We just heard the government [crosstalk]…

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): Right.

Michael Bersin: …is going to make you do this.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): But, the example we should have used more often is, um, a thirty-two year old single guy who really wants a new Harley. Really wants a new Harley. And, right now, he can pay almost the cost of a payment of the new Harley for health insurance or he can get a new Harley. So he gets the new Harley and says, I don’t need health insurance. And then, six months later, he’s driving the new Harley and he gets broadsided. And he has traumatic brain injuries and he goes to the hospital. Well, who pays for that? You know, obviously, we all pay for that. And, is that really taking responsibility? Is that the personal responsibility that Sarah Palin likes to talk about? Is that people being accountable for their own lives? Or is that using the welfare state to take care of you as opposed to taking personal responsibility? Truth be known, he probably couldn’t afford the Harley until he could afford health insurance.

Michael Bersin: Right.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): Especially under the plan we passed, because you get help buying the health insurance so that you never have to spend too much of your income on health insurance. So I, I think that, you know, if we can do a better job of talking about that element of personal  responsibility plus making it a financial disincentive to not buy it I think we could possibly avoid the legal fight over the mandate and get rid of that word shall that really rubs, um, Missourians the wrong way, I mean, ’cause it’s in our DNA in Missouri not to trust the government.

Sean:  Do you see other places where the health care bill’s gonna be modified or changed? Or, what is gonna be substantive discussion, [crosstalk] not just [inaudible]?

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): I think we’ll do something about the ten ninety-nine problem. Um, I think that that was, uh, there wasn’t enough thought given to the burden that would place on most businesses, not the great big guys, but most businesses having to keep track of ten ninety-nines for all these vendors over a certain amount, um, that, that is too much.  And so there’ve been several proposals, in fact, we had several proposals to already fix it. And the Republicans [crosstalk] blocked it.

Sean: Sure.

Michael Bersin: Because they didn’t want to [crosstalk]…

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): Fix it.

Michael Bersin: …lose, lose a club. [crosstalk][inaudible]

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): Yeah, well, they voted against the small business bill right before the election. They didn’t want to be seen as agreeing that we could ever do anything to help small business. They were on a kind of a roll that we were all against business and that we were all about socialism and we were all taking, you know, the government was gonna take over everything. In truth we did a net, outside of the Bush tax cuts, we did a net f
our hundred billion dollars in tax cuts to working families, middle class, and small businesses. Um, all very targeted. But, they, you know,  they were counting on the fact that everyone was believing the narrative that we were overreaching, that government was taking over everything, that we didn’t care about the free market and, so that’s why I think that, that happened. But I think we’ll fix the ten ninety-nine. Um, you know, I, those are the two things right now that I think are bubbling up the most.

Sean: And you mentioned crop insurance. As the next farm bill’s put together you think they’re gonna be, do you see substantive changes actually happening? Or is it just the can getting kicked down the road again?

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): Well, I, you know, I think, again, we’ll have discussions about, um, how much income should someone have and still get a check from the government. Um, you know, we’re subsidizing Ag sector now. Um, but we subsidize every sector. So, I, you know, I think we’ve got to, we’ve got to hold back how much the government is doing but we gotta be fair. We can’t continue to subsidize the oil sector and not subsidize the sugar, you know. And so I think, but we need to look at all of ’em and see how we can shrink the programs so that they’re more affordable. And, it’s, it’s always a slightly awkward moment when someone stands up at a rural town hall and goes on and on about the government doing too much and has reached too far. And then I ask the question, how many people in the room got a check from the government last year? And, obviously, in rural Missouri there’s a lot of farmers that get significant help from the federal government. And there’s nothing wrong with that in and of itself. But, you can’t be saying, I want the federal government to do nothing except when it’s a program that helps me.

Sean: Sure.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): That’s the mentality that’s gotten us in this mess in the first place.  You go cut somebody else’s program, don’t touch mine. I think we’ve got to cut everybody’s program [crosstalk].

Blue Girl: Don’t help those people [crosstalk].

Sean:  I’m from [inaudible], I understand that, [crosstalk] that dynamic.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): Right. [crosstalk] Right, it’s really interesting because in rural Missouri they want to think all of the federal government money is going to the urban areas. And in the urban areas, they want to think all of the federal money is going to the farm program. Truth is, that there is a lot of federal money going everywhere. [laughter] [crosstalk] You probably need to shrink all of it.

Michael Bersin: But, but one of the interesting things that’s, that’s, uh, that you always see is when you start to see that the states which are net, uh, contributors to the federal budget and states that are net takers. And people are sort of stunned by that. That, you know, states that you would think that, that have the rhetoric of we don’t want the government to do anything or [crosstalk][inaudible]…

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): Actually getting more from the government than they’re paying in.

Michael Bersin: …than they’re paying in.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): They’re, they’re, they’re, they’re payer, they’re, they’re the plus states rather [crosstalk] than the donor states.

Michael Bersin: [inaudible] Yes, than the donors, yeah….

A transcript of the final part of our conversation will follow in the next day.

Previously: Senator Claire McCaskill (D): a conversation with bloggers in Kansas City

Yesterday evening Senator Claire McCaskill (D) met with a small group of Missouri political bloggers for a conversation at her Kansas City office. This is the second part of that conversation.

Senator McCaskill, listening to a question.

The continuation of the transcript:

….Michael Bersin (Show Me Progress): When it comes to, uh, the rhetoric of, uh, Social Security and dealing with, um, the budget, you know, part of the frustration of, of communicating what’s happening with Social Security is, uh, sort of the, the rhetoric of what really is causing the budget, budget deficit. In your, uh, in your town hall in Concordia you used the, the Center for Budget, uh, Priorities and Policy, that graph that really shows the, you know, what really contributed to the deficit and, and yet the, the, the Congress in the lame duck session sort of continued that, that trend. You know, so, you know, how do you communicate with people what, what really is causing the deficit and what is it?

Senator Claire McCaskill (D):  Well, um, a lot of what is happening with the deficit is in fact the economic downturn and the costs associated with the economic downturn, both the social net, the social safety net costs, unemployment benefit costs, but also, the fact that revenue is down. Um, revenue is down to the government because there’s been less income.  So, it is, that’s been a huge part of it. The Bush tax cuts obviously were a huge part of it. Um, I would have liked very much to see us raise the top rate, uh, personal income tax rate on the, on the top bracket. I think that there is a chance we will still do that before the next election. Um, you know it’s, it, they were extended for two years and it will be up to the members of Congress do decide whether to debate that and make changes as it relates to that, um, even before twenty twelve. And I think that there’s a number of us that are willing to have that debate before the election and support raising the marginal rate on, especially on your second million dollars. Um, you know, let everybody have the same tax rate on their first million, but on your second million could you do three percent more, the same rate that you had in the nineties when everyone was doing very well?

Michael Bersin: And, and part of the frustration of that is that in some, some cases , you know, people are, are using, uh, people’s unfamiliarity with what marginal tax rates actually are and the history, you know, the past history of marginal tax rates and it’s harder to explain. So, you know, is, is this sort of a, a, an option to, to basically to try to teach people about this?

