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).

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.

[….]

This afternoon Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano held a conference call to discuss the President’s signing of the Southwest Border Security legislation into law. This is the media question and answer session after Secretary Napolitano’s opening remarks:

Previously: White House Conference Call: Homeland Security Sec. Janet Napolitano on the border security bill

…Question: Uh, good afternoon Secretary Napolitano. Uh, I have a, a two prong question for you, both related to the funding for this legislation. Uh, the first one is that, uh, this relies on the rescission of a hundred million dollars from SBINet and I know the President, uh, that was part of his original request, but will that in anyway, uh, take away from border security or, or any way divert from, from the efforts that are a part of this bill?

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano: No. Uh, we had proposed that. It had included in the original ask by the President. Uh, after doing an analysis of, of, uh, whether that would have any, uh, uh, any uh [inaudible] impact…

…Question: I see. And, and my second question is this, the, the funding, uh, as I understand, about five hundred fifty million that comes from H1Bs and L visas, is that a dependable source of funding? Because my understanding is that some of these companies, uh, that will bear the burden of these fees, uh, could do things that would remove them from this pool of target companies that are the, the funding source of this bill. So, uh, can the Department of Homeland Security depend on this, uh, as a reliable source of funding?

Secretary Napolitano: Uh, uh, we believe so. Uh, the Senate and the House obviously believe so.  And the CBP believes so because they, uh, issued an analysis that, uh, affirmed this source of funding.

[….]

Question: Um, I just had a couple quick questions specifically on the, um, forward operating bases. Can you just tell me a little bit more about what those are and have you decided where they’re gonna go? And then just on the overarching, I know you somewhat addressed this in the, um, in the White House briefing, but, um, having been here for a number of years watching, uh, immigration reform and, uh, both the politics and the admin, administrative stuff being done it, it, it seems that’s all that ever has been done in, in the past decade is enforcement. And once again, President Obama has promised, um, immigration reform, uh, comprehensive immigration reform that includes legalization but, what’s come instead is, um, enforcement. Um, I’m just kind of wondering why anyone who has supported the President, uh, in the past would, should support him any longer if he was unable to deliver on this.

Secretary Napolitano: Well, to, on the forward operating base [inaudible] it is exactly, uh, what the name implies. It is a, a, uh, a facility, uh, that will enable Border Patrol agents and, uh, some of their support to be located physically at the border as opposed to, uh, [inaudible] from the border where they have to drive to the border, um, and we have, we’ve got several options for those. We have not yet determined where those are going to be. With respect to your second point I just think it’s inaccurate all the way around. Uh, first of all, uh, the President has done everything, uh, uh, presidentially possible, uh, to affirm his desire for a comprehensive immigration reform bill, uh, that would address enforcement but also address, uh, worker [inaudible]  and also address, uh, those illegally in the country and how they, uh, get right with the law and earn, earn the right to, uh, seek the privilege of citizenship. And so, uh, he has, uh, met with, uh, Republican and Democratic leadership. Uh, he’s called them personally. He has, uh, issued, uh, a public, uh, affirmation of the framework that was endorsed by, uh, Senator Schumer and Graham. He’s given a major address at American University. Uh, so he continues to, uh, have this at the top of, uh, the agenda and moving forward. But as you know, and as I said in the White House briefing, he, he can’t introduce, I mean, he can’t pass a bill, I mean. And the Democrats alone cannot pass a bill, they need sixty. And they’re gonna need Republicans, uh, who are willing to, uh, get to the table and really deal with this, uh, major national issue.

[….]

Question: Secretary, first off, I was wondering if you could just tell us how the one thousand Border Patrol agents will be dispersed, as far as you know, state by state. And also, a second question, that Texas Governor Rick Perry on Monday gave the President a letter with some, uh, some of his own ideas on how to secure the border. Have you read that letter? And if so, will it have any kind of impact on, on how you’ll be moving forward with the border security issues?

Secretary Napolitano: I have not personally read that letter. I, I, I have read some of the governor’s comments in, in the, in the open press. Uh, but I will tell you, look, we’re not just gonna throw money at the border. Uh, this is all designed to be mission specific. We know exactly, for example, uh, what the National Guard that we’re sending down there are going to do, where they’re going to be. Uh, with respect to the new agents, uh, that are funded in this bill, uh, it takes on average eight months from the time of hire to get a new agent trained, located, and on the ground. And we will put those agents where we think the needs are greatest. Uh, where the needs, uh, and, and that will [inaudible] time as you know. Uh, and so, uh, we will want to be flexible and we want, we will want to put our resources where, uh, the needs, uh, the needs are manifest.

