Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius held a conference call on health care reform for regional media early this afternoon. Part of the purpose of the conference call was to promote reports released by HHS on the status quo of health care in each of the fifty states. After her opening remarks Secretary Sebelius took questions from media in on the conference call.

Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius:  Good afternoon everybody. And, um, I appreciate you joining us today. Um, as you know, here in Washington people are working hard to push forward health reform and we know that there’s some urgency about this from citizens across this country.

Um, since two thousand health insurance premiums have doubled and health care premiums are growing three times faster than wages. But unfortunately quality of care is going down as those costs continue to rise. So, even with, for people who have, uh, access to health care, uh, all it takes is a stroke of bad luck to become one of the nearly forty-six million uninsured or the millions who have health care and are having trouble affording it.

Today, uh, at the Department of Health and Human Services we’ve released fifty new reports on the health care status quo in every state around the country. The new reports are available on our web site, http://www.healthreform.gov. And they pretty clearly outline the challenges that we have. Um, the reports include statistics on the percentage of residents in each state without insurance, the increase in the costs of premiums, and the overall quality for health care in each state. And they use some of the most current data available.

Uh, unfortunately the reports are a clear demonstration that there are problems with health care in every state. Whether they’re rural, urban, East coast, West coast, it really doesn’t matter. The health crisis impacts all of America. The additional reports out today are from our Agency for Health Research and Quality. And frankly states get a pretty mixed review for the quality of care they provide.

Uh, these are more than just numbers and facts, more than statistics on a page. They represent real people and families in states across the country who are struggling. Uh, what we know is every day in America families are being crushed by the high cost of health care that threatens their financial stability, leaves them exposed to higher premiums and deductibles, and puts them at risk for possible loss of health insurance as employers struggle to provide adequate health coverage.

So now Americans are demanding reform that protects what works and fixes what’s broken. And in Congress, um, a number of members of the House and Senators from both sides of the aisle are working hard to make reform a reality. We were encouraged that just yesterday a bipartisan group of leading Senators, including  the top Democrat and the top Republican on the Finance Committee, Max Baucus and Chuck Grassley, recommitted to working together on health reform this year.

So I’m confident that we are gonna get a bill passed and to the President’s desk. And the statistics that we’re releasing today should help to inform people about the serious challenges that we face and why we can’t wait for reform to happen.

Um, again the reports are on our web site healthreform.gov.  And they are a state by state look at what’s going on in quality and cost. So with that I’d, I’d be willing to, um, answer some questions. I think we have about…

Media questions:

…Question: Hi  Secretary, uh, thank you very much for taking the call. Um, I am wondering what the chance are of getting a, um, public option through this year?

Secretary Sebelius: Well Jenna, as you know the President has made it pretty clear that, um, he actually believes in market strategies and feels very strongly that having a public option compete with private insurers is the best way to have cost containment. Um, I’m pleased that the House bill which has been drafted, and I testified to earlier this week, um, the outlines of the Senate bill from the Health Committee, both have public options. Uh, we haven’t seen the specific language from the Finance bill yet, but I, I think it’s clear that, um, with the bill coming forward the public option is definitely part of the strategy.

…Question: [garbled] Secretary, um, we’re, in Virginia particularly small businesses make up seventy-one per cent. And I’m wondering how the health care plan that’s being developed is going to help smaller businesses and people who work with them in developing a health care option for their employees?

Secretary Sebelius: [garbled] That’s a great question. Um, as you know, not only in Virginia, but in every state across the country small business owners are the majority of employers. And it’s the, um, kind of backbone of our economy. And frankly, in the current system they are the ones offering, I mean, often bearing the brunt of, um, the cost curve. Uh, they get squeezed out of the marketplace more quickly if one or two employees have some kind of pre-existing condition. They pay higher costs because they don’t have the volume to leverage, uh, big discounts. And, um, often they, they don’t get to keep or attract the best employees because employees follow health care. And while over close to sixty per cent of small business owners as recently as five years ago provided coverage, we’re now down to thirty-eight per cent. Um, so it’s, uh, they’re at a competitive disadvantage. So health reform I think offers a lot to small business owners. First of all it kind of pool, in the new health exchange, will give some, uh, affordable options, uh, for small business owners that they don’t have now, gives them choice. The elimination of pre-existing condition will mean that they can actually come into the marketplace without their costs, uh, skyrocketing. All of the proposals, and the President has made it very clear his proposal, um, includes some tax incentives for small business owners who offer insurance coverage. And I think that even if, um,  the kind of pay or play employer mandate ends up in either the House or Senate bill, it’s part of the House bill, but there is an exemption, uh, for small businesses. So I think there’s a, there’s a good deal of focus, um, of beneficial outcomes for small business owners. And at the end of the day costs have to go down for everybody, but I think it’s a, it’s a workforce issue that will make them more competitive with their, in this global marketplace.

…Question: In your report [garbled] you document, uh, the number of businesses that are dropping health insurance benefits. Uh, if there’s a public option won’t that cause more businesses to, to drop, uh, offer, offering health insurance benefits and just tell their employees to go the public option?