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): Well, I think that’s part of it. I think, um, the other part about the, the deficit is looking at all the goodies in the tax code. I think some of the best work that was done by the, the fiscal commission, the debt commission was the work they did in crystallizing the issues about the special goodies in the tax code. And if you think about it this way, um, around seventy-five percent of Americans don’t itemize. So that means that entire tax code has been written for twenty-five percent of the country. And it is full of all kinds of government corporate welfare for all kinds of special little interests. If we can clean that out we could lower the tax rate for everybody, we could make the tax rate more broad, and we could lower the corporate tax rate. Uh, which would be a great way, uh, to look at, and still reduce the deficit, if we would just look at some of those goodies. Now, the interesting thing is some of the people that are screaming the loudest for us to do something about the deficit have been the people who put the goodies in there. They’ve been the people who have made sure that we pay people to raise tobacco while we pay people to educate people not to smoke tobacco. Same government. Paying on both sides of the equation. That we’re paying the oil companies, um, to, to drill oil even though they’re, been the most profitable corporation on the face of the planet. So, it is one of these things that hopefully that fis, and we got, the Republicans and the Democrats, when you had Tom Coburn and Dick Durbin both sign the report from the fiscal debt commission. [crosstalk]

Michael Bersin: Right.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D):  That’s remarkable. [crosstalk]

Michael Bersin: But, but one of the things in the, in, in, sort of, like I said, in, in our blog universe, one of the slang terms for the commission, they call it the catfood commission. Uh, and part of it was, you know, the, the idea of, of lumping Social Security into that mix, in some of the discussion. And, and while the, there’s some good and bad in, in what they did and that’s the thing that, you know, people have, you know, from our perspective have, have trouble weighing. That some [crosstalk] of the things…

Senator Claire McCaskill (D):  Well I don’t think that there’s gonna be any political support for making any, uh, any kind of cutback in the Social Security benefits. I do think, uh, raising the cap, uh, makes some sense. Um, you know, I think that is reasonable and I think that’s something that you, I think you’ll see serious discussions on that. But if we can get a bipartisan effort to do some of these things we’re talking about that would be terrific, um [crosstalk]…

Michael Bersin: Well, what do you think the odds are for that? It, are you having dialog with people who, who [crosstalk]…

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): Yes.

Michael Bersin: …in weak moments say, well, you know, that might be a good idea.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D):  Yes, I am. I am having dialog. I’ve had lots of discussions with Bob Corker. Um, I’ve had discussions with, uh, uh, with, with Tom Coburn. I’ve had lots of discussions with Judd Gregg and Kent Conrad. Um, and, you know, it, it’s revenue, it’s spending and it’s entitlements. Um, and, you know, we can do better on higher education if we don’t give so much federal money away to online for profits that don’t care about educating kids. [inaudible][crosstalk]

Michael Bersin: So, so, in that kind of thing is there any kind of, um, uh, movement for people thinking if, especially for the, uh, online, you know, non-profits, uh [crosstalk], sort of like…

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): On line for profits.

Michael Bersin: …yeah, online for profits, excuse me, uh, for accountability.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): Yeah, I mean the idea is that you don’t get the money, um, that is associated with the student that is federal aid, um, unless the student graduates. That changes the recruitment, it changes the method of marketing, um, it makes it much more about their education than it does get a hold of the federal money that comes with ’em. And, um, obviously there’s some screeching going on [crosstalk] about that.

Michael Bersin: Yeah, I was gonna, I was gonna ask you, what kind of resistance are you seeing?

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): Well, obviously, you’ve got some very profitable companies that have just mushroomed almost overnight. Um, but I think that, that the Secretary of Education feels very strongly about this and this is a good example of where we could do better by, by students and still save the federal tax dollars. Um, crop insurance is the same thing. We could do better by farmers and still save the federal tax dollars by taking some of the fat out of the crop insurance program. It’s been wildly profitable to these crop insurance companies. Um, they’ve gotten rich off federal tax dollars. And when I t
ry to do something about it they had their little sponsors on the other side of the aisle, one from not too far from here, who began defending, um, the crop insurance companies. They bought a stadium and put their name on it, all with companies that are completely funded with federal tax dollars. It’s outrageous. So, there’s lots of things like that out there. And some of it’s low hanging fruit. And if we begin to demonstrate to the American people that we’re willing to do some of this stuff I think it would really help our reputation.

Michael Bersin: Part of it is how you get, um, sort of, that accountability, at least in, from the Senate of, of all parties in the Senate to basically say, hold this up and say, this really is low hanging fruit, this really is the right thing to do. How do you get people to do that when they have interests that are pressuring them to not do the right thing?

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): Well, you, you have to have enough pressure. Um, right now, in some ways is a good thing, because I think there is significant pressure at looking at where we are right now with the deficit and the debt. I think it’s, it makes our country weaker. I think it has huge implications for the programs I care about, um, the discretionary domestic programs that need to be a priority of our country. We are not gonna be able to afford those programs if we don’t go after some of this low hanging fruit where there are gonna be people who are unhappy. But does anybody think we can do this without making somebody unhappy? I’m trying to figure out how that works. You can’t solve a problem without making somebody unhappy. And, now, you can get reelected maybe, but you can’t solve a problem. If you keep trying to make everybody happy we’re gonna keep having exactly what we have now, problems that don’t get solved. And health care’s a good example. I mean we tried to solve a problem and clearly it was controversial ’cause it’s hard. Uh, and everyone wasn’t happy and everyone still isn’t happy. We gotta keep working on it. I think we can keep making it better. But, our choice was to do nothing? I don’t think so.

Michael Bersin: What’s interesting is in the rhetoric that we’re hearing is, you know, one we, we want to reduce the deficit and yet we want to basic, there are voices that are saying in Congress, repeal the entire thing and yet the, the Congressional , Congressional Budget Office says if you do that you just increased the deficit. So, there’s this disconnect in, in the rhetoric. And, do they actually believe this stuff, or?

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): I think that they, uh, I think that the Republicans know that most Americans just don’t believe that the health care bill reduced the deficit. It’s like believing that Republicans would hold the oil companies accountable. You know, I mean, there’s certain things that, that, I just think that Americans assume if it’s a big new bill about health care that the federal government passed it’s gonna cost money. I don’t think everyone got into the weeds enough to understand that we pulled that money back from the pharmaceutical companies, that we pulled back that excess profits in Medicare Advantage, which by the way, the Republicans had been advocating until it was in the Democratic health care bill. Um, that we, that we did those kind of things I don’t, all they hear is you’ve cut Medicare.

Michael Bersin: But, but there’s a history of that, too, when it comes to this, uh, the, the, individual mandate was the kind of thing that you had Republican senators [crosstalk]…

Senator Claire McCaskill (D):  Bob Dole.

Michael Bersin: …some of who [crosstalk]…

Sean:  Kit Bond.

Michael Bersin: …and others…

Senator Claire McCaskill (D):  Kit Bond.

Michael Bersin: …and others who voted against it , but, you know, nineteen ninety-three advocated this whole thing. And yet they do this so brazenly and does anybody hold them accountable?

