Statement by the President on the Passing of Senator Daniel Inouye

Tonight, our country has lost a true American hero with the passing of Senator Daniel Inouye.  The second-longest serving Senator in the history of the chamber, Danny represented the people of Hawaii in Congress from the moment they joined the Union.  In Washington, he worked to strengthen our military, forge bipartisan consensus, and hold those of us in government accountable to the people we were elected to serve.  But it was his incredible bravery during World War II – including one heroic effort that cost him his arm but earned him the Medal of Honor – that made Danny not just a colleague and a mentor, but someone revered by all of us lucky enough to know him.  Our thoughts and prayers are with the Inouye family.
 
###

Tropical Storm Gulf of Mexico jeremiah wright Castro illegal immigrant

Jim DeMint's Support of Tea Party Candidates Could Boost His Senate Profile

When Marco Rubio embarked on his campaign for the Republican nomination in the U.S. Senate race in Florida, he had very little public support among Republican power brokers, who overwhelmingly backed Charlie Crist, Florida governor and odds-on favorite at the time.
Enter Jim DeMint.
The junior Republican senator from South Carolina, who has developed a reputation for bucking authority in the Capitol, met with Rubio, the former speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, in Washington on May 12, 2009. DeMint liked what he heard enough to endorse Rubio a month later. Rubio now has a commanding lead in the polls over Democrat Kendrick Meek and independent Crist, who bolted the GOP when it became clear he would lose to Rubio in the primary.
Rubio is among candidates DeMint has backed in the midterm elections as part of a multimillion-dollar effort to push the Senate's Republican caucus to the right. Those candidates -- mostly associated with the Tea Party movement -- also could help DeMint consolidate a leadership role in the Senate, assuming some or all of them win.
DeMint's early support of the then-relatively unknown Rubio did not go unnoticed. Across the country, other outsider, conservative hopefuls approached DeMint, looking for help in their battles against the establishment.
"There was a line of candidates down the street who wanted to talk to him," said Matt Hoskins, a spokesman for DeMint's political action committee, the Senate Conservatives Fund.
In an effort to bring more like-minded conservatives to the Senate, DeMint endorsed and funded alternative candidates in Republican primaries throughout the country. His Senate Conservatives Fund is still supporting 10 of these candidates in their general election bids, and all but one, Delaware's Christine O'Donnell, are either leading in the polls or in very competitive races.
When the victors arrive in Washington in January -- and political analysts project four to nine of the DeMint picks will win -- they will bring with them a heightened level of influence and power for their benefactor within the Republican Party.
DeMint's goal throughout the election season has been to steer the Senate to the right. With his own re-election assured well before the Nov. 2 vote, DeMint focused his efforts on raising money for the types of conservatives he'd like to serve with in the Senate, especially those with an appetite for reigning in the federal budget. DeMint regularly found himself the only national Republican supporting certain candidates.
"He was the first one," said Owen Loftus, spokesman for Ken Buck, the Republican nominee for Senate in Colorado. "It wasn't until after the primary that others followed."
And DeMint has given more than his name to these candidates. Hoskins estimated that the Senate Conservatives Fund has spent more than $4 million so far on the 10 Senate candidates DeMint is backing.
In the process of nudging the Senate to the right, DeMint almost inevitably will provide a boost to his own influence within the chamber.
"DeMint is a faction leader now," said Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics. "He'll have some votes. When you have votes that you can potentially deliver, you have power."
Sabato and other Beltway experts foresee the formation of a small but outspoken Tea Party caucus within the Senate Republicans. The belief is that these new senators will regularly side with DeMint because of a shared view of the role of government and, perhaps, a sense of debt.
"They will come in with sort of a natural affinity in terms of their ideas," said Robert Oldendick, a professor of political science at the University of South Carolina. "Plus, given the role that DeMint is playing in each of their campaigns, there is some kind of, 'OK, I owe some chips to this guy.' So he has become the de facto leader of this."
Hoskins insisted that DeMint's support of these candidates comes with no strings attached. But he expressed optimism that an influx of DeMint-backed candidates could change the direction of the Republican caucus in the Senate.
"I think you're going to see maybe a little more fight from the Republican Party in terms of its principles," Hoskins said. "A lot of people just focus on the numbers but in the Senate sometimes you don't need to have 50 votes. You need three people willing to stand up and speak out on something. If you've got that you can begin to rally the American people and before long you have 50 votes."
Some observers question DeMint's motives in getting so involved in the midterm elections. They claim DeMint is angling to become the Republican leader in the Senate or even to run for president. But Hoskins said DeMint's sole goal is to pack with the Senate with fellow hard-right conservatives.
"He wants to support these candidates to strengthen the Senate," Hoskins said.

Glenn Beck Rush Limbaugh Hillary Clinton Tea Party Black Panthers

Remarks by the President at a Hanukkah Reception

East Room
7:50 P.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT:  Good evening, everybody. 
AUDIENCE:  Good evening.
THE PRESIDENT:  Well, thank you for coming to the White House tonight to celebrate the sixth night of Hanukkah.  (Applause.)  It is truly an honor to host so many leaders from the Jewish community this evening.  Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren is here.  (Applause.)  And obviously I know I speak for all of us when we say that America's support for our friend and ally Israel remains unshakeable during these difficult times.  (Applause.)
Many members of Congress and local government are here, and we want to welcome you.  We are graced by two Supreme Court Justices, several members of my Cabinet and administration -- so, everybody, be on your best behavior.  (Laughter.)
I want to thank the incredibly talented members of the West Point Jewish Chapel Cadet Choir for their service.  (Applause.)  They are incredible young people.  Obviously we're in awe of their service to our nation, and for sharing a couple of Hanukkah favorites with the Marine band.
And finally, I'd like to recognize the rabbis and lay leaders who traveled from all over the country to be here.  Thank you for sharing the holiday with us.  We're grateful.  (Applause.) 
So tonight, as we gather to light the sixth candle of Hanukkah, we remember an enduring story of resilience and optimism.  Over 2,000 years ago, a tyrant forbade the Israelites from practicing their religion and his forces desecrated the Holy Temple.  So Judah Maccabee gathered a small band of believers to fight this oppression, and against all odds, they prevailed.  And the Maccabees liberated Jerusalem and restored the faith of its people.  And when they went to reclaim the Temple, the people of Jerusalem received another gift from God -- the oil that should have lasted only one night burned for eight.  That miraculous flame brought hope and it sustained the faithful.
To this day, Jews around the world honor the Maccabees' everlasting hope that light will overcome the darkness, that goodness will overcome evil, and that faith can accomplish miracles.
The menorah that we're using tonight and the man who will light it are both powerful symbols of that spirit.  Six weeks ago, the Temple Israel Synagogue in Long Beach, New York, was badly damaged by Hurricane Sandy.  But this 90-year-old menorah survived, and I am willing to bet it will survive another 90 years, and another 90 years after that.  So tonight, it shines as a symbol of perseverance, and as a reminder of those who are still recovering from Sandy’s destruction -- a reminder of resilience and hope and the fact that we will be there for them as they recover. 
So I want to thank Rabbi David Bauman for sharing your congregation’s blessed menorah with us.  We pray that its light will carry victims of Sandy and all Americans to a brighter tomorrow.  And we’re confident that it will.  (Applause.) 
And we’re confident that it will because for centuries the menorah has served as a source of inspiration and courage for all those dreaming of a better future, and Rabbi Larry Bazer knows that as well as anybody. 
Now, we had hoped that Rabbi would join us to light the candles last year, but he wasn’t able to make it.  We don’t get that very often.  Usually when we invite people, they come.   (Laughter.)   But we gave him another chance because he had a pretty good excuse the first time. 
Last Hanukkah, Rabbi Bazer -- and he happens to be the Joint Forces Chaplain for the Massachusetts National Guard -- was four months into his deployment in Afghanistan, and he lit a custom-built electric menorah in the central square of Camp Phoenix in Kabul.  As the only rabbi in Afghanistan at the time, he spent every night of Hanukkah with a different group of soldiers, reminding them of the Maccabees’ perseverance, and bringing them faith to guide their challenging work.  
Even in the face of great danger, the message of Hanukkah endures.  And it continues to inspire those all over the world who stand for freedom and opportunity, and we could not be more grateful to Rabbi Bazer for his extraordinary service to our country as well as his service to his congregation.  (Applause.) 
The Rabbi stands here alongside this menorah both as a symbol of hope and perseverance and determination and duty.  And it also reminds us that there are sacrifices that are involved in defending our values.  Obviously we’re grateful to the men and women who serve our nation so nobly and so bravely all around the world.  (Applause.)   And our thoughts and prayers in this holiday season especially go out to those who are away from home during the holiday season.
But obviously the lessons of Hanukkah also apply to those of us who should be serving in different ways in our own communities, in our work places, in our own families as citizens of this nation; that we have obligations to one another, that we’re stronger together than we are apart, that we have to think about future generations and not just the present. 
Those are all values that we have to also make sacrifices to defend.  And so I want to welcome all of you.  I’m honored to be with you.  I see a lot of good friends around the room.  But at this time I’d like to invite Rabbi Bazer to join me to light the White House menorah.
(The blessing is offered and the menorah is lighted.)
THE PRESIDENT:  Have a wonderful evening, everybody.  We’re going to go around and try and shake some hands.
END   
7:57 P.M. EST