Secretary Sebelius: Well, Eric, the way that the public option is, is being crafted it really is available for, um, those who do not have coverage right now. And, um, I think there, there is concern about the so called dumping, but, uh, frankly the President has made it pretty clear that he really wants to encourage a system that builds on what we have. That if people have coverage that they like, that’s affordable, a relationship with a doctor that, um, is good for you and your family [garbled] want to keep it. So the, the exchange, the new marketplace is really for, uh, those Americans who have no insurance coverage at all or who are, um, un, underinsured at this point, uh, because of the cost prohibitive nature of the coverage.

…Question: Yes Secretary, is there any form of ranking here? How do we know how our states are comparing to other states, for example, in the number of uninsured, um, the costs of premiums etcetera?

Secretary Sebelius:  Um, at this point Mary Joe, there isn’t a, a, you know, comparison. These are
really state by state reports. So, there wasn’t an attempt to, um, either on the quality reports or the, uh, cost in coverage side to rank these, uh, in order of one to fifty. Uh, but really give a snapshot for citizens, business owners, policy makers in that state an idea of, of really what’s happening within the borders. Be a good math project for somebody to go through and, you know, calculate this, but, um, that wasn’t part of the, what we do here at the department.

…Question: Madame Secretary, there’s a lot of talk about bipartisanship. I’m just wondering, if the Democrats have the votes to pass what they want, why don’t you just do it? The Republicans have said that they want to kill this project, a lot of them have. Why don’t the Democrats pass what they think is the best proposal and to hell with bipartisan…, bipartisanship?

Secretary Sebelius: Well, I, I, I think, um, while the, the votes may be there because the majority is, is pretty hefty in the House, um, of Democratic support. The reality in the Senate is basically you need sixty votes, uh, in order to move procedurally to a vote of anything, so there’s more of a, a kind of procedural requirement for bipartisanship. But I think at the end of the day health care is probably the most personal issue to every American. It, it really, uh, affects businesses and governments and families. Um, and I would hope, and I think the President is very hopeful and keeps pushing for this, that this, uh, doesn’t break down along partisan lines, but it, it’s an American issue. It’s the one that we really have to figure out a strategy that’s uniquely American. We have a, uh, an insurance system right now that doesn’t look like any other country in the world. We want to build on what we have and fix what’s broken. But, um, I’m still hopeful that, uh, Republicans will be engaged and involved, as they are right now in the Senate Finance Committee. I mean, I think that sets a great example. I’m hopeful we’ll have some House Republicans who end up, uh, becoming part of this solution in moving forward on health reform. This isn’t really a Democratic issue and it shouldn’t be a Democratic bill. It should be a bill that really finds a solution to this challenge for all Americans.

…Question: Yes, Madame Secretary, you spoke about a number of, uh, countries, how we’re different than those, uh, countries. Yet many of these, uh, industrialized countries around the world do better with their health care plans than the United States. Which countries, uh, systems are you specifically looking at in developing a better system for the United States?

Secretary Sebelius: Um, I did not suggest that we were looking to other nations to develop a better system. I said I thought we needed kind of an American solution because our, our health system is different than most countries around the world. I do think we have a lot to learn from other countries about health outcomes and cost effective, uh, strategies that produce better outcomes. So, um, one of the efforts in health reform is really to help promote, incentivize higher quality care for each and every American. It exists in some pockets of the country. Uh, some systems work enormously well, with doctors and hospitals in a collaborative strategy. Others don’t work very well at all. And though we spend twice as much as any nation on Earth, and yet our health outcomes don’t, um, show it, don’t show those results. So I think we, we will continue to learn from what is cost effective and, more importantly, what’s effective for patients in terms of medical strategies and try to use Medicare and the payment system and the incentives we have here in the Department of Health and Human Services to, uh, improve the quality of care for everyone.

…Question: Yes, thank you Madame Secretary. One alternative to the public option that’s been proposed is regional cooperatives. Uh, isn’t that a little bit like putting all the sheep in separate pens to keep them from ganging up on the wolves?

Secretary Sebelius: [laughter] Um, well, I think the, uh, there was a discussion, I think early on in the Senate about, um, actually multiple cooperatives being one alternative, uh, to look at for competition. Uh, my understanding is that recently the, the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office has suggested that they don’t think that’s, um, either a feasible idea or an effective strategy, so I, I think that the conversation going on right now is, is a national, um, option. As you know the President and the administration very strongly support, um, not a cooperative strategy, but a, a true public option that would be a, um, a benefit program run by the government that can compete side by side with private insurers and help hold down costs and offer some choice to consumers.

…Question: Is making it mandatory for all Americans to purchase health insurance being seriously considered? If so, will there be a waiver for those whose religious beliefs preclude them from going to doctors or hospitals, or for individuals who believe in natural or holistic to health and are taking preventative measures such as healthy diet or regular exercise, making them less likely to need medical assistance than someone with risky behaviors?