Senator Claire McCaskill (D):  Well, hopefully the voters will at some point in time, um, if we do a better job of communicating. I do think that we’ve got a challenge there. I think we were very busy working and we weren’t very disciplined about what was going on around us because we were all busy trying to figure out a way to get a health care bill passed and how to, you know, get a stimulus passed so that Missouri didn’t have to cut four billion dollars out of its budget. Um, you know, we were working on those things and I think in the negative climate that was out there with the economy the message of negativity was really successful….

Transcripts of the remainder of our conversation will follow over the next few days.

Update:

The CBPP graph:

From Senator McCaskill’s August 10, 2010 town hall in Concordia, Missouri.

Yesterday evening Senator Claire McCaskill (D) met with a small group of Missouri political bloggers for a conversation at her Kansas City office. Blue Girl (They gave us a republic… and Show Me Progress), Sean (Fired Up!), and I were in attendance. Eli Yokley (PoliticMo) was unable to attend due to the heavy snowfall.

Senator McCaskill spoke with us and answered questions on the record for almost an hour in her office conference room.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D).

The first part of our conversation covered the deficit and debt, newly elected Representative Vicky Hartzler (r) and earmarks, spending caps, filibuster reform, secret holds, getting a bipartisan date for the State of the Union address, and moderate republicans.

The transcript:

Sean (Fired Up!): [….] …Where do you see things going next?

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): Well, there have been a lot of, um, proposals and discussion and maybe some compromises as it relates to how we deal with the deficit and the debt. I think that clearly, um, was on a lot of folk’s mind in, in this election. And I think that the Republican majority in the Senate [sic] is gonna dictate that a significant amount of our time is spent on that. And that, and the Republicans in the Senate, I mean, we’ve got pretty evenly divided Senate now. I think that what we’ll have, um, uh, I’m hopeful that the lame duck is an indication that some of the moderate Republicans are willing to participate again. What we saw during the lame duck was moderate Republicans, you know, I watched Dick Lugar on the START Treaty. I watched, um, him, you know, work the START Treaty and I watched some of the moderates coming to him immediately and saying, yes, we’re for it, and how that kind of began to get critical mass. It’d been a long time since we’d seen that. Um, it, and the more evenly divided Senate means that they can’t just point fingers, especially now, with, with the House. So, one of two things is gonna happen. Either the House will overreach and nothing will happen, or, uh, the public will begin to react if the House does overreach and that will put more pressure on the Senate to try to come up with some reasonable compromises then, that then will go back to the House to see if they’ll accept or reject them. And I just don’t know how, how [many] rigid ideologues have been elected. I assume they’re pretty rigid ideologues in the House, but I don’t know that for a fact, I mean.  I was surprised when Vicky Hartzler told me that she would take earmarks, she would seek earmarks, so.

Sean: Yeah, they change their opinions pretty quickly on the deficit and everything else, with…

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): Yeah, well, the hundred billion dollars they said they were gonna cut, let’s see if they do it. [crosstalk] And if they do, we’ll look forward, we’ll see if they are willing to make specific cuts, um.

Blue Girl (Show Me Progress and They gave us a republic…): Shake the couch cushions at the Pentagon.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): Well, that was what  I, that’s what I liked about the Sessions/McCaskill proposal, was that it, um, was a spending cap not on discretionary domestic alone, but defense.

Blue Girl: Yeah.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): And we got every single Republican to vote for a cap on spending. Defense spending. And that’s what was so frustrating to me, that I couldn’t convince my caucus that this was an, an incredible opportunity for us to take the mantle of being responsible about spending because it wasn’t a cut, it was a cap. It was similar to what we had during the nineties and, you know, how [crosstalk]…

Blue Girl: What did you not like about the nineties, the peace or the prosperity?

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): Yeah, right. Right, so, it, um, it, I think that we’ll get, I’m gonna continue to work on the Sessions/McCaskill spending and I’ll think we’ll get it passed. The question is, will that be enough for this Congress? Or will they want more, uh, will they want a more aggressive cap? And, um, we’ll see. Okay.

Blue Girl: One in nine federal judgeships, first question here, uh, they, you know, Congress, the hundred eleventh adjourned before the Senate could even consider hundreds of bills, uh, nothing’s been getting done, uh, this did not happen because it takes sixty votes to break a filibuster but because the minority can force the entire Senate to waste up to thirty hours ever, ever, every time the Senate holds a vote. What reforms do you support to stop this obstruction of even the most uncontroversial business?

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): Um, well the good news is that we did get twenty-two of them through, um, judges through, uh, by, by unanimous consent right before we adjourned. So, that’s good. Um, I do think the secret hold thing is really important because if you own it then you gotta explain it. And what happens is these guys hold these things secretly and then they, of course, vote for the nominees when they’re for, forced to.

Blue Girl: Right.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): So, you having the ability just to gum things up without anybody ever taking ownership is a huge problem. I am optimistic that we are gonna get the rule change on secret holds.  Um, I think that is really hard for the other side to justify as they’re preaching transparency and accountability. I don’t know how they don’t accept a change in the rules to do away with the secret hold. And I think you do away with the secret hold it has an amazing ability to clean some of this stuff up. Now, do we make the changes in the filibuster? I would love to see the people who are filibustering have to be the ones to produce the forty. I’d love to see the people who are doing the filibustering have to hold the floor. I’d love for the people to see an actual filibuster.

Blue Girl: Yeah.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): Instead of the procedural  way they’ve done it,  which is they quietly object and then they kind of skulk off and the majority is left there to hold the floor and, and for the thirty hours and the staff [crosstalk] is there and so [crosstalk]…

Blue Girl: They should read about the Polish Sejm.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): Uh, yeah. So, so, um, but the question is, are we willing to break what has been traditional precedent in the Senate and change the rules by a simple majority vote? And once we do that then we need to realize that it can always be done. And that means that the Republicans could do the same thing if they took the majority in two years. And we have to realize the rules they may want to change may not be as reasonable and modest as the rule changes we want. [crosstalk]

Michael Bersin, Show Me Progress: But does, but does anybody expect that, you know, given their past behavior that they wouldn’t do that anyway?

Blue Girl: Yeah.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): I think it’s really hard for them to do that anyway. I think it’s very hard. I think, um, it’s, it’s, uh, it’s kind of what happened with the nuclear option. As you remember, there was a group of Republicans that wanted to do this when Democrats, uh, were blocking Bush’s judicial nominees. And it was in fact a group of moderate Republicans that said, no, we’re not gonna do this. And it didn’t happen. If it had happened I don’t know, you know, we probably would have had some significant rule changes along the lines that a lot of people are talking about now. You know, the Republicans make the point, and it is a valid point, how often we fill the tree. Um, we have fi
lled the tree a lot. We have not given the Republicans an opportunity to offer amendments and so it’s almost like an escalating warfare here. Um, and the reason that we fill the tree is because they’re, I think the leadership thought it was a good idea to keep us from having to waste time on voting on amendments that were not germane. What I affectionately call the gotcha amendments.  And [crosstalk]…

Blue Girl: Poison pills.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): The, yeah, poison pills. Um, at the end of the day. It’s probably what you signed up for when you go to the United States Senate, that you’ve got to cast difficult votes. And I’m one of the senators that is encouraging leadership to not always fill the tree, to allow open amendment process. Um, so, we’ll see what happens on the rules. But I, I’m gonna be surpri, we’ve all signed  a letter  saying we want these rule changes. And I am supporting these rule changes. And I’m hopeful these rule changes happen. Um, but if they don’t I think we’ve got to, you know, decide, um, how far are we willing to go and what are the consequences of that long term for the Senate and for the minority, not just in the current scenario.