[….]

Question: Good, good morning, Secretary. Good afternoon, I guess, there. I did want to follow up on something you talked about, uh, your seventeen years in public service including here as governor. And you, you perennially made an issue of State Criminal Alien Assistance Program funding. And [inaudible] wondering, since you were speaking for the administration, why hasn’t the administration asked for full funding for this the same as you did when you were Arizona governor?

Secretary Napolitano: Well, as you know, SCAAP is, uh, is, uh, funded through the Department of Justice, not the Department of Homeland Security. Uh, uh, but, uh, I think the administration has chosen to support states in a, in a number of other ways. For example, uh, by providing more, uh, what’s called Stone Guard monies for state and local law enforcement. That’s, that’s money that they can use for overtime, to hire new folks, uh, to help pay for, uh, vehicles and equipment that they need for law enforcement, Um, so, uh, those monies have been made available. Uh, more, uh, or COPS funding that, uh, localities can draw down, uh, particularly locales, uh, on the border. Uh, our grant guidance, uh, this year, uh, uh, part of it will be, uh, to support Fusion Centers and Fusion Centers, uh, are very important in places like the bor, like the border. So, from a DHS perspective, since we don’t have SCAAP in our, uh, in our bailiwick, uh, I can’t respond to that, uh, uh, question, but I can say we have looked for many other ways to support state and local law enforcement.

[….]

Question: Uh, Secretary, the question that I had was specific to New Mexico. Um, I know there’s been a lot of, uh, focus on Arizona and now some focus on Texas. Um, in terms of the assets and how they’re allocated, uh, throughout the states I know that you can’t specifically say exactly how much is, uh, going where, but what does this mean for New Mexico on the grand scope of things?

Secretary Napolitano: Uh, well, uh, thank you, uh, well, what it means is, is that, uh, we will continue to, to put resources in New Mexico, uh, uh, to deal with th
e situation there. It is a somewhat different situation, just plain old numbers wise, uh, than you have in Arizona and Texas and so the resources we deploy, uh, there will reflect that. But they will all be designed to make sure we have a safe and secure border, uh, throughout, uh, the southwest, uh, for all, all of the four border states, California, Arizona, New Mexico, and, and Texas. Uh, I say that, um, as someone who actually grew up in New Mexico, so, uh, just as I keep a special eye on Arizona as the former governor, I have a lot of personal experience with New Mexico as well.

[….]

Question: Uh, Madam Secretary, back to Governor Perry, uh, you said that the, uh, uh, the border’s no place for, for politics. Uh, uh, when you said that did, were you personally referring to Governor Perry? Do you believe he’s politicizing the border and his constant criticism of, uh, of, uh, your administration’s efforts?

Secretary Napolitano: Yeah, uh, no I was not specifically referring to Governor Perry. I know Governor Perry and, and I’ve worked with him for a number of years. Uh, we, we were fellow border governors, uh, together. Uh, uh, I do believe that the border, whether you’re dealing with it, uh, back here in Washington, D.C. or out, uh, in the southwest, uh, needs to be addressed for what it is. It’s a, an important, uh, area for the country, lots of trade and commerce [inaudible] those ports. Uh, you’ve got those huge ports, uh, in Texas, for example the, uh, through which a tremendous amount of trade needs to pass and they’re responsible for a number of jobs, uh, in the United States. Uh, and then you’ve got to protect the area between the ports and you’ve got to have interior enforcement, so it’s a whole system of manpower, technology, infrastructure to have in place. And this administration, quite frankly, has put more resources in the southwest border in all of those categories than has ever been put there before in, in United States history.

[….]

Question: Good afternoon, Secretary. Have you personally spoken with Senators McCain or Kyl  here in your home state about the prospect of immigration reform and what do they say to you?

Secretary Napolitano: Uh, I, I met with both of them, but I would say it has been, uh, uh, probably some time ago, so I think you, it would not be, uh, correct to say that the, the three of us are in a constant dialog about that.

[….]