Chris Dodd Sharron Angle Pat Toomey Jan Brewer Bill Brady

Presidential Proclamation -- Wright Brothers Day, 2012

WRIGHT BROTHERS DAY, 2012
- - - - - - -
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A PROCLAMATION
After years of research and experimentation, 12 seconds of powered flight over the hills of Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, vindicated the passion and resolve with which Wilbur and Orville Wright pursued their lifelong dream. Like so many Americans before and after them, these two men achieved the unthinkable, and their achievements changed our way of life. On Wright Brothers Day, we reflect on their astonishing feat and celebrate the ambition it still inspires more than a century later.
Wilbur and Orville Wright were the kind of entrepreneurs Americans everywhere root for. Their inspiration sparked from their mother, Susan -- a gifted mathematician in her own right who challenged her children to think big and dream bold. The brothers overcame years of personal hardship to open their own bicycle shop in Dayton, Ohio, quickly improving on the designs of the bikes they sold and eventually expanding to manufacture their own models. As they mastered their craft, they turned their attention skyward. Similar stories of resilient, canny entrepreneurship have unfolded throughout our Nation's history -- from the founding of our airlines and auto industry to the growth of our research institutions and small businesses. While each journey has been unique, all have advanced that same brand of rugged determination to stay ahead of the curve and keep America moving forward.
With their game-changing feat, the Wright brothers earned their place in history as innovators who helped trigger America's rise as an economic superpower, and whose example inspired the kind of businesses and industries that built and grew our middle class. As we mark Wright Brothers Day, let us carry their legacy forward by taking on new challenges with tenacity and meeting our hardships with courage, confident that our shared future is bright and our best days are still ahead.
The Congress, by a joint resolution approved December 17, 1963, as amended (77 Stat. 402; 36 U.S.C. 143), has designated December 17 of each year as "Wright Brothers Day" and has authorized and requested the President to issue annually a proclamation inviting the people of the United States to observe that day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim December 17, 2012, as Wright Brothers Day.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this seventeenth day of December, in the year of our Lord two thousand twelve, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-seventh.
BARACK OBAMA

Rick Santorum Chris Dodd Sharron Angle Pat Toomey Jan Brewer

California?s Brown Leads Whitman Among Female Voters

Jerry Brown, the Democrat running for governor of California, is drawing more support from women than Republican Meg Whitman even as a recording of an aide calling her a ?whore? hangs over their final scheduled debate.
Brown led Whitman among likely women voters 47 percent to 37 percent in the latest Rasmussen Reports poll Oct. 3, up from a virtual tie, 45 percent-44 percent, on Sept. 20. The results came after Whitman was accused of employing an illegal immigrant as a housekeeper, though before the Los Angeles Times published the ?whore? recording Oct. 8.
Whitman, 54, the former EBay Inc. chief executive officer, has spent $119 million of her own fortune, a U.S. record by a self-funded candidate, as she battles Brown, 72, to run the state with the most people and the biggest economy in the nation. The two are to appear in a debate tonight moderated by former NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw.
?Brown supporters will stay with Brown, Whitman supporters will be somewhat outraged and continue supporting Whitman,? said Ann Crigler, a professor of politics at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles.
Brown spent $10.7 million on his campaign from Jan. 1 to Sept. 30 and had a fund balance of $22.6 million, according to the California secretary of state?s office. Whitman spent $120.6 million in that period, with $9.2 million remaining.
?An Insult?
The recorded slur won?t change Brown?s standing with women voters since Brown himself didn?t say it, Crigler said in a telephone interview.
Brown, California?s governor for two terms, from 1975 to 1983, and now attorney general, was inadvertently recorded by voicemail after leaving a message for a Los Angeles police union official. In a conversation about a potential advertisement over pension issues, an aide says, ?What about saying she?s a whore?? according to the Times.
?The use of the term ?whore? is an insult to both Meg Whitman and to the women of California,? Whitman spokeswoman Sarah Pompei said in an Oct. 7 statement. ?This is an appalling and unforgivable smear.? The release of the recording prompted an apology from the Brown campaign.
Sterling Clifford, a Brown spokesman, said the candidate didn?t make the comment.
?As to who it was, it?s not the best recording in the world,? Clifford said in an interview. ?It?s hard to say.?
Regret Expressed
If the comment is raised at tonight?s debate at Dominican University of California in San Rafael, he said, the campaign has already expressed regret ?and I don?t think we?ll go much beyond that.?
Darrel Ng, a Whitman spokesman, declined to comment when asked whether the remark would sway female voters and declined to say whether Whitman would raise the issue.
?I certainly expect Whitman to press it hard as a way of communicating to female voters and emphasizing her status as the potential first female governor of California,? Jack Pitney, a Claremont McKenna College politics professor, said in a telephone interview. Claremont is located east of Los Angeles.
?It?s hard to say that this is going to be a decisive issue,? Pitney said. ?Voters know that politicians and political operatives use bad language in private. That?s not a revelation.?
?Anti-Women Candidates?
The controversy didn?t stop the California chapter of the National Organization for Women from endorsing Brown the day after the tape was made public.
Patty Bellasalma, the group?s president, called Whitman one of ?the most anti-women candidates to run in California in decades? and cited Brown?s record for hiring women.
?When you are armed with the facts and record of these two candidates, the choice is very easy, the choice is Jerry Brown,? Bellasalma said in a telephone interview.
Bruce Cain, a professor of politics at the University of California, Berkeley, said Whitman may use the remark to distance herself from her former housekeeper?s claim that Whitman kept her on while aware that she was in the U.S. illegally -- an issue that dominated the last debate.
Whitman accused Brown of engineering the housekeeper?s Sept. 29 news conference as a political stunt. She said she dismissed Nicky Diaz Santillan immediately after the woman admitted falsifying immigration documents.
?I?m sure she?ll ask for an apology or something,? Cain said. Still, the aide?s remark isn?t likely to gain as much traction as the immigration flap, he said.
?There?s so much going wrong in California right now, it doesn?t really tie into the pressing issues,? Cain said. ?The undocumented issue ties into a major issue, which is: What are we going to do about immigration reform? I?m not sure how you tie this one in, in a way that helps Meg Whitman.?

� Copyright 2010 Bloomberg News. All rights reserved.

Rubio Charlie Crist Scott Brown Congressional Budget Office Michael Steele

"Back to 1965..."

Ezra Klein notes the "peculiar impasse" in the negotiations to veer away from the apocalypse Armageddon cataclysm annihilation very-scary-sounding-thingy fiscal cliff: Republicans would agree to revenue if Democrats would just agree too... uh...

They know they want “Medicare reform” — indeed, they frequently identify Medicare reform as the key to their support for a deal — but aside from premium support, they don’t quite know what they mean by it, and they’re afraid to find out. 
The solution they’ve come up with, such as it is, is to insist that the Obama administration needs to be the one to propose Medicare cuts. “We accepted this meeting with the expectation that the White House team will bring a specific plan for real spending cuts — because spending cuts that Washington Democrats will accept is what is missing from the balanced approach that the president says he wants,” Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said in regard to the most recent round of talks.
Democrats find this flatly ridiculous: Given that the Obama administration would happily raise taxes without cutting Medicare but that Republicans will only raise taxes if we cut Medicare, it falls on the Republicans to name their price. But behind their negotiating posture is a troubling policy reality: They don’t know what that price is.

Fear of political costs for unpopular, but necessary -- you believe -- policy isn't a political novelty (especially if you've convinced your entire base to take leave of the real world).  But I think this gives the Republicans too much credit in this particular self-created predicament.  This assumes they have specific ideas they believe make good policy and just don't want to own them alone.  It assumes they've thought this one through beyond an ideological hatred for Medicare and the safety net at large, success of the program(s) be damned.  Sherrod Brown said it best in 2003:

[Privatization] has really been the thrust. From President Bush to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) to Speaker Gingrich a few years ago, to back in 1965, Republicans really wanted this system turned over to the insurance companies. Privatize Medicare and give it to the insurance industry. Go back to 1965, out of roughly 200 Republican Members of the House and Senate, only 23 voted for the creation of Medicare. Gerald Ford in 1965, a future President, voted against it. Congressman Dole, future Senator Dole, Republican Presidential candidate, voted against it. Senator Strom Thurmond voted against the creation of Medicare. Congressman Donald Rumsfeld in 1965, later Secretary of Defense and the architect of this plan, I put in quotation marks, of the rebuilding of Iraq, voted against the creation of Medicare.
Then in 1995, the first time Republicans had an opportunity to do something about Medicare, the Republicans under Speaker Gingrich tried to cut it by $270 billion in order to give a tax cut to the most privileged Americans, the same old story. Speaker Gingrich said in October 1995 that he hoped Medicare would wither on the vine.