Blue Girl: Are you gonna sit across the aisle at the State of the Union?

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): You know, I, it’s funny because it’s now there’s this pressure to get a date.

Blue Girl: [laughter]

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): A Republican date. So I’m busy casting about for my republican date. I feel like I’m back in high school.

Blue Girl: Yeah.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D):  Um, you know, I , I, uh, I’ve, I’ve asked Susan Collins but, you know, I sent her an e-mail. I said, Susan, are you already taken?

Blue Girl: [laughter]

Senator Claire McCaskill (D):  You know, uh, would you be willing to be my date for the State of the Union? So, we’ll see. I think what you’re gonna see is a lot of people now kind of, you know, sitting with Republicans and it being much more mixed. I hope so. I think it would be a good thing.

Blue Girl: I want to see Barney Franks sit by Joe Wilson.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D):  Well, I don’t know that that will happen, but…

Blue Girl: Oh, I would pay cash money.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D):  [laughter] I don’t know that that will happen. But, you know, let’s hope this isn’t just a, like a hula hoop, you know, let’s hope this is just not a fad, that we can keep some of this going. Because the vitriol is pretty bad.

Blue Girl: Yeah, yeah.  Crazy doesn’t happen in a vacuum.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D):  Right.

Blue Girl: Uh, how ’bout, uh, Republicans have shown a willingness to cooperate with Democrats hen it’s in their interest to do so. Do you see any pressure at all on Republicans from their base or elsewhere to work cooperatively with Democrats on solving problems, or are the incentives all the other way, tempting Republicans to make the next two years a repeat of the last two by jockeying for position in twelve and stopping Democrats in their tracks?

Senator Claire McCaskill (D):  Well, I think, um, people need to remember that some of the Republicans that were elected were not elected from red states. Um, you have Pat Toomey from Pennsylvania, you have Mark Kirk from Illinois. I mean, imagine how Mark Kirk feels. If he goes out to Washington and has a very aggressive I follow the Republican party no matter what, you know, I’m, I’m all for the right wing agenda, he has real problems in Illinois. So, um, what, what really gets compromise is an evenly divided Senate with a healthy number of moderates in both parties. Uh, the moderate Republicans increased somewhat. Now, we lost some moderate Republicans in primaries. But Lisa [Murkowski] survived.  You, you know, you’ve got Olympia [Snowe], You’ve got Susan [Collins]. Now you have, you know, Scott Brown who’s got to face election in Massachusetts. You’ve got Mark Kirk who has to face an election in, uh, Illinois. You’ve got Toomey who has to face an election in Pennsylvania. So, as you look at those states, um, I have to believe that those people are going to be willing to cooperate and compromise, try to see if we can find some common ground. I think, I’m more optimistic today than I was a year ago….

Transcripts of the remainder of our conversation will follow over the next few days.

Here are the links to the rest of the transcripts:

Part II

Part III

Part IV

We received a communication yesterday afternoon that the White House would hold a conference call for bloggers with White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer. Mr. Pfeiffer made a brief statement and then took questions on the DREAM Act, Social Security, Republican obstruction of nominations, filibuster reform, energy policy, and the real estate/mortgage foreclosure crisis. The transcript:

….Dan Pfeiffer, White House Communications Director: Thanks everyone, uh, for joining us, uh [inaudible] as we get so close to the holidays here. And we’ll try to do this quick so you can, uh, be done with us and do whatever else you were hoping to do today. Um, I hope folks saw the pre, the President at the, uh, press conference he just finished up over in the old Executive Office Building.  Uh, this, you know, we obviously have had, um, when you go back to the day after Election day I don’t think anyone would have, uh, predicted the, uh, sorts of successes we’ve been able to have on some very important issues, uh, during this lame duck session. Um, you know, most notably, uh, the big ones getting obviously, uh, some resolution on taxes, uh, which as the President said, threatened, uh, the economy and the, uh, well being of millions of middle class families and particularly two million unemployed folks who would go without benefits, uh, would continue to go without benefits had we not got this done. Uh, getting Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell repealed which the president signed today. Uh, and I hope folks were able to see, uh, that event today. It was a very, uh, emotional event for everyone involved and, uh, when I think when the history is written, um, of this administration it will be seen as a very, uh, significant moment, uh, a real civil rights victory there. Uh, getting, uh, START done, uh, was, uh, a very important national security priority for the President. And then, uh, you know, the way today we were able to get the 9/1, uh, firefighters bill, which was just passed by the House, which, uh, was something that, uh, is obviously very important to get done, the right thing to do and was just caught up in a bunch of, uh, senseless politics. We were able to get that resolved at the last minute.

This has been a, uh, great, uh, a great month for the causes that we all care about and a real opportunity, and it gives us a little, uh, all of us a little wind at our backs as we head into next year which, um, will obviously, you know, this President said today the, uh, the, the toughest fights and the biggest issue, and the, uh, most difficult issues are ahead of us and, uh, but it’s nice to have a little momentum as we head in to tackle them. And with that I’ll take, um, any, any and all questions you guys have….

[….]

Question: …With respect to moving forward and looking at the lame duck I think there’s a lot of concern with, uh, the continuing resolution ending in March with the, uh, move to increase the debt limit coming up, uh, as a need some time in the Spring, um, will the President commit to not, uh, signing, refusing to act on any, uh, budget related legislation that hurts the economy by reducing aggregate demand and the impact of the tax cut deal?

….Dan Pfeiffer: Um, well, you, you raise, there are, there are two things that I should have pointed out in my initial, uh, remarks that the President pointed out, uh, in, uh, at the press conference today that he was disappointed we were unable to get done. One was the DREAM Act and the President spoke, uh, very passionately why that was so important to do. And the other one was resolving, uh, the budget for next year. And, you’re right, that is, that is, that is a, uh, is an unfortunate situation. It’s a, it is a, it’s a problem. Look, we’re gonna have, uh, a, we’re gonna have some real debates about, uh, how we cut, how we deal with spending and the deficits over the next, uh, year here. And the Republicans ran on, um, you know, ran, ran campaigns on how they were gonna cut spending, how they were gonna reduce deficit. But they never explained how they were gonna do that.  Now, now they’re gonna have to do that. They’re gonna have to put forward a budget in the House. They’re gonna have to talk about where and what they’re gonna cut. And we’re gonna have a big debate about that. You know, in their pledge to America the House, uh, Republicans proposed a twenty percent cut in education funding which would be the largest cut in education funding in history. That’s something the President thinks would be a, uh, disastrous mistake for the long term competitiveness of the, of America and the well being of our students and he’s, and we’re gonna have a big, a big fight on that. You know, we, we’re, you know, there’s been a lot of speculation about the debt limit and how the Republicans are gonna approach that and, uh, you know, there has been, there are obviously some, uh, in their base who’ve been agitate, agitating to use that as a fight. Uh, the leadership has, uh, uh, uh, incoming Speaker Boehner in particular, has said that he didn’t, he didn’t want to make that be a overly political issue and we’ll see what happens. But we’re, you know, we, you know, I suspect that you’re gonna have some, uh, that in a, in a year in which you’ll see, uh, some compromise and some confrontation I think that you’ll probably see some, uh, see [inaudible] confrontation over spending issues ’cause this is a place where, uh, we have, you know, we are very different phil, philosophies of the Republicans on what’s best for the country and the President is prepared to, uh, draw some pretty tough lines in the sand. What those are gonna be and how we do them we’ll have to see how it plays itself out, but, uh, he’s not gonna let, uh, the Republicans take this country in the wrong direction. Um, uh, you know, particularly in ways that will, as he said, and I think at a recent event, that where you try to make the car go faster by taking out the engine. And it’s, when he, when he says that he’s referring to things like education, innovation, research and development, the things that are, will make us more competitive.