Secretary Sebelius: Um, the, I, I think there is discussion in both the House and Senate, um, of some kind of an individual mandate. Um, it was part of the Massachusetts strategy when they passed their proposal. I know that there, um, in the House version of the bill is a specific exemption for, um, economic hardship for, uh, the ability of someone to opt out based on, um, the fact that they, whatever the price, they still can’t afford it. I have not seen the specific language, particularly about the religious issue I assume [garbled] Christian Science, Scientists and others who don’t access the traditional health care system. Um, but that’s a very good point. I, I don’t know if that language is in the bill. I, I can take a look at it, but I think that’s one we can share with the committee members….[end]

Wednesday afternoon I took part in a media and blogger conference call with Jared Bernstein, the chief economist for Vice President Joe Biden. The subject for the briefing and questions which followed was the “impacts of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan”.

Our previous coverage of Jared Bernstein’s opening remarks:

“…most American families get by on their pay checks, not their portfolios…”

And our previous coverage of the opening set of media questions on the call:

“…and frankly, it’s not rocket science…”

The final eighteen minutes of the conference call:

Jill Miller Zimon themoderatevoice.com: Thank you for taking my call. Um, I am in Ohio and I had a question regarding what remains in the package for home buyers. Um, I don’t know, I’m guessing, uh, you may be familiar with Congresswomen Kaptur’s, um, suggestion about individuals staying in their homes when they’re facing foreclosure and demanding that the mortgages be produced. Are you familiar with that?

Jared Bernstein: Uh, you know what I’m famil…, I’m, I’m not, I’m not sure and I’m sort of actually paging through some stuff [crosstalk] on the conference while we speak.

Jill Miller Zimon: It’s been making its rounds, she…[crosstalk]

Jared Bernstein: I mean the thing I’m familier with is the, uh, that was in the Senate version of the bill was a new home buyer’s tax credit. And I don’t know, uh, and I sh…, I sh…, I want to check whether that. I’ll, I’ll check and see if that, if that’s still, still made it, how that ended up in conference. Uh, [crosstalk] but oh, actually that’s gone I see. Uh, oh, oh wait, is that right? …Um. Actually, I’m not sure about that. [crosstalk] I take that back on the housing part. I have, I have to learn more about it. This, this thing was signed just a few minutes ago…

…Jill Miller Zimon: So my general question is, really kind of two parts, one is: What can you tell us that you believe has stayed in that works for the individual such as the home buyer situation? I know you’ve mentioned a little bit about tax cuts. And then the, the second is, although I guess you don’t have as much familiarity as I would have um, likes about Congresswoman Kaptur’s suggestion, basically her suggestion was advising individuals who aren’t paying their mortgage to still stay in the home until the mortgage is produced. Um, it basically, you know, using the law for, for their benefit until, uh, the, their situation is resolved. I’m just curious… [crosstalk]

Jared Bernstein: Until the mortgage is reduced you said?

Jill Miller Zimon: No, until the mortgage is produced, that the physical mortgage itself. Her point being that these mortgages get swapped around and purchased out[crosstalk]…

Jared Bernstein: I see. [cross talk] Uh huh. Yeah.

Jill Miller Zimon:…so much that they can’t even be accountable for it. You know, she is from northwestern Ohio and, um, Ohio is most likely gonna be one of the exceptions, even with the package, that we’ll end up going into double digit unemployment. So, uh, as much as we’re looking forward to whatever relief we’ll get from the package, um, it, the, this, the foreclosure rates here are, um, some of the worst in the country in addition to Florida. [crosstalk]

Jared Bernstein: So what’s your question?

Jill Miller Zimon: So my question was, uh, number one was: What was, what would still be in the package, uh, regarding home buyers? And I think you’ve answered that by saying you’re not sure.

Jared Bernstein: I’m not sure about about [crosstalk]…

Jill Miller Zimon: Right.

Jared Bernstein:…the, uh, uh, uh, the one I mentioned.

Jill Miller Zimon: And the second question, related to that would be, your opinion of the Congresswoman’s advice that individuals who are in foreclosure dem…, basically become squatters and demand that the mortgage holders produce the document. Her, her point being they swapped hand so many times that’s not gonna be able to happen.

Jared Bernstein: Yeah, no, I’m definitely not in a position to give an opinion on that, but, uh, I will, while we’re talking here, and don’t stay off.

Jill Miller Zimon:Okay. [crosstalk] I appreciate that.

Jared Bernstein: I will look for something. [crosstalk]

Jill Miller Zimon: I know it’s difficult and specific question, but for places like Ohio…[crosstalk]

Jared Bernstein: well, it’s a good question. [crosstalk]

Jill Miller Zimon: …which are big. [crosstalk]

Jared Bernstein: It’s a good question. And I have some, I’m getting information on this as we, as we go along, so let me, let me… [corsstalk]

Jill Miller Zimon: Thank you. [cross talk]

Jared Bernstein:… get back. You’re welcome…

…Casey Gane-McCalla newsone.blackplanet.com: Yeah. Thanks a lot for doing this, you know, for all us bloggers. Uh, we appreciate it. Um, Obama briefly spoke about, uh, the school system and more money going to schools, um. The urban education system has needed a bailout, you know, for twenty plus years in cities like Detroit, uh, drop out rate of eighty per cent, New York is fifty per cent, uh, Baltimore, seventy five. What measures in the stimulus package will not only, uh, prevent these schools from further failing, but actually maybe help them, because I know at least in New York state they’re talking about cutting, New York City, excuse me, they’re talking about cutting twenty three thousand jobs? And in the already struggling school systems. So what measures from the stimulus package will go to help out the urban educational system?