Republicans don't find themselves without a specific demand because  Vouchercare isn't on the table, they are in this bind because Vouchercare was only popular with Republicans primarily as a gateway to privatization. 
I find it hard to believe the same party that successfully sold trickle-down economics for 3+ decades with little push back from Democrats, or managed to get the very tax cuts being debated now on the table then (as a job creator, no less) is suddenly too timid to bullshit the American populace into getting behind they're latest proposal.  No. They would praise the genius of toddler's finger painting if they thought the public would buy it. The reason Republicans can't make a specific demand now with the White House bluntly asking them to name their price is simple: they haven't considered it much.
Reform is the white wash, overblown fears of fiscal solvency the excuse, and privatization the thrust.  But the goal has always been an end to the social safety net.
Not something you admit to outside of the country club, even if it is the President asking.
 

Rush Limbaugh Hillary Clinton Tea Party Black Panthers Bristol Palin

Game Of Thrones Beer Slated For Production By Brewery Ommegang

gulf oil muslims czar putin Blagojevich

Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney en route Detroit, Michigan, 12/10/2012

Aboard Air Force One
En Route Detroit, Michigan
11:47 A.M. EST
MR. CARNEY:  I have no announcements to make.  I’m glad that you’re joining us on our trip to Michigan today.  The President looks forward to talking about ways that our economy is rebounding growth in our manufacturing sector and especially in our automobile industry.
With that I will take your questions. 
Q    What progress can you report from yesterday’s meeting between the President and the Speaker?
MR. CARNEY:  I can confirm that there was a meeting and that lines of communication remain open, but I cannot characterize the talks or conversations beyond that.
Q    Are there any other one-on-one meetings on the schedule for this week?
MR. CARNEY:  Well, as you know, I don’t preview meetings or conversations.  Our interest here is to see if we can get a deal that’s good for the economy, that makes sure that the middle class is protected, that their taxes don’t go up, and it continues the growth and job creation that we’ve seen.
Q    Jay, is the President any more or less confident of a deal being reached before the end of the year after yesterday’s meeting?
MR. CARNEY:  Again, I won’t characterize yesterday’s meeting or other conversations, but the President does believe that we can reach an agreement.  He has put forward a very detailed plan.  He has shown how he believes we need to achieve the necessary revenue targets in order to put together a large deal that would reflect the goal of $4 trillion in deficit reduction that is so meaningful in terms of our long-term fiscal sustainability.  And he’s made clear in his detailed proposal that he’s willing to enact cuts in our mandatory entitlement programs, including our health care programs. 
What we haven’t seen yet is any specificity at all from Republicans on revenue; we’ve seen a sentence on revenue.  And while there have been encouraging statements by individual lawmakers about the realization that rates will go up on the top 2 percent, we haven’t seen anything specific from Republicans with regard to that.
Q    Jay, as you know, a lot of people are watching this -- not just the taxpayers but the stock market, other countries even -- to see signs of American stability.  What is the harm in telling the public simply whether we’re better off today than yesterday?  That kind of generic update on whether we’re making progress.
MR. CARNEY:  Because our interest is in seeing if we can reach an agreement and not trying to negotiate an agreement through the media.  And I am entirely sympathetic to the interest that you have in this, but we believe that it’s in the best interest of the prospects of getting an agreement to not read out the details of conversations that the President has with the Speaker, or other conversations that hopefully will make it possible to get an agreement.
Q    The Speaker’s office said today, as you have, that the lines of communication are open, but also that they’re continuing to wait for the President to identify specific spending cuts.  And you’ve talked about the need for Republicans to identify more details.  Do you agree with the assessment that it’s up to the White House to make the next move?
MR. CARNEY:  I can simply say that the lines of communication are open.  You’ve seen that the President met with the Speaker.  And we, broadly speaking, continue to engage in this process with important players and stakeholders. 
The fact is we have put forward specific spending cuts.  The President is the only party that has put forward a plan that has specificity on both the spending and revenue side.  We have not seen in any detail from the Republicans, including from the offer that was put forward by the Speaker in his letter, the kind of detail that would allow us to assess the proposal.  To say, for example, on revenue that we can achieve $800 billion, which is far, far short of the necessary revenue for a comprehensive deal that achieves $4 trillion in deficit reduction, and to achieve that only through unnamed closures of loopholes and unnamed reductions to caps and deductions -- it doesn’t really get you very far.
Q    Are you considering making a counter offer to the Speaker’s offer?
MR. CARNEY:  Again, I’m not going to characterize the conversations that we’re having.  I can only say that the President believes that a deal is possible.  It requires acceptance and acknowledgement in a concrete way by Republicans that the top 2 percent will see an increase in their rates.  To do that, all that Republicans in the House have to do is vote for a tax cut. 
All we’re talking about here is the expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts for the top 2 percent, not a vote to -- a proactive vote to hike taxes on anyone.  What we are asking is that Republicans in the House follow the Senate’s lead and approve tax cuts for the middle class, for 98 percent of the American people -- something they say they believe is the right thing to do, the President believes is the right thing to do, the American public overwhelmingly believes it’s the right thing to do.  Economists believe that tax cuts for the middle class are the most beneficial to the economy. 
Let’s get that done as a demonstration that Washington can work, even as we grapple with some of these other issues that we need to resolve in order to achieve a broader agreement.
Q    Jay, will the President weigh in on the Michigan right-to-work case while he’s here?
MR. CARNEY:  I’m not going to preview the President’s remarks.  They’ll be coming soon.  The President’s opposition to the so-called right-to-work laws is well known.  But beyond that, I won’t preview his remarks.
Q    Yesterday, the Speaker repeated what some others have said, that the President is slow-walking this, trying to build pressure on the Republicans and wants it to get up to the last minute.  How do you respond to that?
MR. CARNEY:  I would simply say that we have yet to see more than a sentence of specificity from the Republicans on the issue of revenue.  There is no deal without acknowledgment and acceptance of the fact that rates are going up on top earners.  That’s what I would say.
Secondly, the President has made clear he’s eager to get a deal and he believes that a deal is possible.  He’s also made clear that when it comes to a large deal on the order of magnitude of $4 trillion, that tough choices would have to be made by both sides, and he knows that he would not get everything that he wants.  He knows that not every detail of his proposal would make it through such an agreement.  And he’s willing to make tough choices, as he has in the past.
But Republicans have to recognize that we cannot afford, the public does not support, and it is economically a bad idea to extend tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires and those making over $250,000.
Q    Jay, does the President think there’s any real risk to either the economy or to consumer confidence if this debate runs right up against -- right up to New Year’s Eve?  Or as long as you get it done before January 1, is that okay?
MR. CARNEY:  You’re trying to create a situation where I’m naming a deadline, and I’m not going to do that.  The tax cuts  --
Q    -- as long as it gets done on time, is that sufficient?
MR. CARNEY:  That’s market analysis that I can't do.  The sooner we get a deal the better.  The reason why we're in this situation is we have very specific deadlines.  Taxes go up on everybody on January 1st.  Automatic, across-the-board spending cuts begin to take effect on January 1st if Congress doesn’t act in either of these cases.
So those are the deadlines we face, and the sooner we reach an agreement the better.
Q    New topic.  There is a very important “Friends of Syria” meeting this week, as you know, in Morocco.  The U.S. has been moving in the direction of helping to build up the Syrian opposition, and there has been a lot of talk that maybe this is the moment for the United States to formally recognize the opposition.  What's the White House's view on that?  And do you believe that the time has come to recognize the opposition, and would that be an important step to resolving the terrible situation in Syria?
MR. CARNEY:  Well, you're absolutely right that we've done a lot of work with our international partners in assisting the opposition in Syria.  We've provided substantial humanitarian and non-lethal aid to the Syrian people and to the opposition.  We applauded and continue to work with -- we applauded the creation of and continue to work with the Syrian Opposition Council and consider it an important representative of the Syrian opposition.
I don’t have any previews for you of the meeting that you mention, which is important, except to say that we continue to be committed to the proposition that Syria's future needs to be decided by the Syrian people; that that future cannot include Bashar al Assad, who is a tyrant with an enormous amount of blood on his hands -- the blood of his own people.  And we have noted -- I did last week -- that some of the progress that the opposition has been making, but this conflict needs to end for the sake of the Syrian people.
Q    Has the President talked to the family of the SEAL team member that had been killed in the raid?
MR. CARNEY:  I don’t have a readout of any conversations of the President.  I think you saw the statement from the President, but I have no more information for you on the death of a Special Forces operative. 
Q    Quick one on the trip today.  How would you describe the connection between where we're headed, the President's comments today, and the need to get a deal done on the fiscal cliff?
MR. CARNEY:  Well, I think the President -- again, without previewing his comments, remains focused on his number-one priority, which is helping this economy grow, making the kind of decisions that enable it to grow and enable it to create jobs.
And the automobile industry is an important piece of that policy approach, and he took steps, as you know, early on in his administration to ensure that the American automobile industry survived.  And it has been the rebound of the big American automakers that has helped fuel real progress in the manufacturing sector in this economy.  And he wants to make sure that we’re continuing that progress, and I think that's what this trip will highlight.
Broadly, though, this is all of a piece.  When we talk about the need to reach a big deal that achieves $4 trillion in deficit reduction, that's not because deficit reduction is an inherent good; it’s because done right, done well, coupled with measures that ensure that we continue to grow, inclusive of measures that protect the middle class, large-scale deficit reduction serves the broader purpose, which is economic growth and job creation.  That's why the President seeks it.  That's why he’s negotiating.  That's why he’s willing to make tough choices.  It’s all of a piece for him.  It’s why he ran for office.  It’s why he ran for reelection.
Q    Can I ask one question about the facility we’re going to?  The Daimler company, as you know, in addition to owning Detroit Diesel, used to own Chrysler, and they sold it in 2007 to effectively a hedge fund, and that led to a very dark period in Chrysler’s history that was really only redeemed after the federal bailout under the Obama administration.  I’m just wondering about the symbolism of going to a Daimler-owned facility given Daimler’s rather checkered history in Detroit.  It’s not a particularly happy story.
MR. CARNEY:  Well, I would simply say that what the President is interested in, the growth -- the revival and growth of the American automobile industry, the manufacture of automobiles here in the United States, which means good jobs for American workers.  And I think that's the focus that you’ll hear him talk about today. 
In terms of one company’s past, I don't really have a comment on that.  I think he’s focused on the present and the future.
Q    Is the President getting any closer to deciding who he wants at the State Department and Defense Department?
MR. CARNEY:  Thank you for the opportunity to say that I have no personnel announcements to make today.
Q    Thanks, Jay.
MR. CARNEY:  You bet.  Good to see all of you.