[….]

Question: …I was wondering what sort of strategy is being outlined for pursuing the DREAM Act over the next two years.

Dan Pfeiffer: Well, we’re, you know, we’re, we’re, we’re gonna spend a lot of time thinking about that over the, uh, over the next two weeks here. Um, as the President said in his press conference, uh, he, he believes fundamentally this is the right thing to do. And as he said, he’s very persistent on the things he cares about, like Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and he will push very hard. He believes that this is absolutely the right thing to do. It’s the right thing to do, uh, uh, for the future of the country, it’s the right thing to do for the, as he said, these kids who are, um, they are, they are American in, in all parts of their life except for where they were born.  And they didn’t come, it wasn’t their choice to come to this country and they want to fight for our country and they want to go to school and get educated, contribute to our society. And we ought to, um, to, uh, you know, we ought to do right by them. And so, he, what he said today that, you know, he’s gonna make that case publicly, you know, ’cause he said the Republicans won’t support this because the politics, uh, aren’t, aren’t good. Then we’re gonna do something to change the politics. So he’ll, he’ll make, he’ll make the case publicly on it and then I, you know, we’re gonna, you know, we’ll engage in conversations with the, uh, with the Democrats and the Republicans who oppose this bill to see if there are, uh, are some, are some areas of compromise that we can maybe come to that, uh, we maybe can pair the legislation with something else that may get people on board. But what, that’s just in the early stages right now. That’s something the President’s very committed to, uh, and he, uh, is, is willing to wage a, uh, very public campaign for it.

[….]

Question: …My question sort of follows up on the DREAM Act. There’s been some criticism that the President hasn’t been sort of engaging his grassroots supporters enough, the Washington Post op-ed by Sam Grahm-Felsen, and a lot of people noticed during the tax cut debate for example the, the, the press list was very active. I mean, is there something like this that will happen for the DREAM Act or the President’s other priorities, sort of a reengaging of, of the, the grassroots supporters?

Dan Pfeiffer: Uh, yes. I mean, I, I believe that, um, that, uh, OFA was actively involved in having, uh, both on DREAM Act and during this lame duck session with [inaudible] DREAM Act and Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, uh, activating, uh, activists around the country to, uh, call in and write in, uh, lobby, um, wavering members, um, to support both those initiatives. I think we’ll continue to do that. Um, and I think that, that it’s one of the ways in which we would get this done. This, you know, the President always said on the campaign trail that, um, change comes from the bottom up, um, and I think on issues like the DREAM Act it’s gonna have to because there’s, uh, some real resistance in Washington, uh, from folks, primarily in the other party, uh, but some in our own. And, uh, you know, I think we’re gonna need to get people activated and I think that you’ll , you will see a lot of that over the next, uh, uh, months and years.

[….]

Question: …Uh, Obama mentioned in the, uh, press conference that he, one of the things he didn’t mention, I should note he did not mention the climate bill among his biggest regrets. Uh, but he did mention that he wanted to engage republicans on energy as soon as possible in the new session. I wonder if you could give us any preview of what that looks, uh, like and whether it goes beyond natural gas and, and clean coal?

Dan Pfeiffer: Well, I think, to be fair, the President was referring to his biggest regrets of things that, uh, were [inaudible], were, could potentially have gotten done during this lame duck session which is why he mentioned the DREAM Act, um, and collective bargaining for firefighters. Um, he has said on multiple occasions, on many many occasions, that uh, you know, there are several things that he promised to do in the campaign that he’s been trying to do that he wasn’t able to get done the first two years. And, um, and comprehensive legislation that, uh, gives us a, uh, a clean energy economy for, uh, the jobs of the future and deals with, uh, climate change is something, you know, he worked, he worked to get done. He got it through the House, we’re gonna get through the Senate.  Um, the politics of that, of that which were obviously hard in a, uh, in a largely Democratic, in a, in a, in a majority Democratic House and a, um, in a signifi, in a Senate where you had, uh, sixty votes at some time, uh, get harder next year obviously as you have Republican control of the House and more Republicans in the Senate. So, we’ll, we’ll continue to work on it. And if you can’t do, um, everything, uh, that was in the, uh, the, uh, Markey Waxman bill maybe there’s some things you can get done and continue to make progress on the issue. So we’re gonna work on it and it’s one of the things we’ll, uh, be engaging Republicans about next year.

[….]

Question: …I was wondering, two things, um. First, um, I was wondering if there was any reaction to the Robert Kuttner’s article in which he, um, claimed that sources, uh, I don’t know, he didn’t exactly say, he said they were high placed sources, I believe [laughter] without getting any more specific , said that there’d be, uh, Social Security cuts put on the table in the State of the Union, um, and in addition, I think he also said budget cuts, but that’s something I think President Obama has always said that, um, programs that don’t work need to be cut, [Dan Pfeiffer:  “Um, hmm.” ] um , and isn’t anything new.  I was wondering if there was any comment on, on that article and then just more generally where would the line be drawn with Social Security in terms of sort of what’s not, uh, on the table as far as cuts go?

Dan Pfeiffer: Well, um, you know I have, uh, I, I don’t go to all the economic meetings in the White House but I go to most of them. And I, I’ve never seen, uh, uh, Mr. Kuttner in any of them. So I’m not sure, uh, who his sources are. Um, what, what I can tell you is that the President believes that whatever solu, he believes that we need to strengthen Social Security. It needs to be, uh, preserved, it needs to be preserved for current beneficiaries, uh, and future ones. And that it’s gonna take, uh, you can’t, one party alone can’t solve this, um, can’t solve this problem. And so, you know, he, he’s willing to, uh, engage in, uh, conversations with the Republicans on this if they’re willing to be constructive. And we’ll see, see if that’s possible next year. But he’s not gonna do anything that, um, that, uh, that weakens social, Social Security. He, he wants to strengthen it. And, and with the, and the, what, uh, you know, the leading proponents on the Republican side have wanted to do is either privatize it which would be devastating to the program, or essentially, um, you know, I think it was, uh, some members of the Republican leadership who said that the only, uh, way that they would, uh, increase the longevity of the program would be through cuts, only cuts, nothing else, no revenue increases or anything else. And that’s obvious, that’s obviously a nonstarter and it, and what it’d basically be is an attempt to do, is to, uh, destroy the program. Uh, sort of, you know, by a million cuts. And so, uh, the, you know, we’ll , uh, we’ll look to see if there’s a conversation to be had on this next year but the President is, uh, uh, is a strong believer in Social Security and wants to strengthen it.