Jared Bernstein: Um, hm. Uh, there are a number of measures. Uh, I would say that, uh, help in that regard. Um, and again, I have to warn you that, uh, I’m doing my best to keep up with, uh, the new numbers that are coming in from the conference, but, uh, let me go through a few components of the bill that I, uh, I know, uh, would speak to the question you raised. Um, I’m just lining, um, there is, uh, there, there’s, uh, funding in this package for, uh, education and training, um, uh. And the education component of that is, uh, uh, well together it’s over a hundred billion dollars. There’s funding here for early childhood education, uh, Head Start, uh, for, um, uh, uh, school, school improvement, Title I, um, the uh, uh, significant funding for, uh, for Pell Grants, uh, there’s, uh, training dollars I think which are actually critically important for some of the populations who are under served in this regard. Um, training, there, there’s uh, uh, youth training, there’s employment service training, there’s, uh, a, uh, training for dislocated workers who lose their jobs. Um, the, uh, I think some of the key, uh, factors that will help to, um, uh, uh, promote, uh, the, uh, the, uh, that will help to, and will offset some of the pieces you’re talking about are, um, are Title I grants, school improvement grants, some of the IDEA grants, uh, some of the, uh, uh, uh, small grants for, uh, education for homeless folks. Um, I don’t know the magnitudes of those in the final deal, but I, I, I know that they were all under negotiation and, and I’m, uh, confident that some of those remain in the package.

Casey Gane-McCalla: Okay, thank you very much.

Jared Bernstein: Sure…

…John Morgan Pennsylvania Progressive: Thank you again [garbled] for, uh, involving the bloggers, uh, with policy and news and information. Uh, here in Pennsylvania, uh, I also serve as a board member for Planned Parenthood of Pennsylvania Advocates. And, one of the first things that was cut from the stimulus bill was, uh, family planning funding. Uh, we actually laid off our public affairs policy person, uh, due to declining revenue. So, this funding will act
ually save and create jobs. Uh, is there any intention of, of restoring this funding in a future bill, [garbled] omnibus preparations act?

Jared Bernstein: Uh, the, the, I’m sorry, could you b…, I didn’t hear everything you were saying, you, you wanted, just repeat your question again. Just the last part. [crosstalk]

John Morgan: Okay. All right. Um, the, uh, funding, the initial bill provided funding for family planning contraceptives.

Jared Bernstein: Um, hm.

John Morgan: It was one of the first things stripped in the…[crosstalk]

Jared Bernstein: Okay. Um, hm.

John Morgan: Uh, uh, is the administration gonna, uh, put that in an additional, uh, bill, maybe the omnibus appropriations bill?

Jared Bernstein: Yeah, I can’t [crosstalk], I, I, I’m sorry, I can’t speak, as I said earlier, to plans, to administration plans to, uh, get back to pa…, pieces of the package that were taken out specifically. Um, I can, once again, reiterate this point. Um, there were folks who made the argument that, uh, you know, that you shouldn’t fund family planning or whatever. That, that, uh, that, that’s kind of a political judgment that I’m, uh, I’m not gonna speak to. Um, I think the economics of this, of some folks objections were, “look that’s not really part of a job creating stimulus plan” and they, they, they had, they had a point. And so we, we listened and made, and made changes to certain aspects of the plan in that regard. Um, what we will absolutely come back to ideas that came out of here that we still think are good ideas. I’m not gonna, uh, uh, get ahead of, uh, a lot of other people here in terms of what, of what those ideas are. But, the fact that something didn’t get into this package by no means means that, uh, this, this shouldn’t be interpreted as, as meaning we are, uh, not going to come back to, um, uh, proposals that we think are worthy.

John Morgan: [garbled] That’s encouraging to hear. That you know [garbled] that’s worthy. [garbled] [crosstalk][garbled]

Jared Bernstein: I want to be very clear. [crosstalk] I want to be very, [crosstalk] I want to be very clear because I, I don’t want to be misquoted. I, I, I’m not specifying any particular element like the one you raised as being, uh, uh, you know, a worthy element, uh, uh, in, in terms of something we want to get back to. What I’m saying is that some the things came out of this plan because people had a decent argument that they weren’t, uh, reasonably placed in an economic recovery package. Uh, I am not in a position to a…, to say, you know, this idea was good, this idea was bad.

John Morgan: I, I understand. [crosstalk] Thank you.