END 
12:01 P.M. EST

stimulus bill recession Rick Santorum Chris Dodd Sharron Angle

Under Fire From Democrats, Chamber of Commerce Helps Blue Dogs

Republicans and their allies in business are howling that a Democratic charge that "secret foreign money" is fueling GOP campaigns is a dog that just won't hunt. Now the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is helping conservative Blue Dog Democrats in a bid to prove it is bipartisan after all.
The powerful business lobby quietly began running ads last week in the congressional districts of 10 endangered Democrats who opposed President Obama's health-care bill or have parted ways on taxes and other fiscal issues with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.
The "voter education" ads were first spotted by political media trackers and have been all but lost in the sturm und drang over the chamber's cable-dubbed "plot to buy America."
"The chamber has a broad political program," spokesman J.P. Fielder told Politics Daily. "We're supporting pro-business candidates who have voted with the chamber," he said, noting that includes Democratic Senate hopeful Joe Manchin in West Virginia.
Among the lucky "dogs" getting help from the chamber are Reps. Glenn Nye in Virginia, Travis Childers in Mississippi and Alabama's Bobby Bright, the first Democrat to say he won't vote for Pelosi for speaker if he is re-elected.

In one "voter education ad," the narrator thanks Rep. Jim Marshall of Georgia for voting no on Obama's health-care bill. "Tell him to keep fighting for seniors and against Washington's government health care takeover," it urges.
Jessica Klonsky, a spokeswoman for Rep. Frank Kratovil, a freshman Democrat who represents Maryland's conservative Eastern Shore, would not comment on the ads running on his behalf. "We can't control what the chamber is doing," she said, "but the endorsement is just another example of (Kratovil's) independent leadership."
The officially nonpartisan lobby is spending nearly $1.9 million to help conservative House Democrats this year, according to Federal Election Commission records. That's a fraction of the nearly $22 million in outside expenditures that the Center for Responsive Politics calculates the chamber has plunked down. Most of that money has gone to Republicans.
The new ads are likely to do little to douse the firestorm over "attack ads" by outside groups. In campaign stops last week, Obama railed against the chamber for funding spots partly with dues paid by foreign corporations. The ads are "a threat to our democracy," he said. "The American people deserve to know who's trying to sway their elections."
The New York Times reported that "a closer examination shows that there is little evidence that what the chamber does in collecting overseas dues is improper or even unusual." Republicans have accused Democrats of hypocrisy since left-leaning labor unions helping Democrats also have dues-paying international affiliates.
The report didn't keep the Democratic National Committee from launching its own attack ad against the chamber. Such "shills for big business," it said, are taking "secret foreign money to influence our elections."
On Tuesday, after appearing to back down on the foreign connection, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs pushed back against critics. He said the president would continue to ask questions about GOP donors, whether they are foreign or domestic.
ThinkProgress, the liberal blog that first raised the specter of foreign influence, suggested the Democratic spots are a smokescreen. "While the chamber ads may lead many to believe that the organization is taking on a more bipartisan stance, the truth is that it has a long history of allying itself closely to Republicans," it said, noting the group's directors have given six times as much money to GOP candidates as Democrats.
"The chamber wants to give substance to its claim of being bipartisan. That matters for appearances, of course. But it also is important because the chamber does not in fact want to be wholly captured by a single party and thus lose its ability to negotiate with both parties," said Mark Rozell, a George Mason University political scientist.
"If the GOP wins the House, while some moderate-conservative Democrats also win with chamber support, that sends an even stronger message of the group's ability to hurt the president's standing," he said. "The message to Democrats over the next two years would be heard loudly: support this president, look what happens. Stick with us, then we can help you."