[….]

Question: …So my question is about the, uh, the President and judges right now. President Obama is the first judge, the first president in American history to have to fight to get district judges confirmed. This has never before been a problem. And I recognize that’s not resident Obama’s fault, that’s Mitch McConnell’s fault. But the reason why Mitch McConnell was able to make that happen is because he could exploit all the Senate rules that allow for endless delay and it’s led to this dynamic where we have to bargain away district judge. We have to bargain to get our district judges confirmed and we have to bargain away really great circuit judges that other people really want to get confirmed just to get, you know, just to keep the, the judiciary running. My question is what is the President gonna do to change that dynamic and will it include some supporting changes to the rules governing post cloture debate?

Dan Pfeiffer: Well, I would say a couple things on this. One, uh, this is a, this is, you’re actually correct, this is a problem [inaudible] judges, Republicans have taken, uh, an unprecedented approach to essentially requiring sixty votes for every nominee, even the least controversial people who get through committee, uh, with, you know, unanimously or with minimal partisan opposition. People are entirely not controversial at the district court level, uh, even at the circuit court level, who, uh, would normally in previous years get through. Um, and in, that’s even, I mean, it’s not just judges it’s all of our nominees. [voice: “Right.”]  People who’ve been sitting there for, you know, you know, well over a year, um, for issues that have nothing to do with their nomination itself. It’s, uh, uh, you know, it, you know, it’s some pet issue of, uh, you know, of this member or that member. And I think you remember when, uh, one Republican senator put a hold on all of our nominees ’cause of a, uh, essentially a pork barrel project they wanted, uh, built in their state. And, uh, that, that’s a very real problem. I think we will, um, you know, and next year we’re gonna have, this gets more challenging, not, not less, because of increased Republican numbers in the Senate. We’re gonna have to, they’ll have even bigger fight about this and you can expect to see the President raise the profile of the issue.

The President has expressed concerns on, um, many occasions about the fact that you need, that the require, that now we’re in a place that you need a super majority for everything. You need sixty votes for everything you do and, um, it, it slows things to [inaudible] down to a crawl and gives the minority, uh, the power to, uh, just, block almost, block almost everything. And, you know, were it not for the huge numbers we had in the Senate, um, you know, for much of the last two years, uh, literally nothing would have gotten done. Um, you know, how the Senate rules play itself out, now that’s a conversation for, uh, uh, yeah, for the, for the Senate to have, um, amongst themselves. And, you know, at this point we’re not prepared to, uh, uh, endorse any specific proposal on how to address that. And I’m not sure that a president, um, getting involved in a legislative branch matter like that would be, um, seen as particularly constructive by the other branch.

[….]

Question: …My house hasn’t sold for like seven months so I’m wondering, uh, what the President’s gonna do with real estate prices which continue to keep cratering.

Dan Pfeiffer: Well, um, you, you know, the, the housing market continues to be, um, a, uh, a major concern of the President’s and we have made, while we have made, um, some progress in terms of reducing the number of foreclosures, um, in providing, um, some help, uh, to homeowners who are under water there’s still a lot more work to do. But, one of the problems we have now is that in the, the best thing that we’re gonna be able to do to, uh, help the housing market [inaudible] , there are gonna be individual things you can do to protect people from unfair foreclosures, you know, you know, we have a task force working on that, at helping specific homeowners [inaudible]. But, in terms of the housing market writ large the, um, the, the most important thing we’re gonna do is to, uh, is to grow the economy, create additional demand. We are over leveraged when it comes to housing market, we, because of the housing that we’ve, built millions of houses that,  more than we would in an average year and there’s excess inventory. Um, it, the more the economy grows the better that’s gonna get. But, we’ll, I can promise you the President is very focused on this issue, looking for every possible opportunity he has to help, uh, folks who are under water on their homes, um, folks who are, uh, have been victimized by, uh, predatory lending or through some sort of improper foreclosure. And we’ll, we’ll continue focused on that but this is, this is a very, uh, vexing and challenging problem. And fixing the economy as a whole is gonna, uh, help this a lot.

[….]

After President Obama’s address to the joint session of Congress last night the White House hosted a blogger conference call with Dan Pfeiffer, the Deputy Communications Director. He made a short opening statement then took questions for about twenty minutes. Blue Girl and I were in on the call (I’m not certain if any of the rest of the clan around here dialed in). Bloggers from Kos, MyDD, Firedoglake, and other places in blogtopia (yes, skippy coined the phrase!) also participated.

Dan Pfeiffer, White House Deputy Communications Director: …I assume you all just got a chance to watch the President’s speech, or at least had a chance to read it. Just a little top line stuff here. We feel very good about the speech and think it accomplished many of our goals tonight. Primarily to communicate to the American people what health reform is and what it isn’t, and to make a compelling case for why we need to act now. Getting into this debate we knew, we were comforted by the fact that according to some polls three in four Americans still believe, three in four Americans believe that we need to reform the health and [garbled] we need to do it now. There was clearly a lot of confusion about what health reform meant. That confusion was a product of a [garbled] process that, that did not have one specific proposal, of a lot of lies and distortions that gained traction over the course of the summer. And so the President sought to clear up a lot of that confusion. We believe he was successful in that and have sort of regained the momentum here to proceed forward. And with that I will take any and all questions folks may have….

….Question: …Do you believe that after, what was the actual political expectation from this particular speech?

Dan Pfeiffer: In terms of?

Question: What, what is the, I think, what is the best and most desirable outcome?

Dan Pfeiffer: I think the, the outcome is that, a few things. One, that we, the President leaves the, leave the American people with a very core understanding of what health reform means. That if you have insurance now you get to keep your plan, you get to, you get to keep your doctor. And what you get is more security and stability. If you don’t have insurance you’ll get access to an affordable insurance, you’ll have a choice of plans. And there will be some mechanism to keep the insurance companies honest. And that health reform will lower costs for families, the government and the system as a whole. We can communicate that to people that is an incredibly appealing notion and for, for them to have some sense of confidence that that is the end result of this somewhat messy process that is the crafting of major legislation. And then, sort of secondarily, we’ve begun the, hopefully tens of millions of Americans who watched the speech tonight, there were five hundred thirty-five members of Congress who were in the audience, and to, with that, you know we’ve entered, we’ve entered a new phase, this is a time for action, is to kick start that process, begin to pull the strands of all of the various proposals that have been out there and move towards one singular solution that accomplishes the goals the President laid out at the beginning this debate and reiterated tonight. And like I said earlier I think that our initial assessment is that, is that we went a long way towards finally dealing with this, with the health care crises in this country….

….Question: Does the White House have a comment on the action of Representative Joe Wilson who has been tagged by several news outlets as the member who shouted “liar” from the House floor?