Jared Bernstein: You understand. Thank you…

…Jonathan Singer mydd.com: Hi, um, there, there’s been a lot of debate in the last week, as I’m sure there has been even in the last decade, about the, um, there’s a lesson to be learned from Japan, um, there’s an article in, in the New York Times week in review, uh, that, that’s kind of ar…, you know, arguing whether construction, the things of that nature, were stimulative, if they were the right type of construction [garbled]. I was wondering what, in general, what the lessons were to be taken from, you know, the last ten, fifteen years in Japan and how not to get into this [garbled] growth for a couple decades?

Jared Bernstein: Sure. Um, the problem Japan, the problem, the mistake that Japan’s economic policy makers made is actually one, uh, that’s really very relevant today. I’m glad you raised the question. And, and that was the mistake of of forbearance. That is, that as these problems, uh, deepened in their economy, uh, problems of a recession generated, by the way, in ways that weren’t all that different from our own. They, they had a combination of bursting housing bubble and stock market bubble, big real estate bubble. But also, a stock market bubble, at around kind of the same time. And, uh, they, they made, uh, uh, first, kind of an error, which was not unlike the one we, we almost made in the great depression, uh, where, um, uh, uh, Hoover et al, uh, uh, kicked back and said, um, let’s let the market handle this. Uh, the idea was that, uh, um, there, there’s never a role for the public sector in a, in a, uh, free market economy. And so the worst thing you can do is, uh, intervene even when things are down on the mat. And that helped Japan, uh, uh, essentially go into a, uh, down turn that lasted by some measures almost a decade. Certainly, uh, uh, now one could look back at our own, uh, period of the 1930’s and, and recognize that Roosevelt, somewhat under the tutelage of the great economist Keynes himself, uh, rejected that philosophy and invested massively, uh, in, in economic activity. Uh, and, and we’re tr…, obviously we’re following that model. Um, following that model in terms of, uh, of the recovery package, we’re following that model in terms of the financial sector as well. And, and so I would argue we, we are, we are, um, acting, uh, very deliberately not to make the forbearance kinds of, uh, mistakes in judgment that Japan evidenced, uh, in their lost decade…

…John Aravosis americablog.com: …Hey guys, thanks for doing this. Um, I wanted to ask you a question about the income thresholds we’re using in the stimulus package and in, in other legislation. I’ve written about this a few times on my blog but. For example, the five hundred per person tax cut, whatever you want to call it. Um, the first time home buyer tax credit, which wasn’t you guys I know it was the House, but still, you know, making a real tax credit. In those legis…, [garbled] legislation we always set an income limit beyond which it, uh, starts to phase out and finally goes away, right. [crosstalk]

Jared Bernstein: Um, hm.

John Aravosis: If you make a hundred fifty, or whatever, thousand a year you don’t get it.

Jared Bernstein: Right.

John Aravosis: What, you may or may not have seen, there was a recent New York Daily News article, like in the last week, with a study showing that a hundred and twenty four thousand dollar a year salary in New York City is equivalent to a fifty thousand dollar a year salary in Houston because of the relative cost of living.

Jared Bernstein: Uh, huh.

John Aravosis: I know that we, this is the way we do tax policy anyway [Jared Bernstein: laughter] You know, we’ve said this is how much you make, this is how much you pay.

Jared Bernstein: Um, hm.

John Aravosis: But at some point is there something we can do? Or how do you guys even respond to that concern about basically if you cut people off at a hundred or a hundred fifty or whatever it is, if you live in New York or D.C. or perhaps San Francisco, you’re not rich.

Jared Bernstein: [crosstalk] Yeah, t’s a great, it’s a great, it’s a great point.

John Aravosis: [crosstalk] [garbled] …it’s your five per cent line that Obama always uses, he’s correct, but are you really in the upper five per cent if you live in an expensive city?

Jared Bernstein: Yeah, no, I think that, uh, I mean, not only are you not really in the top five per cent, you’re not literally in the top five per cent. In other words, if you took the, the top five per cent in New York City obviously you’re looking at a much different cut off if you took the top five per cent in, uh, a different part of the country.

John Aravosis: Well that’s true, too. [crosstalk]

Jared Bernstein: So, um, I, I, I think your point is, it’s interesting, it’s a point that I myself have, um, uh, spent a good deal of time on when I used to do research out there in the, uh, in the think tank world. Before I came here I worked at the Economic Policy Institute for years and one of the things we developed there were, um, family budgets for uh, families of different sizes and different number of kids and different kinds of profiles throughout ov… close to five hundred metropolitan areas. And we observed grea
t variation in prices. Um, one of the problems here, uh, uh, what’s your na..? What’s your name again?

John Aravosis: It’s John.

Jared Bernstein: John. One of the problems here John, and it’s not widely known, is that the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which does fantastic work, I, I’m a huge devotee of their, of their work, I’m not criticizing them, they would do whatever we asked them to. But the Bureau of Labor Statistics does not publish, uh, intra area price deflators, that is, it does not publish any price index that will allow you to tell, tell you what a dollar in, in New York is worth in Houston.