Question: Uh, yes, Madam Secretary, uh, the governor of Virginia has offered to, uh, have Virginia State Police be deputized to enforce federal immigration law in the commonwealth. Uh, I have done some, uh, interviews with some people in, for example, Hanover County, where they say they can’t, uh, harvest the tomato crops without immigrant labor, both legal and illegal. Is the administration open to the governor’s offer to, uh, deputize our state police to enforce immigration law?

Secretary Napolitano: Well, I, I think, uh, uh, ICE is currently, uh, reviewing nine separate juris, there are nine jurisdictions that have, uh, current applications in. They’re called 287G agreements. Uh, uh, deputization would not I think be the right word. It’s where, uh, certain mem, uh, a certain number of state police or local police are trained in immigration enforcement and work, uh, either in jails, uh, or in task force settings with federal agents. Uh, and we have, uh, uh, really, uh, uh, reformed that program to be, to, uh, uh, to be what it needs to be and to have the kind of accountability it needs to have. So, Virginia’s application is pending and ICE will review it. Uh, I’m not sure how that relates to the second part of your question, which is the lack of agricultural workers, uh, except to say that that is something we hear all over the United States. Uh, uh, indeed, uh, uh, uh, you, you hear it in border states and in states, uh, uh, like Washington, uh, in terms of, uh, picking the apple crop, in Washington State, and that all goes to demonstrating the need for overall immigration reform.

[….]

Question: Good afternoon, Secretary. Well, um, my question is twofold and I’m curious whether the new money will give the, uh, department a new opportunity to work clo, more closely with the individual police departments along the border. There continue to be these anecdotes of the Zetas moving into Texas and to some Texas ranches and I’m curious how that’s been responded to. And then also, whether the, um, the department is going to deal any differently with the issue of whether Mexico, now talking seriously about legalizing drugs, showing some fatigue on the drug war and how will the, the response be different to them?

Secretary Napolitano: Well, uh, uh, because we continue to augment and put resources at the border, uh, because some of them are going to be used for intelligence gathering and analysis, uh, they will be working, uh, on some of those issues like the Zetas, uh, uh, and working with institutions like EPIC for example, uh, to make sure that resources are focused where they need to. We don’t want those, uh, large organizations, uh, infiltrating, uh, even more into the United States. Again, a safe and secure border zone all the way from San Diego to Brownsville. Uh, and different cartels, uh, claim turf or jurisdiction over different parts of the border, so we’re very conscious of that, uh, and we’re going to keep working to, to prevent that from occurring.

[….]

This afternoon Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano held a conference call to discuss the President’s signing of the Southwest Border Security legislation into law:

….Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano: Thank you and, and thank you all for participating on the call. Uh, I was pleased to be with the President earlier today as he signed the bill providing six hundred million dollars and additional resources to further strengthen security along the southwest border. Uh, I’d like to particularly applaud the Congress for acting in a bipartisan manner, uh, and taking quick action on this bill, uh, particular Senators Schumer and McCaskill, and of course Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi.

Uh, this legislation adds permanent resources to bolster, uh, security along the southwest border, supporting efforts to, uh, cut down on, uh, transnational criminal organizations and to reduce the trafficking of people, drugs, currency, and weapons. [inaudible] is important in two respects. First, it adds new resources to the border, but second it makes permanent many of the assets that we have been surging along the southwest border, uh, since basically march of two thousand and nine.

Uh, now, uh, let me just pause there for a moment. I have, uh, been working on the border on border related issues for seventeen years as a public servant, as the U.S. Attorney for Arizona, as the Attorney General of Arizona and as the two-term Governor of Arizona. Uh, I believe firmly that the border is not a political or partisan issue. And it shouldn’t be. It’s a matter of national security in which everyone has a stake. So, uh, on that score, even before this bill was signed, or indeed, even before the President made his formal request for these monies, uh, the administration had already devoted more resources to the southwest border than ever before in United States history.

Uh, these efforts have made a difference. Seizures are up and rose across the board last year. Uh, apprehensions or illegal crossings are down. Uh, for the first time ever we’re screening one hundred percent of southbound rail. Uh, criminal alien removals are at an all time high. We’ve added more technology, manpower, and resources than ever before. This is a systematic long term effort to defeat the cartels, uh, who continue to try to exploit the border. And the administration is dedicated to a long term systematic approach. Uh, that’s one of the reasons why the President ordered the National Guard to the border and why he asked Congress for the supplemental funding that he was pleased to sign today.