Dan Pfeiffer: I, I have seen those reports. I certainly do not know for a fact who it was that said that. I think that the President addressed in the speech, addressed in the speech tonight this sort of partisan bickering and, that has sort of plagued this debate. And you could probably cast some of that heckling along those lines. What he tried to do tonight was speak to the American people and the Congress like an adult. And sort of rise above, and rise above that bickering. I think you’re always gonna have some of that. And whenever you do it’s always unfortunate. But we’ll continue to move past it and try to make progress with the, what we hope are the vast majority of the members who will heed the President’s call tonight and step up, come together and take on, take on this big challenge….

….Question: …I was looking at the President’s plan that you posted on the White House web site.  And I was just wondering what parts if any are negotiable? What parts aren’t?

Dan Pfeiffer: I think that the principles thee President laid out for the plan are not negotiable.  The need for competition, the need for choice, the fact that we need to provide more, the insurance, the fact that we need to provide more security and stability for Americans who have insurance, the fact that it, that would, this, back up a step.  I would say that the basic principles are non-negotiable as he said in, in his remarks. And he is open to good ideas. He wants to listen to members of Congress from both parties on how to proceed. And wants to work with the Congress. But the very, the core guarantee that Americans who have insurance will get to keep their insurance but get more stability and security. Americans who don’t have insurance will get it, be able to achieve it affordably. And that the overall effort is [garbled] to the deficit. Those are the issues that will be part of any bill the President signs.

Question: …This, this list that you put out, it’s not just core principle, it’s specific proposals. And so what I’m trying to get a sense of is, are these specific proposals that he’s saying this is what I want or this is sort of what I want? Is it all negotiable [crosstalk]?

Dan Pfeiffer: He’s, he’s saying, he’s saying, he’s saying this is what I want. I’m not being, the mechanisms for achieving those goals will work with the Congress [garbled] to find the best way to do it, but he’s very clear that the, those principles I laid out are, or that he laid out in the speech are what he believes to be real health reform. And he, his intention is to sign a real health reform bill.

Question: [garbled] But as I’m reading my way through this list, should I think to myself, ah, this is what, this is what he wants [crosstalk].

Dan Pfeiffer: I think if you read, I, I , what I’m saying is that the principles that I laid out are the, the, the overall goals here. Are what are essential for any bill he signs. If there are better mechan, you know I think he addressed this very specifically with, he addressed a couple times in the speech that if there are other ways to do this or ways to tweak it he’s willing to do that as long it achieve, it achieves the goals he laid out…

Question: …Following up…are you considering setting this up a separate legislation? And where does this leave the four bills that we have reported out of committee?

Dan Pfeiffer: We are, we’ve, our goal here is to find the way that gets health reform to the President desk the quickest. We are heartened by the fact that the Senate Finance Committee, which had been the last and final committee that had to act, has said they’re going to begin to act, begin, begin their work next week. If, we have not made the final decision about whether a bill needs to be sent up, but the goal here is to help the existing, if possible, to shape the existing proposals into the, what the President laid out tonight.

Question: …[garbled]in that area, and particularly in the House Bill?

Dan Pfeiffer: I think that [garbled], in terms of, you know, where does it meet the Presideent’s test, or?

Question: Yeah.

Dan Pfeiffer: I think that we, I mean, every, couple things, one, there is s
hocking, frankly shocking amount of agreement amongst all of the bill, the four bills that have been marked up between Senate HELP, Energy Commerce, Ways and Means, etcetera. So, that’s good news. There are a lot of details to be worked out amongst them. The, also the good news is that all of them achieve the President’s goals. Every American will have access to affordable coverage, Every American will have more security and stability in their health care. There is a mechanism in there that promotes competition and choice and keeps the insurance companies honest. So there’s, they all achieve that. There are clearly a lot of, there’s a lot of work that needs to be done to meld all of those together. It’s probably not constructive at this point to try to pick each one apart. We’re gonna continue to work with the Congress to move it, to move them all towards one final solution. If it’s, one of the things that is, has sort of stalled progress here has been a series of big questions that have loomed over August. How do you, how do you pay for it? Where’s the President come down on some of the financing? We know, what are we gonna do with the public option? What about the individual mandate? What about the employer mandate? Where, where does the White House stand on that? The President has let the legislative process play itself out, but tonight he stood up before Congress and the nation and answered the big questions. Which we believe will, and leaders from the House and Senate agree with us, will give a boost, tremendous boost of momentum to the process….

….Question: …I’m wondering how you guys are gonna define affordable? I know the, the Baucus bill that just came out yesterday expects basically median income families with a significant medical event in a year to pay thirty-one percent of their income that year, leaving them just seven thousand dollars for things like utilities and education and debt and clothing. And I’m wondering if that is considered affordable.

Dan Pfeiffer: I have read the, some, some of the reports you have about what the Finance Committee is planning on doing. The chairman hasn’t released a mark yet. I believe he’s not planning on doing that ’til, I think it’s in the middle of next week, so we’ll have to look at that when it comes. The President did not lay out a specific number tonight, but one of the things he’s committed to doing is working with all of the committee, all of the various committees here to make sure that we have one that common, the common sense will tell you was affordable that works. This is a very, this is a critical part as you may remember from the primary campaign. The President was very clear that an individual mandate only worked if you were able to lower the cost to make it affordable for people. And that’s something he’s committed to in this process.

Question: So common sense is the best measure that you can offer? [crosstalk]

Dan Pfeiffer: Well, what I, what I , what I, kind, the, common sense is not the, it is a critical component of it. We will work with them, but I don’t have a number, a specific dollar amount or percentage for you tonight. But we’re committed to working with the Congress to make sure it’s one that is affordable and that we’re not putting undue burdens on middle class families trying to have health care for their family….

….Question: …Insurance is regulated at the state level. And…if there would be preemption at the federal level and to what extent that preemption would take place? Would states be allowed to impose their own regulations on top of what the federal system [garbled] in place? I was curious about the Kucinich amendment which said that if a state decided to go the single payer route the [garbled] legislation would get in the way of that.

Dan Pfeiffer: A couple things. As it relates to the consumer guarantees in the, in the President’s plan, things like caps on out of pocket costs, prohibitions against rescissions, prohibitions against denying people coverage for pre-existing conditions, all of that would be handled as part of participation in this process. And would be, work for everyone. The President also said in order to insure that every American who has a pre-existing condition now who can’t get insurance could get a, we would announce these high risk, we’d start these high risk pools which would allow at least individuals to buy catastrophic coverage at very affordable rates [garbled] right away. I have to admit I do not have the, I don’t know exactly the interaction between federal and state insurance regulation on this point, but I will attempt to get that for you and have Jesse [Lee] get you the answer tomorrow….

….Question: …What’s the [garbled] timeline for this. I was, I mean the President’s spoken a lot about wanting republican input, giving them a chance to cooperate in the process and be a part of the process instead of obstructing the process. But from my perspective anyway, I haven’t seen very much of that. How much longer is the President willing to wait before he decides that it, it’s time to go alone with the Democrats?