John Aravosis: But we do it for what, could we apply the system we use for the FAA, for example where if you work in Alaska and Hawaii you actually get twenty four to twenty five per cent increase in your salary?

Jared Bernstein: Yeah. Well there are systems out there [crosstalk] and, and but there’s no rigor…, there’s no, uh, [garbled] price index that would allow you to do that. Now, there is some work by this woman, who’s name is Bettina Aten, that’s a-t-e-n, who works for the government in various statistical agencies. You can find her stuff on the web. Who actually has been, um, um, generating precisely this kind of information. And at some point I could see, uh, where that might be, uh, um, useful to apply to government, uh, uh, programs. Whether it’s poverty lines, right? [cross talk] I mean, isn’t that the same thing? You know po…[crosstalk]

John Aravosis: It’s exactly the same thing, yeah.

Jared Bernstein: Poverty measurement, uh, is the same, uh, you know, the poverty threshold is the same in, in, in the deep South as it is in, in northern urban areas. And so, uh, there are lots of placs where you could apply that kind of a technology if you had it. Now, you know, again, I want to be very clear, [crosstalk] I’m not a think tanker anymore. I’m not saying [crosstalk] the U.S. government is about to do any of this. But I’m saying you raise a good point. Okay?

John Aravosis: Thank you. That’s fine…

Jared Bernstein: Well thank you very much everyone, it’s been great talking to you…

Yesterday afternoon I took part in a media and blogger conference call with Jared Bernstein, the chief economist for Vice President Joe Biden. The subject for the briefing and questions which followed was the “impacts of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan”.

Our previous coverage of Jared Bernstein’s opening remarks:

“…most American families get by on their pay checks, not their portfolios…”

The questions from new media in on the call:

Adam Siegel – getenergysmartnow.com: Uh, thank you very much for doing this call. Much appreciated. Uh, looking to [garbled] and focus on energy, global warming, as well as economic issues and the intersection of all of them, uh, when we’re looking at the limited news so far we see that the, uh, deal continues the slashing of a lot of the things that might be considered long term infrastructure such as aid for school construction [garbled] even while looking to try to get this bill passed are you already starting to lay the ground work for trying to recapture many of the good things from the House bill that don’t seem to have made it through the conference committee?

Jared Bernstein: Well, and I, I have to be mindful of the fact that I am, uh, uh, one of the team, uh, some of these folks are on their way back from the, the capitol now. Uh, so let me speak broadly in answer to your question. I can’t tell you we plan to go back to the well tomorrow to, uh, get back some of the things that were our original preferences. But, I, I can tell you that they, they were our original preferences and I can tell you that, you know, my understanding of some of the negotiations were that, that some of the opponents of pieces that were in this legislation were not saying we’re against, uh, school construction, we’re against, uh, uh, fiscal relief to states. uh, we’re, we’re, against, uh, expanding some of the health care. They were saying we’re against putting them in a, uh, stimulus or a recovery package, uh, that is intended to spend out quickly and, uh, um, well, fulfill the kinds of stimulative economic goals I talked about earlier. So, um, uh, my view, uh, is that, uh, no windows are closed when it comes to, uh, these good ideas…

…Matt Copper – Talking Points Memo: Uh yes, hi. Uh, I, I know you’re here primarily to talk about the recovery act but I’m just curious, uh, your sense of, of whether we are really gonna start to see a turnaround in the economy ’til we have a bailout, a bank bailout plan more firmly in place. In other words, how much can this, uh, this one piece of legislation do until we get some of these other components in?

Jared Bernstein: Uh, by the way, I used to write for Talking Points Memo.

Matt Copper: I, I know…[crosstalk]

Jared Bernstein: TPM cafe. Um, I think it’s a good question. And I’m happy to talk about it. I think it’s actually very much on point. Uh, I view the stimulus package and the financial stabilization package as, as extremely complimentary. Um, on its own the stimulus package will absolutely help in the ways I said and, and, and frankly, it’s not rocket science. I mean if you let a contract to fix a bridge, especially in a climate where those jobs aren’t being created otherwise, you’re gonna create some jobs. Uh, the, uh, but for the, for, for the, uh, package to have its full impact, including what economists call the multiplier effects, such that you, you begin to generate some economic activity over here and you get more economic activity over there, i.e. you build that bridge and one of the, uh, uh, uh, formerly un…, unemployed people  who’s now working on that bridge construction takes his, uh, or her pay check and goes to, uh, a retailer, a food store, whatever, uh, makes some new purchases that, remember, wouldn’t have occurred otherwise, that starts a chain of economic activity that, uh, uh, uh, helps to, um, get the economy back on track. That chain won’t be able to, uh, uh, function to full effect, uh, if, uh, credit lines remain frozen. So, the way I think that to, to wax, uh, medical on you for a second, is that, uh, the stimulus, uh, plan, the recovery act gets the heart beating again. The stabilization act, uh, uh, cleans out the, uh, the a, uh, carotid veins of the, uh, economy, uh, which has, uh, kind of been gouging on some, uh, pretty bad debt. Um, with the heart beating and the blood flowing, uh, the patient’s, uh, uh, uh, uh, back on track…

…Baratunde Thurston – jackandjillpolitics.com: Uh, good afternoon Mr. Bernstein, thanks so much for, uh, doing this call and, uh, everybody else for being here. I haven’t, you know transparency was marked, as a, as a big hallmark of how this act might be different from those that have come years, decades or even generations before. What can you say would be the, what are the metrics of success, uh, for, if this is actually working? You sort of mentioned two years down the line.