Now, what’s in the bill? Uh, bill provides funding for another one thousand, uh, border patrol agents. It contains sixty-eight million dollars for customs and border protection officers at ports of entry, uh, who facilitate legal trafficking, uh, or legal traffic, excuse me, and the interdiction of contraband. It allows, uh, ICE, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, to hire more than two hundred special agents. Uh, they’ll be doing investigations and many will be doing, uh, intelligence analysis. Uh, it provides two more unmanned aircraft systems and has money for tactical communications technology. What does that mean? It means that agents along the border who can’t use cell phones because of the remoteness of the border, uh, will have updated and improved technology to communicate with each other.  Uh, there’s also a hundred and ninety-six million dollars in the bill for the Department of Justice, uh, to surge federal law enforcement agents like DEA and ATF, uh, to add prosecutors, to add immigration judges, and to support detention and incarceration, uh, of, uh, illegal immigrants who are, uh, seized and incarcerated in coordination with the Department of Homeland Security’s enforcement efforts. Uh, there’s also money in the bill to, uh, construct twp forward operating bases, uh, for improved border enforcement.

So, uh, clearly this bill is a, uh, really a, a terrific, uh, tool in our multi, uh, faceted toolbox of enforcement efforts and resources along the southwest border. Uh, and as I have said many times before it’s enforcement that is layered. It includes manpower, technology, and infrastructure. Uh, and it’s enforcement that needs to be constant, uh, along the border, the entire expanse of it, all the way from San Diego to Brownsville, Texas. Uh, this bill will enable us to sustain that and to maintain that, uh, and that is, uh, so very, very important.

Uh, so with that let me, uh, stop and, uh, and open it up for questions….

The President’s June 22, 20010 request [pdf].

“…BP, as you know, has said that they had to cover all the costs. We have told them, we have been in meetings with them, uh, that we take that to mean all…”

Oil, that is, black gold, Texas tea…

This morning I participated in a media conference call sponsored by the White House in which Melody Barnes, Assistant to the President and Director, White House Domestic Policy Council; Carol Browner, Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change; and Jeff Liebman, Acting Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget spoke on legislation going to Congress that is targeted at strengthening the response to the BP oil spill and recovery efforts underway in the Gulf.

From the announcement of the conference call: “…The President has been clear that BP and any other responsible party will pay for all costs of stopping the spill in the Gulf and cleaning it up.  To deal more generally with the harms created by oil spills, the White House is sending legislation to Congress to toughen and update the law surrounding caps on damages.  The legislation also would provide important support for the fisheries industry and for workers who lose their jobs as a result of the spill.  Additionally, the proposal would give federal agencies additional authorities to respond to disasters like Deepwater….”

The transcript [The White House later provided a transcript which was the basis for the following literal transcript taken from my audio recording of the conference call]:

….Nick Shapiro, White House Press Office:  Thank you.  Good morning, everyone.  Thanks for getting on.  Today we’re gonna have a conference call with some senior administration officials.  The call is on the record. It will detail the legislation that’s going to Congress that’s targeted at strengthening the response to the BP oil spill and the recovery efforts already underway in the Gulf. On the call you’re going to hear from Melody Barnes, Assistant to the President and Director of the White House Domestic Policy Council, Carol Browner, Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change, and Jeff Liebman, Acting Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

I will start with Carol, who is going to give an overview of the effort, why this legislation is important for accountability, and the tools that it provides.  Melody will then go into what we’re trying to accomplish for families.  And then, uh, Jeff will be available to talk about any additional authorities, uh, we’re seeking for agencies and why. Uh, so without, uh, further ado, uh, Ms. Browner.

Carol Browner:  Thank you. Uh, the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is a massive and potentially unprecedented environmental disaster, which can seriously damage the economy and environment of our Gulf states jep, and jeopardize the livelihoods of thousands of Americans who live throughout the Gulf region. Since the initial explosion on the drilling rig occurred the federal government has launched a coordinated and all hands on deck relentless response to this crisis. No one in the administration will rest or be satisfied until the leak is stopped at the source, the oil in the Gulf is contained and cleaned up, and the people of this region are able to get back to their lives and livelihoods. BP will be paying for all costs of stopping the spill and cleaning it up.  And in fact, let me just quote Lamar McKay in his testimony, uh, just as recently as yesterday. He said, “Let me be really clear.  Liability, blame, fault, put it over here,” he said. “Our obligation is to deal with the spill, clean it up and make sure the impact of that spill are compensated, and we are going to do that.”