Dan Pfeiffer: We are moving forward as expeditiously as possible. We don’t, if there are people who want to engage in the process, legitimately engage, not delay the process, but legitimately engage, we will work with that. We will not allow anyone for, to de, to try to kill this, you know, by delay, to try and starve the process. We won’t allow that to happen. We want to move forward as quickly as possible. The [crosstalk]…

Question: Do, do you expect it to be done by the end of this year? By the Christmas break?

Dan Pfeiffer: We don’t have a specific deadline but certainly our hope is to do this in this Congress before, before they go out. But, it is, we’re, we’re working on it, we’ll see what the schedule is. As you know the President, you know the President originally wanted a, to have this done, at least through both houses, by August recess. We didn’t achieve that, so we have some time to make up here. We’re, we know we’re gonna be working with the leadership to try and get a very fast timeline for this. [crosstalk] After we’ve had those conversations with them we’ll have, you know, more, more specific date. But rest assured, when the President said tonight he would not wait for those who wanted to simply delay for delay’s sake he is [garbled] serious on that.

Question: You said this Congress, what you meant was [crosstalk]?

Dan Pfeiffer: What I meant, what I meant is before they, before they go out at the end of the year. But we’re, we have to work with the leadership on that. We will do that. So, that is a good catch on your part, but we will hopefully be able to have a very specific schedule sooner rather than later. But as you, as I mentioned at the top of this call, with the Senate Finance Committee restarting the process and with moving and acting next week we’ve already begun to make, to sort of, to kick start the process and start moving forward….

….Question: …It seemed to me in the speech that the President was open to some sort of trigger for public option. And I am curious if he is actually going to push for a trigger as a sort of compromise between a public option immediately or in twenty thirteen and a certain public option in twenty thirteen and, and the other side. And if so, what kind of trigger are we talking about? What would the level be set at? How would it be triggered? And how does this jibe with the President’s end comments about having to do this right now and having to insure the basic principles which include competition right now?

Dan Pfeiffer: Okay, let me, several questions there, let me sort of deal with them one by one. First, I think it’s important to take a step back and look at what the President said about the public option. He was very clear about his support for it. He’s very clear that it, it is in his plan. It is, he is going to work to make sure it’s in any bill, but he is clear that it is, that he, his foc
us is on the goals here and he’s open to other ideas. And he mentions the possibility of a trigger. Now you would have to construct it in a way that it actually, actually increased competition, allowed the consumer choice, and kept the insurance companies honest. There are ways you could design it that would not achieve that. And that’s not something that the President would support. So, if, if that is route that, that Congress decides to go we will work with them to insure that it, it achieves those goals. But there was a lot of speculation heading into this about what the President would say about the public option.  A lot of people saying that he was going to throw it aside, but he did not do that, he did, I think, in fact, the opposite. I mean, he’s clear, he, he wants to be very clear that this is not all health reform and it’s not the only way to achieve his goals, but he thinks it’s a very valuable tool and it’s one that he supports and is willing to push for. In terms of the timeline, you know, it is gonna take some time to get the system, an overall health reform effort up and running. That just, it’s a logistical fact of it and we’re. We’re gonna do that as quickly as possible in order to address some of the immediate concerns. We’re gonna work [garbled] very quickly, get the insurance guarantees in place. And, as I mentioned earlier, have this high risk pool available to people with preexisting conditions, many of whom cannot buy insurance even, even the well to do with preexisting conditions who are buying on the individual market or cannot get insurance. So we’ll have this high risk available as soon as we, as soon as possible to allow people to get into it to buy catastrophic coverage which will allow them, that will insure them that, if they have a chronic disease, a serious accident, a serious injury, they will be protected from bankruptcy. And frankly all of the, the taxpayer who ends up paying for some of these cases, which are by far the most expensive and take up a significant percentage of health spending in this country, will not be, will not fall on the taxpayer dime. [crosstalk]

Question: I’m sorry, just to clarify, that, that pool, that high risk pool, is that a public program?

Dan Pfeiffer: It, it would have to be started that way, yes.

All right, thank you everyone. We hope to do this again as we move through the process. I hope folks found it helpful and I hope you enjoyed the speech tonight. Thanks so much…

Blue Girl and I took part in a conference call for bloggers on health care reform with President Obama and senior members of his staff late this afternoon. The President made a brief opening statement and then took questions from those on the call. The President’s staff continued after he left the call.

The transcript of President Obama’s opening remarks:

Operator:….We have the President of the United States.

President Barack Obama: Hey guys. Uh, it, it is great to talk to you. Thanks, uh, so much for, uh, thanks so much for being on. And I want to just make a couple of quick comments. I want to leave about fifteen minutes for questions to me directly. And then David Axelrod, uh, my senior advisor, as well as Nancy-Ann DeParle who is my chief, uh, uh, member of my health care brain trust, uh, will stay on and she can, uh, answer some additional calls afterwards.

Um, this is a critical time for us who care deeply about changing the health care system and how it’s currently working. We are closer to reform than we’ve ever been. Of course that means that the special interests and some of their representatives in Congress are gonna pull out everything they have to stop it. I want to make sure that all of you and your readers hear from me directly and others on my team about what’s going on. I know that there’s been a lot of focus, uh, from a lot of people on keeping the bill strong and that continues to be a key focus for me as well. But, there’s also a primary point that can’t be lost. The status quo is unacceptable.  Uh, you’ve got forty-six million people without health insurance. You’ve got premiums going up three times faster than wages, out of pocket costs skyrocketing. Uh, so people who would defend doing nothing, uh, I think are defending the indefensible. Uh, so far those who oppose reform have offered no meaningful, uh, alternatives. And one of the things that I know the blogs are best at is debunking myths that can slip through a lot of the traditional media outlets and a lot of the conventional wisdom.

And that’s why you’re gonna to play such an important role in our success, uh, in the weeks and months to come. For example, the idea that the legislation I sign is going to be a source of record deficits is simply not true. It’s a myth that’s been spread by the same people that were responsible for record deficits over the last eight years, a deficit that I inherited. And now we’ve got folks going out there saying that somehow that that should be an excuse for inaction when it comes to health care. Uh, I’ve explained from the v…very beginning that this legislation has to be funded over the course of the next ten years. And I’ve talked about the fact that two thirds of the funding, uh, are gonna come from, uh, ending unwarranted give, giveaways, hundreds of billions of dollars, to insurance companies, and the Medicare and Medicaid system, and other changes that, uh, reallocate tax dollars that are already into the system, uh, and spending those dollars in a more intelligent way.  Uh, so that’s just an example of the, of the kind of, uh, change in the debate that so many of you can drive. And I think that’s absolutely critical.

Uh, I also think it’s important just to keep the pressure on members of Congress, uh, because what happens is there is a, uh, there is a default position of inertia here on, here in Washington. And pushing against that, making sure that people feel that, that the desperation that ordinary families are feeling all across the country every day, uh, when they’re worrying about whether they can pay their premiums or not, or how to, uh, deal with a loss of insurance when they lose their job. Pe.. people have to feel that in a visceral way. And you guys can help, uh, deliver that better than just about everybody.

So, uh, I appreciate you guys being on. Uh, Jesse [Lee – White House Director of Online Programs] why don’t you, uh, tell me who’s gonna be, uh, the first, uh, first caller. The first question….