gulf oil muslims czar putin Blagojevich

Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 12/12/2012

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
1:10 P.M. EST
MR. CARNEY:  Good afternoon.  Welcome to the White House.  I have no announcements to make.  I’ll go straight to the Associated Press.
Q    Thank you.  Speaker Boehner said today that he’s advised his members to not make plans for Christmas in an effort to sort of set expectations for the public here.  Are you looking at a situation where a deal is still likely before Christmas?  Or is the end of the year more realistic?
MR. CARNEY:  I can't speculate about the timeframe.  What the President is interested in is working with Congress to achieve a deal that avoids the fiscal cliff and, beyond that, addresses our long-term fiscal challenges in a balanced way.  He wants to makes sure, first and foremost, that the middle class does not have their taxes go up on January 1st.  That is something that Congress could do today.
The House of Representatives, or at least the House Republican leadership, has refused to take that action, has refused to give middle-class Americans that certainty.  Why?  Because they have refused to accept the fundamental fact that higher-income Americans, millionaires and billionaires, the top 2 percent of earners in America, are not going to have their tax cuts extended.  The President has made that clear, and he will not sign a bill that extends tax cuts for the top 2 percent.
And to tell the rest of the American people, to tell the 98 percent out there who have to plan for next year and the bill -- and figure out how they're going to pay their bills that their taxes are going to go up because of indignation over the suggestion that people making $250,000 or $500,000 or $5 million should get a tax cut, that's just not a position the President shares.
Q    The President has previously said, though, that he was hopeful, optimistic that a deal could be reached before Christmas.  Given what you said about Republicans not backing down on their position on taxes, is that still a realistic goal?
MR. CARNEY:  The President said yesterday that he remains confident that a deal is possible.  The parameters of what a deal would look like are clear.  And he has made abundantly clear, both in his policy presentations and in what he has said to you and to the American public, that he is willing to make tough choices on the spending side; to reduce our spending as part of a broad package that includes cuts in discretionary spending, savings from our entitlement programs and increased revenues that are borne by those in this country who can most afford it.  And he believes that a package like that is still possible and hopes that Republican leaders join the majority of the American people -- another poll today demonstrating this, even close to 50 percent of Republicans in the country agreeing with this position -- in acknowledging that rates have to go up on the wealthiest Americans. 
This is not new information for most people.  This was the  subject of fierce debate for an entire year.  The President’s views and intentions were made clear again and again when it came to this.  He is eager to find a compromise.  He understands that that would require tough choices by him and Democrats.  But a position that says we want tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and that is our number-one priority is not a position that the President could ever sign on to.
Q    On a separate topic, there are some reports that Syrian forces have fired Scud missiles at insurgents.  What can you confirm about those reports?  And if they prove to be true, does that cross any type of red line for the President?
MR. CARNEY:  Well, I cannot confirm this story.  I have seen it.  Nor can I discuss intelligence, as you know.  But if true, this would be the latest desperate act from a regime that has shown utter disregard for innocent life, utter disregard for the lives of its own citizens.
Again, the idea that the Syrian regime would launch missiles within its borders at its own people is stunning, desperate, and a completely disproportionate military escalation.  What is clear is that the regime's efforts to defeat militarily the opposition are failing.  The opposition is becoming more unified, more organized.  In fact, there is an international conference, as you know, this week to further help the opposition as it organizes and unifies, and the sooner that Assad goes the better it will be for the Syrian people.
I know you know that the President yesterday announced our decision to recognize the Syrian Opposition Coalition as the legitimate representative of the Syrian people.  And we are working with our international partners to help strengthen the opposition and to further isolate and sanction the Assad regime.
Again, if this proves to be true, it's just another indication of the depravity of Assad and his cronies.
Q    So then you think it's true?
MR. CARNEY:  Well, look, I wouldn’t put this kind of act -- it would not surprise me that Assad would take this kind of action, but I cannot confirm the reports at this time and I can't discuss intelligence.
Q    Jay, also on foreign policy, the existing sanctions regime against North Korea has not prevented it from doing exactly what it wanted, which is launching a long-range rocket.  What further sanctions or other options are there, either unilaterally or through the U.N. Security Council, to deal with this?
MR. CARNEY:  The United Nations Security Council is meeting today on this issue, and I would point you to the U.S. Mission to the United Nations, to the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations for indications of next steps within the Security Council.
What we have said, both leading up to and now in the aftermath of this launch, is that it was a provocative act that threatens regional peace and security and undermines the global non-proliferation regime.  And it is regrettable that the leadership in Pyongyang chose to take this course in flagrant violation of its international obligations.
As you know, U.N. Security Council Resolution 1718 requires the DPRK to abandon its ballistic missile program in a complete, verifiable and irreversible manner.  U.N. Security Council Resolutions 1718 and 1874 require Pyongyang to suspend all activities related to its ballistic missile program and to reestablish a moratorium on missile launches.  Therefore this action is, again, in flagrant violation of a series of U.N. Security Council resolutions.  It demonstrates a decision by the regime to continue a pattern of disregard for its international obligations.
And what we have seen since the President came into office is the building of an international consensus that includes Russia and China in opposition to these actions.  I think you saw the Chinese made clear their opposition to this launch prior to it, and their regret over the fact that it took place after it happened.
So we will continue to work with our international partners to ensure that the North Korean regime is further isolated, that it is further punished for its flagrant violations of international obligations, and the specifics behind those further steps will await action in New York.
Q    You mentioned China.  Does the U.S. have a strategy for encouraging China to be more receptive to further sanctions against North Korea?
MR. CARNEY:  Well, we engage with the Chinese, the Russians and others on the Security Council and beyond in our effort to build a consensus about the unacceptability of North Korea's actions with regards to its ballistic missile program and obviously its nuclear program.  And we will work with those partners and others as we move forward to make clear how isolated, how in violations of norms this action by North Korea  -- how isolated the regime is and how in violation of its obligations North Korea is.
Q    Given what you're calling the flagrant violations by North Korea, does the President believe there is a way to stop them and it -- does he believe another approach should be considered?
MR. CARNEY:  Well, I would simply say that the President is concerned about North Korea's behavior, and has been.  He has made non-proliferation a top national security priority and will continue to do that, and he will continue to work with his international partners, our international partners, to put pressure on North Korea, to isolate North Korea, and to impose consequences on North Korea for the actions that it continues to take. 
There has, and remains, a path for North Korea to end its isolation, but that requires abiding by its international obligations, abiding by the United Nations Security Council resolutions that I mentioned before.  And it has chosen not to, and therefore, there will be consequences for that.  I don't have a preview of next steps, but we take this matter very seriously and we take it -- and we are not alone.  In fact, we are far from alone in taking this matter very seriously.
Q    On another topic, Ben Bernanke today announced continuation of the so-called stimulus policy of the Fed.  Is the President concerned that this could lead to inflation or weakening of the U.S. dollar?
MR. CARNEY:  You know that I won't comment on actions by the Fed from here.  The President is focused on, when it comes to economic policy, working with Congress to ensure that middle-class Americans don't have their taxes go up, to ensure that --
Q    Can it help with -- in the context of the fiscal cliff, can it, in the President’s view, help create an environment in which it’s easier to get to a deal?
MR. CARNEY:  I appreciate the question, but I won't comment on Fed action.
Yes, Jake.
Q    A White House official told me that in his counteroffer yesterday, Speaker Boehner asked for -- part of his proposal was a permanent extension of the Bush tax cuts for the top two brackets, for all the Bush tax cuts but including the top two brackets.  The House Speaker’s office disputes that.  I was hoping that you could shed some light on what exactly John Boehner, in his counterproposal, suggested should happen.
MR. CARNEY:  I'm not going to get into the details of the proposals that have gone back and forth, but I can say that -- because it has been public in the positions that the Speaker has put forward -- that we do not accept the position that was outlined in the letter that the Speaker sent previously that Bush tax cuts for the top earners can be extended.  The President has made clear he will not support legislation that hands another tax cut to the wealthiest 2 percent of American earners.  We can't afford it.  It is bad economic policy.  And the result of pursuing that policy  would mean added burdens to the middle class, added burdens to seniors, added burdens to families with children who have disabilities.  That's unacceptable to the President.
He is willing to make tough choices and he has made clear and specified the spending cuts that he is willing to make, and he has said that he is willing to go further as part of a broader deficit reduction plan.  But he will not extend the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.
And it is not a plausible position, as Jason Furman from the National Economic Council made clear in his presentation to you last week, to say that we can somehow magically achieve significant revenue on the order that we need for the balanced deficit reduction package simply by closing loopholes that they will not name, or capping deductions that they will not specify sometime in the future.  That is -- those magic beans are just beans, and that fairy dust is just dust.  It is not serious.  And the President will not sign an extension of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest.
Q    Just to clarify, I'm telling you that a White House official told me that that was what Speaker Boehner said --
MR. CARNEY:  I understand.  I'm not disputing the characterization.  I'm just simply saying that we know what -- and you know I'm not going to talk about internal discussions that have been taking place or proposals that are changing hands. It is, I think, explicitly in the letter that the Speaker put forward and made public --
Q    Right, but that was two weeks ago.
MR. CARNEY:  And I don't believe that we’ve heard anything from the leadership that suggests they have moved off their position -- we certainly haven’t heard it publicly -- anything from the leadership that suggests they have changed their position, which is they want an extension of the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest and that they hold out some vague promise that they can achieve significant revenue through closing loopholes and capping deductions.  Again -- zero specificity on how that would happen.  And that's just not a position the President shares.  He will not accept an extension of those tax cuts.
And remember that the letter the Speaker put forward said that through that magical tax reform, they would lower rates.  So even a further additional tax cut for the wealthiest Americans is just not plausible economic policy.  And when Jason Furman stood up here and showed you why propositions suggesting that you can achieve levels of revenue that are necessary here don't hold water, he did it in a fact-based way -- not in a single sentence or two that promises action in the future that everyone knows isn’t plausible.
Q    I wasn’t here when The New York Times published this report.  I’ve been -- I was off for a couple weeks when The New York Times published this report about the Obama administration drafting policy for drones in the weeks leading up to the election just in case the Obama administration was not going to be in charge for the next four years.  Given the administration’s desire to be more -- stated desire to be more open about its foreign policy, as exemplified by John Brennan’s speech a few months ago, is there anything more you can tell us about that policy?  Is there anything more we can expect in terms of transparency and discussion about the drone policy?
MR. CARNEY:  There is nothing more that I can add to that discussion beyond that John Brennan said in his speech that you refer to.  Obviously, the broader focus of the President on taking the actions that are necessary to keep America safe will continue.  But I don't have any more details about that issue in terms of moving forward.