The spill has also made it very clear that updates are needed to current laws governing the liability that companies have for any damages, for any damage they cause while drilling and transporting oil. The Oil Pollution Act, for instance, was passed twenty years ago when offshore exploration and production in deepwater represented a small portion of our energy supply. To deal more generally with the harm created by oil spills as well as to toughen and update these laws the President is sending up to Congress a legislative package that will lift the caps on damage, increase the ceil, increase the ceiling on the amount of money that can be expended on recovery per incident from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, and provide other authorities and funding to help the federal government respond swiftly to this crisis.

The legislation includes unemployment assistance, food and nutrition assistance, and help for those affected by the spill to find work, aid to fisheries and fishermen who have been severely impacted by the spill, funding to increase inspection of fish and seafood to protect the safety of the food we eat, and the establishment of one stop shops for those in need of aid. The bill also provides funding for additional inspections and enforcement of safety regulations on other offshore platforms and comprehensive evaluations of new policies, procedures and actions needed in light of this incident.

By passing this legislation we will clear statutory roadblocks and speed assistance to those impacted by the oil spill, as well as quickly mobilize assistance should the spill become worse and BP is not settling cam, claims quickly.

While we are asking for additional funds in some cases the federal government will not relent in pursuing full compensation for the expenses it has occurred and damage caused by this spill. And the legislation contains provisions to help us recoup those costs. Let me now turn it over to Melody Barnes….

…Nick Shapiro: I just briefly, before Melody starts, wanted to let all of you know that momentarily you’ll be getting a fact sheet that details some of this legislation.  So it should be coming to your in boxes shortly.

Melody.

Melody Barnes: Thank you so much, Carol.

Obviously of primary concern to the President is ensuring that we provide necessary assistance for families and individuals that are being impacted by the oil spill. And as Carol mentioned the legislation that’s being sent to Congress will ensure that the federal government can act, can act quickly to provide assistance in case the spill, spill gets worse or in case the responsible parties are not paying claims to affected individuals. We intend to do that through one, a series of one stop assistance centers, making sure that people can quickly and easily get access to the kinds of resources that I’m about to mention, and to also ensure that there’s no wrong door, that people, um, won’t be given the runaround in their effort to get assistance in their time of need.

We’re going to provide several different forms of, of re, of assistance in the legislation that’s being sent forward, the first being oil spill unemployment assistance.  Um, this is modeled after disaster unemployment assistance.  Um, it would be triggered in this case in the result of a spill of national significance. It will provide up to twenty-six weeks of assistance to those who are affected, but we are doing this in a way that those who can’t qualify for regular unemployment insurance will be able to, uh, be eligible. So, for example, those who are self employed, as many fishermen are, or those who, uh, may not have worked the requisite number of hours, other forms of eligibility under normal unemployment insurance assistance. Um, the benefit levels will be determined by state law.

Another form of assistance that we are going to include in the legislation is nutrition assistance. This is predicated on the SNAP program, or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. And we, again, are providing this in the case of a
spill of national significance, just like the unemployment insurance assistance. Um, but in this case our goal is to make sure that people can access these resources much more quickly than those normally, uh, can acc, be accessed under SNAP, the normal SNAP program. So there are streamlined certification processes and also fewer eligibility factors and reduced procedural in, uh, requirements. The benefits will be provided in the same way that normal SNAP benefits are provided,through the electronic benefits transfer card.

Um, we also are including here a provision that enables the Department of Agriculture to provide food directly to states and distribute that food to those who are in need.

And finally, employment assistance, and we’re doing this by expanding the capacity of our Workforce Investment Act training and employment programs, so the local one stop centers. Um, and we’re doing this obviously at the state and local level by providing funding assistance to localities, um, and ensuring that we can provide needed training, um, and assistance to unemployed workers, again, fishermen and others who are out of work as a result of the oil spill, um, and making sure those, that those who have been laid off get the kind of training and increased occupational skills that they may need during this period of time.

Nick Shapiro: Thank you Melody.