Jared Bernstein: Uh, huh. [crosstalk]

Baratunde Thurston: Jesse in his opening remarks said you will be judged by this. What are those judgments gonna be based on? What are your, what are the quantitative or qualitative goals you have?

Jared Bernstein: Sure, Um, first of all in terms of tran…well, uh, uh, part of the success, at least on the transparency front, will be the extent to which we track the progress of this legislation on, in, in, uh, on the, uh, the web site, uh, that we’ve, uh, announced we’re gonna form. I believe it’s recoveryact dot gov, although, uh, I doubt it’s…

Unidentified voice: It’s recovery dot gov.

Jared Bernstein: Recovery dot gov. So, so, you know, that’s obviously, uh, a level of transparency, uh, we haven’t seen, uh, in a really, uh, I don’t know, uh, uh, I can’t think of any other examples in the past. So, so, you know, I think we should be graded on the extent to which we do what we said we were gonna do in that regard. Um, uh, and I’m confident we will. Uh, this is a, this is something that comes from the very top. This is the President recognizing, uh, the need for, uh, that kind of accountability.

Uh, but the, the kind of quantitative metrics you suggested I also think are important. Um, the unemployment rate, uh, is expected in the absence of, uh, this, uh, uh, package to get up into something close to double digits, uh, um, by, uh, um, the, uh, probably, uh, late, uh, uh, later, uh, sometime a, I, I would guess, uh, around, um, late this year, uh, next year in the absence of, of our package. Um, I think, uh, the package should help to reduce the unemployment rate by about a couple of points. So, instead of being nine, nine and half, ten, ten and a half per cent, uh, the unemployment rate, uh, uh, um, may go, uh, oh a point, a point and a half higher than it is right now. It’s about seven and a half, so we could be looking at eight and a half, you know, maybe, maybe that neighborhood instead of, uh, maybe seven and a half by the end of, uh, two thousand and ten kind of back down to where we are now. Uh, if, uh, if the program is, is, successful. Now, uh, you have to be very careful when you give these quantitative metrics because, uh, they’re kind of, uh, uh, if things go as planned and obviously, uh, there’s lots that could happen between now and then. And no economist can, can, can know the future. That’s one of the reasons why our forecasts have large, um, guess, uh, confidence intervals, but large margins of error around them,

And so, uh, I think we should look for unemployment that, that is lower than it would be otherwise. Uh, um, we think we’re gon…to, as I said, create or save, uh, three, four million jobs. We’ll be tracking that closely. And, uh, I think probably more to the ground, uh, we should be looking for, uh, uh, uh, action that’s really identifiable whether we’re talking about, um, roads, and, and bridges, and repairs made in, in, you know, your, uh, look where you live. Um, uh, the
re’s gonna be, uh, in, in a state like California, obviously a large state, you’ve got, uh, uh, twelve, uh, million people. Twelve million workers who ought to be benefiting from the making work pay tax cut. Where are you from, by the way?  

Baratunde Thurston: I’m in New York state.

Jared Bernstein: Okay, so you know, you look at, you look at New York state. Uh, we expect about seven million people, uh, to benefit from the making work pay tax cut. That’s something we ought to be able to know about. Uh, we expect something like three hundred thousand families to benefit from the refundable college credit. Um, there’s a lot of unemployed people up in New York, about a million of them are gonna have, uh, uh, unemployment insurance benefits higher  by about a hundred dollars a month. You know those, those are the kinds of things that we ought to be able to quantify…

Approximately eleven minutes (one third) of the phone conference call remains to be transcribed. That will get posted when it gets posted.

This afternoon I took part in a media and blogger conference call with Jared Bernstein, the chief economist for Vice President Joe Biden. The subject for the briefing and questions which followed was the “impacts of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan”:

Jared Bernstein:…Thanks very much…I’m a, I’m really glad to be talking, uh, to this group. I talk to lots of different groups. And while I, I can’t see you, uh, I know you’re out there. And, uh, I’m glad of that. Um, folks may know, uh, some of my work. I was, uh, blogging for the Huffington Post before I, I came here.