Q    Those actions that are done in Yemen and Pakistan and elsewhere sometimes result in civilian deaths.  And yet because this program is not discussed very often, certainly not from that podium, but also not by the Pentagon and in press releases, we don't know what is being done in the name of national security that is resulting in not just bad guys being killed, but also sometimes women and children who are either related to the bad guys or just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.  Is there no desire for greater transparency at all when it comes to this?  I mean, would that not live up to the President’s desire for transparency as repeatedly stated?
MR. CARNEY:  Without discussing classified matters or other intelligence matters, I would point you to the remarks that John Brennan made, which I think demonstrate our position on these issues and the broader issue that you talk about in terms of transparency.  I just don't have anything new to say or to add to that conversation today.
Q    Thank you.
MR. CARNEY:  Kristen.
Q    Jay, thanks.  According to multiple sources, the conversation yesterday between the President and Speaker Boehner was tense.  How would you describe the phone call?  Is that accurate?
MR. CARNEY:  I’m not going to dispute multiple unnamed descriptions.  I’d simply say that, yes, we confirm the call -- one in a series of conversations, as well as a meeting, as you know, recently that the President has had with the Speaker aimed towards the effort of trying to find some common ground on this important issue.  And the President has made clear that his desire is to do a big deal that not only addresses the fiscal cliff but achieves the kind of significant long-term deficit reduction that has been the stated goal of many people for a number of years now on the order of roughly $4 trillion. 
And he has put forward a plan to do that that includes spending cuts, entitlement reforms, and increased revenues from the wealthiest Americans.  And to achieve on the revenue side that package, it has to be done in a way that both raises rates and in an economically wise and politically feasible way, closes some loopholes and caps some deductions.  That’s the way to do it. 
And the President is open to other proposals.  He has made clear that he is not wedded to every item in his plan.  He knows that he will have to make tough choices, but there has to be a willingness on the other side to recognize some fundamental facts and one of the fundamental facts is that there is no way to do this without rates going up on top earners.
Q    There’s a sense that after yesterday and the sort of two proposals were offered, that these negotiations are, yet again, grinding to a halt.  Is that accurate?  Where do these negotiations stand and what’s the President going to do to move the process forward?
MR. CARNEY:  Well, I think you’ve seen the President actively engage in moving the process forward.  I think you’ve seen him make clear his willingness to make tough choices and also make clear what his principles are and what he won’t do, which is go along with a vague promise of insufficient revenue gleaned from unnamed sources in return for substantial cuts that affect programs like Medicare and Social Security and Medicaid.  That’s not a balanced plan.  And we know where the public stands on this.  And, look, we know where now dozens of Republicans -- including elected officials, including members of Congress who are Republicans -- stand on this. 
But the obstacle thus far has been the adamant refusal to accept the proposition that rates have to go up for the top 2 percent and that rates must continue to stay where they are so that there is no tax hike on 98 percent of the American people.  And I think what Republicans have to explain somehow is why -- Republican leaders, anyway -- why it is better for you, broadly speaking, the American people, 98 percent of you, to have your taxes go up if the wealthiest Americans don’t get a tax cut.
Q    But according to Speaker Boehner, the $1.4 trillion in new revenue that the President is now offering wouldn’t make it through the House, it might not make it through the Senate, so is it a realistic proposal?
MR. CARNEY:  The President has made clear his willingness to negotiate and compromise.  He has made clear his willingness to make tough choices.  He has put on the table specific cuts and savings in entitlement programs, including our health care entitlement programs.  He has put on the table specific ways that we can achieve the revenue targets that are necessary to have a balanced package.  And what we have not seen yet is any kind of specificity from Republicans on how they would do it differently. 
And, again, going back to the Speaker’s letter, it is not a realistic position to say that we can resolve this by extending tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and vaguely promising that we’ll glean additional revenue by closing loopholes and capping deductions in a way that everyone knows is unrealistic.
Q    But just to be clear, the President thinks it’s realistic to get $1.4 trillion in new revenues through the House?
MR. CARNEY:  The President -- look, I can -- and I’ve got page after page here.  I can read to you quotes from the press, probably some of them from NBC, Politico, Fox, elsewhere, of Republicans saying that they would accept a tax increase, or that tax increases have to be part of this for the wealthiest Americans, that rates have to go up --
Q    -- the entire House.
MR. CARNEY:  Well, they're the people who vote.  And we’ve also heard again yesterday from the Business Roundtable, and individuals like the CEO of Goldman Sachs or others who have said rates going up has to be part of this package.
And the holdouts here seem to be those who are beholden to a subset of one party in one house of Congress, as opposed to those who are holding the broader American interest in mind as they approach this challenge, the goal of which is to achieve long-term deficit reduction in a way that will help the economy grow, help it create jobs that will give an enormous boost of confidence if achieved to our economy, and could potentially allow for substantially greater growth and job creation, which could create greater economic security for the middle class -- and by the way, the way it did in the 1990s, even with higher tax rates for millionaires and billionaires, more millionaires and billionaires -- the wealthy would do well, too.  That's the goal. 
The President’s vision here is an economy that allows for broad-based prosperity and broad-based opportunity.  It is not a vision that says we’re not going to do anything unless the top 2 percent get a tax cut.  It’s not his position.
Q    One question on Syria.  The administration has recognized the opposition forces, has also called al-Nusra a terrorist organization.  Some people within Syria are saying this is too little too late.  What is your reaction to those people?
MR. CARNEY:  Well, the United States is working with a broad array of international partners in its support for the Syrian people and the Syrian opposition.  And a major step is being taken today, as the President made clear yesterday in recognizing the Syrian Opposition Coalition as the legitimate representative of the Syrian people.
We will continue to provide support to the opposition -- nonlethal.  And we will continue to provide humanitarian support to the Syrian people who are suffering greatly under the regime of Bashar al-Assad.  And the international community has been very clear in its views that are shared by the United States and shared by this President about which direction Syria has to go.
And the designation that you mentioned was a demonstration of the fact that we believe that those elements within the Syrian opposition who do not hold the views that Syria needs to move towards greater democracy and rights for their citizens, that they should be isolated.  Because the broader section of the opposition actually supports that, and that's why we’ve recognized the Syrian Opposition Coalition.
Major.
Q    Based on the conversation yesterday, how would you rate Speaker Boehner’s flexibility?
MR. CARNEY:  I won’t get into the conversations that the -- the private conversations the President has with the Speaker or others.  I would simply say that, as made clear by the letter, that the Speaker made public --
Q    And reiterated in the call yesterday.
MR. CARNEY:  Again, I’ll speak about the public presentation here.  There is no indication yet that the Republican leadership is willing to acknowledge the basic fact that rates need to rise on the top 2 percent in order to achieve the kind of broad-based deficit-reduction package that a significant majority of the American people support and even numerous Republicans have publicly come out in support of.
Q    Why did the White House lower its request for revenue? And how does it achieve that $200 billion?  What $200 billion did you take out of that request for extra revenue?  I’m told it’s from tax reform.  Is that true?
MR. CARNEY:  I can simply say that -- well, it is our position that rates have to go up on the top 2 percent.  So that is absolutely the case.  It is our position, as Mr. Furman demonstrated in his presentation to you last week, that you cannot achieve significant levels of revenue solely by capping deductions or closing loopholes.  So that is why you have to have a combination package of both reforms that include those kinds of actions, as well as allowing rates to rise on top earners.
As to the proposal that you -- or the offer that you reference, I mean, I think it demonstrates the fact that we are willing to try to find a compromise.  We are willing to try to work with the Republicans to find an agreement that achieves the broad-based deficit reduction that is supposedly the goal that we all share, and achieve it in a way that doesn't stick it to the middle class, that doesn't leave seniors holding the bag, and that asks, as the President made clear he thought was the right thing to do, asks those who can most afford it to pay a little bit more. 
And that's where he’s been, and it is demonstrated in the proposals he’s put forward.  And it is demonstrated in the spirit with which he has approached these negotiations.  He knows that compromise requires tough decisions by both sides, but it cannot require compromise by one side only.
Q    Why did you add yesterday corporate tax reform to the mix?  And how do you respond to the Speaker’s contention that that is a red herring, that they always assumed corporate tax reform would be part of these broader conversations on the future of the tax code, and it’s not a concession or an offer or a sweetner.
MR. CARNEY:  I’m not -- what I won’t do is negotiate the particulars from here because I think that as I said yesterday and have said --
Q    That's been confirmed here and up on the Hill.
MR. CARNEY:  But again, I won’t negotiate the particulars of it.  The President supports --
Q    No, you’re not negotiating.  There’s something that’s been confirmed that was put on the table yesterday.  I’m just asking what --
MR. CARNEY:  I’m not disputing --
Q    Okay.
MR. CARNEY:  -- anything.  I’m just saying I won’t -- you citing what one party said and what others said about it -- I will simply say that corporate tax reform is a goal the President shares with many members in Congress, as well as the business community, and it is one that he’s serious about and hopes to pursue. 
His goal is to try to find an agreement with Republicans that strengthens and protects the middle class, that helps our economy grow, that helps to create jobs and that achieves the deficit reduction that also will help our economy grow and create jobs in a balanced way.  So that's the President’s goal.
Q    Last question.  Based on where we are now, does the President feel it’s incumbent upon him to provide any new proposals to the Republicans?
MR. CARNEY:  I’m not going to game out how the next days and weeks play out.  The process we hope will continue.  Again, there is a simple proposition here that --
Q    So it’s possible that if the Republicans can reiterate their position, the President could compromise some more?
MR. CARNEY:  Well, I think I’ve said before, we’re not going to just negotiate with ourselves.  But the President believes, as he said yesterday, that a deal is possible.  He’s confident that a deal is achievable.
Q    That was before the --
MR. CARNEY:  Well, there have been more than -- obviously, he’s had more than one conversation with the Speaker and many conversations with many other stakeholders in this process and the process continues.  But let’s make clear what is absolutely his position -- and he’s been clear about this for quite a long time.  He will not sign an extension of the Bush tax cuts for the top 2 percent.  It is not a viable position to say that the highest priority here should be that wealthy folks get another tax cut.  That is not good economic policy.  We can’t afford it. It’s not fair. 
And the President believes that the focus ought to be on the middle class here.  And if the focus were on the middle class universally up on Capitol Hill, 98 percent of the American people would already know that they were getting a tax cut next year.  But that hasn’t happened.
Q    You mean a tax --
MR. CARNEY:  Well, that’s a tax cut compared to what current law is.  And let’s also recognize the fact here that when those who oppose that position say that we can’t hike taxes on the top 2 percent, nobody is asking them to vote for a tax hike for the top 2 percent. 
We’re asking that they vote for a tax cut -- a tax cut extension for 98 percent of the American people, and to let the rest of that law stand as is, which means that those tax cuts for the wealthiest expire.  That’s how the law was written.  That’s how it was designed, as you know because you and I both covered it back in 2001 and 2003, with a 10-year window and then an extension -- precisely because the designers, the authors of those tax cuts knew that they were explosively expensive in the out-years, knew that they were budget busters. 
And while they promised otherwise, that’s what America got. They got a series of economic policies that took record surpluses and turned them into record deficits, and now you have some of the same people who supported those policies saying we’ve got to do that again because it was so good for America.  The President disagrees.
Wendell.
Q    You said a short while ago the President is eager for a compromise.  How is that helped by him predicting publicly that Speaker Boehner will cave on the tax cuts for the top 2 percent?
