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

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 Uh, getting Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell repealed which the president signed today.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

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

[….]

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

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

[….]

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

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

[….]

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

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

[….]

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

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

[….]

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

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

[….]

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

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

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

[….]

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

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

[….]

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

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

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

Dan Pfeiffer: In terms of?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question: Yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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