Jeff Liebman: Um, nearly all of the costs that federal agencies are going to incur as a result of the spill will get charged to the responsible, uh, party, and this legislation, legislative proposal, uh, contains additional provisions to make sure, uh, that any additional costs,uh, um, that are incurred because of the legislation gets, uh, passed on to the responsible party. Um, it also, uh,to make sure that agencies have the funds they, they need to do some activities immediately, uh, it, it, uh, provides some funding, uh, to agencies that, um, need, need, uh, to act, uh, in response to the, uh, spill.  This includes, um, uh, some funding for the FDA to increase their inspections um, of, of fish, uh, to make sure that the fish, uh,  American consumers are eating, uh, is safe. Uh, it includes, uh, funding for, uh, Interior Department, for MMS, uh, to do increased inspections of all of, uh, the oil, uh, drilling facilities, uh, that they, uh, monitor. It includes, uh, some extra funding for the EPA to do, um, some additional studies of the environmental impact, um, of, of the spill.

Um, but I want to emphasize that, that, um,  most, if not, uh, the, and certainly the majority of the additional costs that are, um, would come out of this legislation will get charged to the responsible party and, and the legislation specifically, um, uh, makes clear that that is the, the case.

Nick Shapiro: Thank you everyone. Uh, now we’re gonna have time to take a few questions….

….Question: Good morning, uh, everyone.  When you say lifting the cap on damages, are you talking about retroactively increasing BP’s liability or is this for future incidents lifting the cap?

Carol Browner: Uh,yes, we are updating the statute, uh, to address all situations and, yes, we are lifting, uh, the cap retroactively.

Question: Is there a, is there an ex post facto problem in doing that?

Carol Browner: Uh, no, we do not believe so because what we are doing is updating the statute and it covers all companies.

Question: Okay, thanks….

….Question: Uh, could I ask if you’ve spoken to BP?  And BP swore up and down yesterday that they’d pay everybody everything. Uh, have, have, what exactly are you doing that would ensure that that they do that?

Carol Browner: Uh, BP, as you know, has said that they had to cover all the costs. We have told them, we have been in meetings with them, uh, that we take that to mean all. In the meantime, though, we are updating, uh, this, uh, statute as a matter of policy, as well as making, uh, sure that their, uh, commitment, the commitment by the company, uh, that they will be held to it.

Question: Thank you….

….Question: …the others, could you give us, uh, uh, an idea in the timing you expect on this, in the logistics? It will go up to the Hill today presumably. How long will it take to get passed and what does it need to go through?

Jeff Liebman: We hope to get this passed as soon as possible. There are a number of vehicles, uh, moving in this work period, uh, and we hope to work with Congress to get it done in the next few weeks.

Question: So you expect in the next few weeks that it will get passed. Have you had any feedback already from lawmakers that indicate support or any issues that they’re, that they’re concerned about?

Jeff Liebman: This needs passing as soon as possible so that we can get, uh, the tools in place to take care of the folks in the Gulf.

Question: Yeah, clearly, you want it as soon as possible, but my question is, what kind of feedback have you gotten from lawmakers? Are there any, there anything in particular that they like or that they object to that you expect to be hurdles?

Carol Browner: Uh, so, yes, the Hill has been notified that this legislation will be coming up shortly. Um, as you’re probably aware there are a number of bills that have already been introduced in both the House and the Senate, so the folks are actively engaged, hearings are underway. And we’re going to do everything in our power to move this as quickly as possible.

Question: Great, thanks, Carol….

….Question: Hi, thank you all for taking my question. Obviously, you all have been tracking this very closely. Do we have any sense of what the actual, uh, economic damages are?  Any range yet? And, and if not when can we expect such, such a figure?

Jeff Liebman: We’re setting it as closely as we can, but it, but, frankly, it’s changing very quickly and, and, uh, it varies across the states. But we don’t have an accurate number.

Question: And can I just ask one small follow-up? Why is there no, um, exact figure, just looking at the fact sheet, in the legislation for, you know, what, what size or, excuse me, how high do you want the, the ceiling to be raised on, on the damages that the, uh, government can collect?

Carol Browner: This is Carol Browner. We think it’s important to work with Congress on determining what that number will be. As you know, there are some bills that have been introduced, but we will be working with them to determine what the right number is.

Question: Thank you very much….