MR. CARNEY:  Look, what the President was saying is reiterating his position, which is that he will not sign an extension of tax cuts for the top 2 percent, as I think I've made clear several times just today, and that a reasonable compromise has to include rates going up on the top 2 percent while taxes are cut for the rest of the country -- income taxes.
And that, again, is a position that supposedly is universally supported up on Capitol Hill.  Let's give extended tax cuts to the middle class.  The President supports permanent extension of those tax cuts to the middle class.  And by middle class, again, we're talking about 98 percent of Americans.  And we should be able to act on that right away.  So the fact that the President is saying that --
Q    But he's not diplomatic in his language.  He predicted the Speaker will cave. 
MR. CARNEY:  Well, again, I think the President predicted that the Speaker would not want to hold a position, and that Republicans in general would not want to maintain a position that would result in everybody's taxes going up because of their insistence that the wealthiest Americans get a tax cut.  That doesn't seem like a very popular position to take.  But I will leave it to the Speaker and others to decide if that's the position that they'll maintain.
But the President believes that there is broad acknowledgement of the fact that rates need to go up for the top earners.  We had a sustained debate about this issue; the public has made clear their views on it, broadly speaking.  And he understands that as part of a broader deficit reduction package, that everyone is going to have to make some tough choices, including him, and he has demonstrated his willingness to do that.
Q    You've often said the President is the only party in this dispute that's put a comprehensive plan on the table, but that was the September plan of last year that included stimulus spending and various other things, and was rejected.
MR. CARNEY:  Actually, you're misremembering.  The September proposal that we’re talking about was the proposal to the super committee, aimed specifically at achieving the necessary deficit reduction that was --
Q    That is I presumed what you were talking about when you were talking about a detailed plan for spending cuts and stuff.
MR. CARNEY:  I held it up here just yesterday. 
Q    Exactly.  Why is that still relevant?
MR. CARNEY:  Why wouldn't it be?
Q    Because of things it includes, like stimulus spending and various other things that have been roundly rejected.
MR. CARNEY:  Yes, I think you're talking about -- there is the President's proposal that he has put forward to leaders in Congress, that includes our belief that we need to make infrastructure investments; we need to make sure that millions of Americans don’t fall off a different kind of cliff when their unemployment insurance benefits expire.  Those benefits were extended under President Bush when the unemployment rate was lower than it is now. 
The specific spending cuts that we're talking about in the proposals the President put forward to the super committee in September of 2011 are absolutely viable today.
Q    So it's only portions of that plan that you say are --
MR. CARNEY:  Well, again, I’m happy to go over the details of the plan.  There's the President's budget, there's the President's proposal to the super committee.  The goal of the super committee, which it failed to achieve, was to enact deficit reduction on the order of $1.2 trillion to avert the sequester.  Well, they didn't do that, so now the sequester is upon us. 
Mark.
Q    Jay, can I pick up on what Kristen asked you about earlier on Syria?  You talked about how designating a group like al-Nusra is a way of isolating an extremist force that doesn't share the U.S.'s vision for the future in Syria.  But based on our paper's reporting from the ground, that designation appears to have actually, far from isolating the group, unified people in Syria from secular liberals to conservative Islamists in rejecting the American action.  Many of these people view al- Nusra as, for whatever flaws it may have, one of the most effective fighting forces against the Assad regime.  So I'm wondering, in light of that, what evidence you can point to that there isn't a rising tide of anti-American sentiment in Syria, and that indeed, to use Kristen's words, that whatever the President did yesterday in terms of recognition is too little, too late.
MR. CARNEY:  Well, again, I would dispute that characterization.  What the United States has done is recognize the main opposition group, the Syrian Opposition Coalition, and in doing so we've also -- in designating al-Nusra as a terrorist organization, we've recognized that there are elements of -- that the Assad regime is creating an environment essentially in Syria that fuels the growth of extremism, and the al-Nusra front is al Qaeda in Iraq's attempt to rebrand itself in order to hijack the struggles of the legitimate Syrian opposition to further its own extremist ideology. 
We firmly believe that the vast majority of the Syrian opposition do not share those extremist goals, and that we will work with the opposition -- we, and broadly speaking with our international partners -- in their efforts to isolate those with extremist views.  Because we believe that the Syrian people and the Syrian Opposition Coalition -- reflected by the Syrian Opposition Coalition, are interested in a future for Syria that includes a transition towards greater democracy, greater rights for its citizens, more economic prosperity, and does not include enacting a vision propounded by extremists.
Q    Would you reject the contention that anti-American sentiments are on the rise in Syria?
MR. CARNEY:  Well, I haven't made that assessment.  I would simply say that we encourage all responsible actors to speak out against and distance themselves from extremists like the al Qaeda-linked al-Nusra Front.  And we will continue to work with the Syrian Opposition Coalition and our international partners to achieve the kind of future in Syria that we firmly believe the vast majority of the Syrian people seek.
Q    Jay, you said “firmly believe,” but you guys got it firmly wrong in Libya and in Egypt, where you firmly believed that you were working with -- I forget the phrase -- moderates.  We now are heading towards a theocracy in Egypt.  We have the war in Libya spread out into Mali.  What's the evidence that your firm belief in the moderation of the Syrian group is correct?
MR. CARNEY:  We make assessments all the time.  We have spent a lot of time evaluating the Syrian opposition.  We've spoken about that from here.  The Secretary of State and others from the State Department have spoken about that.  And one of the reasons why we've taken the actions that we've just discussed is because we believe it is in the interests of all parties to speak out against the kind of extremist views that are represented and espoused by the al-Nusra Front, even as we support the democratic aspirations of the broader Syrian opposition and the Syrian people. 
Q    But what's the evidence that the moderates -- forgive the phrase -- are moderates?
MR. CARNEY:  I understand that you have an editorial opinion here, but the --
Q    Of course.
MR. CARNEY:  Of course.  (Laughter.)  But the fact is we believe, and we think there is ample evidence to support the idea that the Syrian people want a future free from Bashar al Assad and a future that is more democratic, a future that allows -- that includes a government that recognizes the rights of the Syrian people and that allows for greater economic prosperity in a more peaceful country.
So it is in the United States' interests to work with the opposition and with our international partners to pursue that, and we will continue to do so.
Q    You need to explain that down the road.
Q    You do have a Friday deadline approaching for states to let the administration know if they're going to be part of this health care exchange under the Affordable Care Act.  What is the President's message to the majority of governors who are either sitting on the fence or flatly opposed to this thing?
MR. CARNEY:  Well, I would say that there have been a number of states who have -- whose applications have been approved.  We've had over 20 states to date that have agreed to operate an exchange, either on their own or in partnership with the federal government.  And we will continue to work with states in the implementation of the Affordable Care Act because, as you know, the Affordable Care Act is here to stay.  And the President's team will work to continue to implement that law.
We have, as an administration, consistently worked to give states the flexibility, time and resources they need to move toward -- forward, rather, in the implementation of the Affordable Care Act.  And for details on that process, HHS is the best place to go.
But we believe there has been considerable progress towards implementation and more and more states that have either had their applications approved to run their own health insurance exchanges, or have agreed to operate an exchange either on their own or in conjunction with the federal government. 
Q    Process aside, though, Jay, is the President -- this was his signature measure, as we all know.  Is he disappointed that most states still have not signed on to this thing?
MR. CARNEY:  Well, I think the President is pleased with the progress that's been made, and he's -- his administration is working to continue to implement the Affordable Care Act.  And that process continues.
Q    Why do you think most states have not signed on?
MR. CARNEY:  I would refer you to HHS for details.  I think it is a fact that there was consideration of the Affordable Care Act by the Supreme Court and that decision was only earlier this year.  We continue to implement the law.  The Court upheld the law.  And the President looks forward to full implementation.
Q    Thanks.
MR. CARNEY:  Mara.
Q    Just a question about the fiscal cliff.  Clearly you've shown some flexibility on the amount of the revenues that you need.  I’m wondering how flexible the President is on entitlements, which is the other thing that Boehner needs in order to get his troops to do something that’s clearly outside of their comfort zone.
MR. CARNEY:  Well, I won’t negotiate from here, but the President has made clear that spending reductions, including savings from our entitlement programs must be part of this broad package that also must include a balance, which means the revenues that we’ve talked about.  And he understands that he’ll have to make tough choices and that others will as well. 
But I won’t negotiate the specifics of what those choices will be.  I would point you to the fact that this President has already put on paper savings from entitlement programs and he has already implemented a law that the CBO acknowledges, or has shown in their documentation, is a long-term deficit reducer.  And it achieves savings in our health care costs rather than burden shifting of those costs over to seniors, which was the goal of the Republican proposal in the Republican budget.  That’s not an approach that the President supports, as I think he made amply clear over the past year that asking seniors to take on thousands and thousands of dollars in extra costs in order to give tax cuts to billionaires and millionaires -- not the approach this President supports.
Q    Right, but the things you just listed that he’s proposed -- is that what you mean by getting outside of your comfort zone generally?
MR. CARNEY:  If you’re asking me is he willing to do more, I think the President has made clear that he has made tough choices and he’s willing to make more tough choices.  But he is not going to accept a deal that extends tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans that offers no specificity on how to achieve revenue targets, only vague promises that they can be achieved through some process of reform that in the Speaker’s letter suggests that we would lower rates again, give another tax cut to millionaires and billionaires.  That’s just not serious math and it’s not policy this President could accept.
Q    Does the President believe that the Republicans have to wave the white flag first on rates?  I’ve asked this before, but it seems like we still haven’t gotten beyond that.  Do they have to do that first before you can even discuss entitlements?
MR. CARNEY:  Again, I’m not going to get into the back-and- forth that has taken place and is taking place between Capitol Hill and the White House on the specifics of a hoped-for deal.  But I think the President has demonstrated in his proposals and in these negotiations his willingness to make tough choices.  But he is -- has been and is very clear that there is not an avenue here to a deal that includes tax cuts for the top 2 percent.  I mean, those who continue to insist that that’s their bottom line seem not to understand that that’s not acceptable.  That cannot happen as part of this deal because it is simply not good policy.
And I've just been around long enough -- and you have too, Mara -- to know that we have recent examples of how these two policy positions play out and what results economically from the implementation of those policies.  And some of the very leaders on Capitol Hill who insist we can't raise rates on the wealthiest Americans -- on millionaires and billionaires -- because it would be bad for the economy insisted the very same thing in 1993, when those rates were first implemented under President Clinton.  And, boy, were they wrong. 
They don't really explain it well how they took that position and predicted with great confidence that it would lead to economic decline.  They don't explain how it led to the longest economic expansion in peacetime in the United States and the creation of vast amount of wealth not just for millionaires and billionaires, but for the middle class and 23 million new jobs.  Now, we have that to go by.
And then we have what happened after the implementation of a series, two, massive tax cuts, the benefits of which went disproportionately to top earners, surpluses turned to deficits and a cascading economic crisis and financial crisis and recession the likes of which none of us in our lifetimes have ever seen. 
It would seem that going out and saying we want to do that again would not be a great plan for -- in an effort to get popular support.
Thanks.
END 
2:08 P.M. EST