Um, I’m just gonna quickly talk about, uh, where we are, uh, how I think we got here and how I believe, uh, this plan, ah, is, uh, critical to getting us back on track, uh, economically. Um, where we are is at best told from an economist’s perspective, and that is my curse, uh, by reflecting on some jobs numbers. Uh, last month, uh, we lost six hundred thousand jobs. Uh, that is the worst month for job losses in over three decades. And that got a lot of attention, because that kind of number just kinda, uh, screams out for precisely the kind of attention it got. The, the thing that maybe didn’t quite land as much in people’s thinking was the fact that the prior two months were revised such that they were almost just as bad. So over the past three months we’ve lost close to two million jobs. That’s a little bit less than a per cent of the, uh, of the, uh, employment out there in, in the country. And this is a, uh, a very serious, uh, uh, acceleration in the rate at which the job market is, is declining. Now, you know, when you’re talkin’ about it at that level it sounds, you know, fairly antiseptic. But the President, the Vice President have been traveling to venues where unemployment is, uh, uh, a lot higher than it was a year ago and, and in the case of Elkhart, Indiana and Fort Myer, Florida, basically in double digits. And these are folks who are facing, um, this tough economy on the ground. Uh, it’s, uh, as many of you know, and it’s one of the things that I think put our administration here in the first place, there are lots of middle class families that were having trouble even when the economy was expanding.Well now it’s contracting, and, uh, those folks don’t have a lot to fall back on. So this is, this is, this is very difficult times…

…And the urgency that those kinds of statistics, but more importantly, those kinds of people’s experiences, the urgency that that puts in, that that put into, uh, moving this legislation was something that was not lost on us here, uh, uh, at the White House. And thankfully I think not lost on many in Congress as well. And, uh, I’m very pleased to see, uh, the bill, uh, coming out of conference, passed by the House and the Senate, uh, and, uh, as I, as I already said, uh, it’s not over ’til it’s over. But, uh, we’re, uh, we now have a, uh, a deal struck on a stimulus, uh, package that’s, uh, about a huh…a seven hundred ninety billion pac…, we can talk a little bit about the, the composition of this if folks want. Um, look, uh, let me preempt one question there or just some thoughts there. Um, this is a political process with many, uh, moving parts and lots of different people with lots of different constituents. Um, there’s no bill that’s gonna come out of this process that every, every player is gonna say is perfect. But, and here I’ll, I’ll, I’ll wind down with this set of comments here, um, uh, because like I said I wanna tell you how I think this bill helps us get it out, get us out of where we are.

Um, you know Christina Romer who’s the, uh, chair of the, uh, Council of Economic Advisors here, uh, she and I wrote a paper a few weeks ago looking at, uh, uh, the job impacts that we would expect from a bill like this. And w.., we, we found that this, this package, uh, will create, uh, or, or save, uh, three to four million jobs over the course of the next couple of years. And that for us is the bottom line because, while there’s a whole bunch of talk right about, uh stock portfolios, uh, uh, most American families get by on their pay checks, not their portfolios. And so, uh, if they’re not, if they’re not working, uh, they’re, if they’re not drawing a pay check, if they can’t buy, if they are working but they can’t find the hours they need to make ends meet, uh, uh, they’re hurting.

Uh, and, uh this package, with its investments in infrastructure and roads and bridges and water systems, in schools, in, uh, the, uh, in, in, in making a down payment on, uh, the electric, uh, on, on the smart, uh, grid that, uh, is  critically important if we’re going to begin, begin to implement, uh, President Obama’s energy agenda. Uh, if we’re going to move, uh, uh, our IT over into health technology so we can, uh, uh, move towards electronic records, controlling costs and lowering error rates. Uh, if we’re going to make, uh, uh, investments in, in, in, in weatherization retrofits. Those investments are in here. Uh, they’re not, uh, the complete package by any stretch of the imagination, but remember, this is a, uh, a package that’s, uh, uh, supposed to spend out over a couple of years and then, uh, and, and then wind down, uh, by, uh, by late, uh, next year. Uh, we obviously need to continue and deepen those investments in the areas of energy and health care, particularly that’s one of the things this President ran on. Uh, but, uh, those down payments uh, are, are important. To save time, the package, uh, uh, has, uh, some different tax cuts. Uh, the making work pay tax cut which is, uh, um, one, another, uh, part of the President’s platform. Uh, that helps boost the pay checks of ninety five per cent of working families by five hundred to a thousand dollars.

Uh, that package, once we get this medicine into the system, that, these interventions will begin to, to create those three, uh, to four million jobs. They’ll help states that are facing budget constraints, they’ll help create economic activity, that’s uh, that’s missing, uh, in, in terms of, uh, of in…infrastructure, in terms of retail, in terms of, uh, uh, financial markets, in terms of really every sector of the economy. In fact, Christy and I found in our paper that ninety per cent of jobs we create will be in the, in the private sector.

So, uh, uh, I’m confidant that, uh, uh, the, uh, recovery act, um, is going to start turning this, uh, uh, the, this economic problem, uh, around. Uh, it’s not gonna happen tomorrow, it’s not gonna happen next month, uh, we, uh, uh, are going to face economic challenges, uh, even with this plan in the system. Uh, everyone know that or should. Uh, but it’s certainly gonna help a lot. I’ll stop there and, and, uh, take some questions…

The paper by Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein:

The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan [pdf]

Our previous coverage:

It’s the stimulus, stupid

Transcript(s) of the media questions and answers will follow in later posts as the Show Me Progress corporate headquarters transcription elves get to them.