….Question: Uh, yes, I was wondering if this is going to include, um, a per barrel tax, uh, increase, uh, to go toward this, uh, this recovery [inaudible] fund?  Would, would, are you guys calling for that, too, or is this, um, does this not include that?

Jeff Liebman: The legislation calls for a one cent per barrel increase in the tax, uh, both from, uh, eight cents to nine cents immediately, and then from nine cents to ten cents when it’s currently scheduled to go from eight to nine, uh, in twenty seventeen….

….Question: Uh, you said you want to work with Congress to set a liability cap. Some of the legislation proposed already is ten billion. Uh, is that sort of the ballpark that you guys, are, are expecting? And can you give me sort of a total figure of the cost of this bill, and would all that be paid by BP?

Jeff Liebman: The total, uh, new discretionary spending in this bill is a hundred and eighteen, uh, million dollars. We expect that the overall majority of that, uh, would end up being reimbursed by BP.

Question: And on the liability cap?

Nick Shapiro: We’re going to work with Congress on that.

Question: {inaudible] As far as, do, do you think the ten billion dollars that’s been oppose, proposed by Congress as a cap already is a ballpark that you guys are looking at?

Nick Shapiro:  We’re going to work with Congress on it.  Don’t h
ave a ballparks for you….

….Question: Hi, everybody. Yeah, I was gonna ask about the retroactive nature of this, but that’s already been asked. So I wonder if anyone could comment on the, um, the offshore drilling, uh, provision of the climate bill that’s gonna be introduced today by, uh, Senators Kerry and Lieberman.  Is that something that the, uh, White House supports?

Carol Browner:  Hi, this is Carol Browner. We applaud Senators Kerry and Lieberman for their tireless work in, in drafting this legislation. We think this is an important step forward. We continue to believe, the President believes, that comprehensive energy reform is crucial. Uh, we need a bill that will help us, uh, break our dependence on fossil fuels, um, create clean energy jobs, and put a cap on greenhouse, uh, gas emissions. We have seen portions of the bill, we have not seen the entire bill. We will be reviewing it in the coming days and will continue to work, uh, in, in, the Senate to secure passage of the comprehensive legislation….

….Question: Yes, hello, two questions.  One involves this one hundred eighteen million dollars in discretionary spending you believe this, this legislation would encompass, the majority to be reimbursed by BP. Is this the kind of discretionary spending that would, you expect one hundred and eighteen million each year? Is it a repeated sort of funding situation? And the other question is, uh, going a little bit further, uh, on what was just asked, do you guys, are you able to state whether you support, uh, the legislation under Kerry-Lieberman that would allow states to ban oil drilling within seventy miles off their coast?

Jeff Liebman: The one hundred and eighteen million is one time.

Carol Browner: Again we’re gonna, uh, be looking at the, uh, Kerry-Lieberman, uh, legislation. Uh, you know, obviously, uh, in light of the situation in the Gulf of Mexico, uh, this legislation, the debate around offshore drilling is, is going to be a significant one, and so we want to take a look at it.  And then we’ll be working, uh, with the Senate, uh, to see how best to proceed….

….Question: Good morning, everybody.  Could you talk a little bit about the FDA seafood inspections? I wonder how worried Americans should be about seafood coming from the Gulf, and whether the increased inspections will be soon enough and increased enough to comprehensively make sure that no bad seafood is getting into the food system.

Nick Shapiro: That’s probably best answered by the daily press conference happening at the, down at the JIC every day. They’ve done a lot on the food safety and know, these folks are here to talk about the legislation.

Question: Well, but the legislation talks about increasing, uh, money so that FDA can do more inspections, and I just wonder whether the increase will be enough to be really sort of a comprehensive barrier against tainted seafood.

Melody Barnes: Well, obviously in addition to the concerns that the President has to make sure that the families working in the Gulf are taken care of, we want to make sure that those who are eating, um, and eating out of our, our food chain and our food supply are also equally protected. So the FDA will continue to act vigilantly. We are providing additional resources to make sure that they are able to do so, and we will continue to do that as we monitor the situation very carefully.

Carol Browner: And, and at this point, there’s all of the safeguards are in place in terms of the fish, the appropriate fish closures, the appropriate inspections.  And so we have no reason to think that seafood is not, uh, safe at this point. We have to remain vigilant and I think, again, as has been said, you can get a sort of a full outline of everything that’s happening, uh, right now to ensure, uh, that the food supply is safe….