The View gubernatorial candidate Howard Dean ethics charges washington bureaucrats

Intruding Upon the Constitution by the Religious Right

�
by WALTER BRASCH
�
Roman Catholic Bishop Daniel Jenky, of Peoria, Ill., ordered all parish priests in his diocese to read a letter to their congregations condemning Barack Obama. The letter, to be read the weekend before the election, declared that Obama and the Democrat-controlled U.S. Senate had launched an ?assault upon our religious freedom.?
He wasn?t the only priest who used the pulpit to attack the President. Bishop David Lauren of Green Bay, Wisc., told his congregations that voting for Obama and other candidates who were pro-choice or who believed in embryonic stem cell research or gay marriage could put their ?soul in jeopardy.? Others, primarily from evangelical Protestant faiths, were even more adamant in their religious intolerance, declaring that voting for Obama would definitely condemn their souls to Hell.
Southern Baptist evangelist Franklin Graham, son of the Rev. Billy Graham, said President Obama was ?waving his fist before God? by supporting same-sex marriage and women?s abortion rights. In full-page newspaper ads, shortly before the election, the 94-year-old Billy Graham, whose words may have been written by his son, declared that Americans should vote for ?candidates who base their decisions on biblical principles.? Those principles, according to the ad, include opposition to same-sex marriage. A spokesman for the Grahams said that neither person endorses candidates. However, Billy Graham reportedly told Romney he would do ?all I can to help you,? and removed Mormonism from a list of cults on one of their web pages. In February, Franklin Graham, who earns about $600,000 a year as head of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, declared that Obama had plans to create ?a new nation without God or perhaps under many gods.?
The re-election of President Obama didn?t stop the attacks. The Rev. Jerry Priscano, a Catholic priest from Erie, Pa., said Obama was the anti-Christ. On his Facebook page, he declared, ?It will only be a matter of time before our nation is completely destroyed,? and that Hurricane Sandy, apparently a sign from God to the liberal northeast, ?was only the beginning.?
A Pew Forum study of the 2012 vote showed that white Catholics favored Romney (59%?40%), Hispanic Catholics overwhelming supported Obama (75?21). Romney also had the evangelical Christians (79?20), and other Protestants (57?42). Although Romney pandered to Jewish voters, claiming he would be Israel?s best friend, and that Obama couldn?t be trusted, Jews went for Obama (69?30). The Pew exit poll measured only persons who identified themselves as Jews or Christians.
Factoring into the vote against Barack Obama is religious bigotry that drips with the hatred of anything not Christian. About one-fourth of all White evangelical Protestants believe he is a Muslim, although the President goes to a Protestant church and has never held Muslim values or beliefs. In one of the great leaps of faith, evangelicals also believe Obama is a ?godless socialist Muslim,? something much rarer than a Klan leader voting for a Black Jew for president. Overall, about one-sixth of Americans believe he is Muslim, according to a poll by Public Religion Research Institute. Ironically, most evangelical Protestants also believe Mormonism is a non-Christian cult and refused to support Mitt Romney in the primaries. Faced by a ?Muslim? and a Mormon in the general election, the evangelicals supported the Mormon, who had flip-flopped from moderate to conservative to get the nomination and then tried tacking slightly to the center for the general election.
The right-wing believe that America is a Christian nation and should elect only like-minded Christians to office. Even many Christian religions, such as Unitarianism, are suspect in the eyes of those who absolutely believe they absolutely know God?s intent, and everyone else is wrong. They support Israel, far closer to being a socialist nation than the U.S. ever will be, as a Biblical necessity, but would be conflicted if a Jew should ever become a major party candidate for president.
The religious bigots claim the U.S. was founded by Christians and is a Christian nation?or, reluctantly, say it is a Judeo-Christian nation. But, no matter how much they screech, the facts don?t support their beliefs. George Washington declared, ?The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.? John Adams and the Senate later ratified a treaty with those exact words.
Most of the Founding Fathers were primarily deists, not Christians, and specifically rejected many Christian beliefs, including the virgin birth, the resurrection of Jesus, and that the Bible was written by God. They also believed that God, having given mankind the power of reason, then stayed out of the lives of His people. Among the deists were Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, and Monroe. But they and the other Founding Fathers were explicit in their declaration, embedded into the First Amendment that established the principle that all people had a right to their own religious beliefs.
Several distinguished historians (including Drs. James McGregor Burns and Richard Hofstadter, each of whom won the Pulitzer Prize for history) have pointed out that in 1776 and much of the 19th century, as much as 90 percent of the population did not identify with the Christian church.
There is another aspect to the First Amendment, often overlooked by those who don?t know history or Constitutional law, yet believe they do. Jefferson, in his first year as president, in a letter to a Baptist congregation, referred to the intent of one of the five parts of the First Amendment as ?building a wall of separation between church and state.? Numerous times, the Founding Fathers had reaffirmed this separation, creating what became known as the ?establishment clause? in 1787. Several rulings by the Supreme Court reaffirmed this doctrine.
However, 28 percent of Americans, according to a Nate Silver poll in February, don?t believe there is a Constitutional separation of church and state. The Constitutionally-ignorant have established religious tests for persons seeking political office. It should make no difference if Mitt Romney is a Mormon. It should also make no difference if Barack Obama is or is not a Muslim, Protestant, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto, Pagan, Vodun, Vodouist, or even an atheist.
But it may be a Hindu, Gandhi, who has last the last word. Discussing his experience with missionaries in South Africa, he said, ?I like your Christ, but I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.? He was specific in his dislike for some, but not all, Christians. He had never met the extreme right-wing.
�[Dr. Brasch is an award-winning syndicated columnist. His latest book is Before the First Snow: Stories from the Revolution, which looks at religion, history, and social issues.]
�����������
�
�
�

barney franks obamacare socialized medicine socialism stem cell