….Question: …Um, now, the one hundred eighteen [million], that’s, uh, the total for the bill? And do you subtract the twenty nine million dollars that goes to the Interior Department for, uh, money outside?  And can you give us a break, you said the majority, but is that half is paid for by BP, or can you be more specific?

Jeff Liebman: Um, so the twenty-nine [million] for Interior is a component of the hundred and eighteen [million]. Um, to the extent that a component of the hundred and eighteen [million] is directly related to the current, uh, disaster, uh, we will be able to re, charge it to, to BP. There are some things, uh, for example, inspecting, um, other oil wells in other parts of the country that we’re, we’re going to be doing increased activity, that, uh, it’s unclear whether we’ll be able to get reimbursed from the responsible party, um, for that. And that’s why we need appropriations now to make sure we can do all the things, uh, we need to do.

Question: And how hard do you think it’s going to be to get reimbursed by BP if they’ve already paid claims to fishermen, for example, for their damages, than, you know, paying this nother fifteen million dollars for unemployment, or retraining? Is that gonna be a major battle?

Carol Browner: Well, first, first of all, we, we are going to, as I said earlier, we, we take BP at their word. They say they intend to pay for all costs. Um, and when we hear all, we take it to mean all. The, um, it’s obvious people aren’t allowed to double dip. Uh, you know, an individual can’t get reimbursed one place and then attempt to get reimbursed for the same economic impact somewhere else. Uh, but to the degree that we are using federal dollars to compensate individuals, we will claim that, uh, against BP….

….Question: Uh, thanks for doing the call. Uh, if I could just ask a little more about the legislation. Uh, you, you said the Hill has been notified. But have you run it by Republicans? Is this going to be done in like a pre-packaged way direct to the floor and out by Memorial Day?  Or does this need to go through committee and kind of get hashed out with amendments and things? And um, and who will introduce it? And as you, have you been told what committee or whatever it might go to?

Jeff Liebman: I think it’s too early to tell the exact legislative strategy, but we have in our notifications talked to people on both sides of the aisle.

Question: Have you got anything back from them? I mean, okay, we’ll look at it when you get here, or, yes, we’ll agree to that in, in principle or in detail?

Jeff Liebman: I think there is a, uh, wide understanding that there is a strong need right now both to make sure federal agencies have the capacity they need to respond to this, uh, event and to make sure that we provide, uh, the assistance that people in the Gulf need.

Nick Shapiro: We got time for, uh, two more….There’s no other questions?….

….Question: Yes,….the Mexican News Agency. Thank you for taking my question. I am wondering if you are considering an international dimension, specifically, if there’s any potential damage, uh, to Mexico? Where you had any kind of contact with the Mexican government to see if they can get some reimbursement in case there is evidence of damage to, to Mexican waters?

Nick Shapiro: …We have been in touch with the Mexican government, and I’d refer you over to the Coast Guard, who is working with State Department on any international, uh, needs or requests for assistance….

….Question: Hi, yeah, I’m just wondering if you can explain the differences between the various liabilities and the claim caps. In your fact sheet that you sent out, you said that the funds will be raised, the cap on the fund will be raised to one point five billion, the cap on the natural resources damage [inaudible] would be raised to seven hundred and fifty million. But then you said that the other liability claim cap you want to negotiate with Congress. Can you explain the difference of why you’ve left that final cap on negotiations [inaudible]?

Jeff Lie
bman: Um, the, the first sort of caps you described are on the overall resources, uh, in the existing trust fund. Um, what we’re trying to do is make sure that the Coast Guard and the other agencies responding, uh, can get access, uh, to the funds they need, uh, when they need them, rather than having to stop activities while they wait for, uh, appropriations. And so the move, lifting the cap from, one billion to one point five billion, and the component of that, uh, the, uh, is for natural resources, from five hundred [million] to seven fifty [million], is a part of that, uh, effort to make sure that the existing trust fund resources can be tapped, uh, as soon as they’re needed, uh, to respond to this, uh, spill. There’s a separate issue, uh, of what the allowable, uh, damages are for, um, the responsible party, and that’s the issue that we look forward to working with Congress on.

Nick Shapiro: All right. Uh, thank you all for participating in the call. And thank you, Melody, Carol, and Jeff for your time today. And I hope everyone has a great day….

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…

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.